Climbing at high Altitude with Oxygen...should climber get summit certificate with asterisk?

pacoarg9 wrote:to JML: The reason I care is because this nonsense takes respect away from a sport that I love and am trying to make as big a part of my life as possible. Here I am making baby steps to eventually gain enough experience to be a great climber and hopefully one day an even better guide. Meanwhile people with loads of money and no appreciation for the years of hard work that goes into becoming a mountaineer are bringing bad karma and ideals into this vertical world, in the process giving this sport a bad name. If you want to use O2 to climb at high altitude go ahead. Just don't pay John Q. Sherpa to haul all your survival gear up there with you and then claim that you are a mountaineer. Give him some credit. On the flip side don't blame him if he decides to quit and turns around, thus screwing up your summit.

You care too much about what other people are doing. Do it for yourself, in the style that makes you proud, and forget about this karma stuff you say others bring to a sport that is such a big part of your life. You will get recognized for the style in which you do it, the others won't. I stand by my assertion that 02 and ropes and pro can be put in the same category. Each one makes it easier and safer to attain a summit.

By the way, don't apologize for your opinion, you are entitled to it, even if it is wrong. :)

A

Beached Nuts wrote:Shit! I'm brain damaged. I sort of suspected that already though.

It's okay, your case has nothing to do with climbing

Three cheers for brain damage!

Totally worth it.

point taken JML, i appreciate your perspective...i'll let you know if i ever get to that level

It's ironic that someone who is training to become a rescuer is cheering climbers on Everest and K2 who place others in harms way by refusal to use safety gear while denigrating people who are climbing with safety gear. If you want to climb without O2, be sure to pick lines away from any other climbers who might get suckered into trying to save your ass.

The reality is that, for the vast majority, oxygen on the highest peaks greatly improves safety not only of brain cells but also digits. The other dirty truth is that many of your oxygenless "heroes" are also shooting up dexamethasone which cuts their margin of safety even thinner but at least you can't see it in the photos. Buhl used drugs on Nanga Parbat so don't forget to put an asterisk next to his first ascent--maybe it shouldn't count? Lots of other high altitude records were augmented with speed but that seldom gets mentioned. The number of genetic mutants like Bukreev are exceedingly few.

As for sticking to little peaks, the view just ain't as good.

pacoarg9 wrote:I apologize for my opinion but i find it difficult to put Oxygen in the same category as a rope, helmet, and jacket.

You're right. It is more important. Depending on your route, different equipment is needed. If it is cold, you bring warmth(clothes). If it is dangerous, you bring security(ropes/gear). If it is oxygenless, you bring tanks.

Personally, I respect your opinion as a personal right, but feel that your assertions are a little ridiculous. Especially coming from someone that hasn't done anything extremely high altitude(neither have I), I find your assertion essentially arm chair quarterbacking.

As far as tarnishing climbing, again I think you're off target. What would tarnish climbing more is some yahoo setting off to do Everest without the tank, and croaking. Then we'd just look like a bunch of stupid/under prepared idiots.

I do see the potential to tarnish climbing if oxygen equipment is left as litter, but that can be said about anything climbers use. I also would tend to agree that, in terms of impressiveness, an ascent without oxygen is more noteworthy. Just as say free climbing is generally considered more impressive(oh boy, I'm walking into a debate now)than aiding. Still, I don't think that aiding is unimpressive or disgraceful.

Just my 2 cents.

Evan

Who cares about a "summit certificate" or any other such crap. Hell, I've only signed one summit logbook and that was my first mountain, and that was when I was a kiddo.

Been to Nepal to climb but the more popular peaks leave me with an uneasy feeling. Nowadays the peaks I like are those where you are the only one around (Cayesh, Olcshapalca in Peru to name two) and if you name drop the peaks somewhere (like at a party,..."there I was, standing on the summit of.... " or other such BS) even climbers just stare at you like you are talking gibberish

pacoarg9 wrote: The only way I think oxygen should be used is if you have already climbed the mountain without it. (ex. guides who have summited w/o o2 using it to be stronger for the sake of helping a client in the future).

This is an interesting idea. You suggest that the guides (who are presumably stronger than the clients) should be allowed oxygen, but the clients should not. Something tells me that that isn't going to work out.

And additionally, how does the use of a guide not constitute "cheating", whereas the use of oxygen does constitute "cheating".

I personally believe if you need oxygen to climb something, you don't belong there. If people can climb Everest without oxygen, there is no need for oxygen at all. Plus if you climb with oxygen you are depending on it, what if the oxygen fails or runs out?

JJ Brunner wrote:I personally believe if you need oxygen to climb something, you don't belong there. If people can climb Everest without oxygen, there is no need for oxygen at all. Plus if you climb with oxygen you are depending on it, what if the oxygen fails or runs out?

So does this mean that since Moon Light Buttress has been freed in a day I shouldn't bother aiding it in 2. Or Lowe route on the N side of Angels landing has been freed, so I shouldn't even try it on aid, If I do make it up Moon light on aid is it less of an accomplishment? I hope it hasn't come to that. I don't know if I'll ever climb 13a trad.

Beached Nuts wrote: It is less of an accomplishment, just like those who climb the big peaks with oxygen are not on the same level as those who climb without it. I don't see a problem with this. Is a redpoint better style than a hangdog? Your sense of accomplishment is your thing, but to actually say your accomplishment is on level with those who've done the same in far better style is plain wrong. That being said, there is nothing wrong with hangdogging, or aiding, or toproping a route others could do in better style. As long as you don't change screw up the route (bolts, pins on clean sections, drytooling summer crags, chipping, or ticking) all should be welcome to try. Also, oxygen or not, those who climb mountains without a guide are far better than those who climb with a guide.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

C'mon this guy deserves some kind of credit...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

JJ Brunner wrote:I personally believe if you need oxygen to climb something, you don't belong there. If people can climb Everest without oxygen, there is no need for oxygen at all. Plus if you climb with oxygen you are depending on it, what if the oxygen fails or runs out?

Someone can be in amazing shape and great climber and still not be able to climb into the death zone w/o O2. There is too much predetermined genetics to diminish someone's feats just b/c they used O2.

As for if you need O2 you don't belong there. Does that mean you look down on every scuba diver and astronaut? I would love to be on a plane with you one day when the cabin pressure drops and you refuse to use the air masks based on the theory that we simply don't belong there.

How would you rate someone who climbs Everest via the cattle route w/o O2 against someone who climbs a new route (if there are any left) using O2.

JJ:

"I personally believe if you need ropes to climb something, you don't belong there. If people can climb Pervertical Sanctuary without ropes, there is no need for ropes at all. Plus if you climb with ropes, you are depending on it, what if the rope fails or gets cut?"

:)

If Moonlight Butress is free soloed, that doesn't mean every other ascent deserves an asterisk or should be looked down upon for accomplishing it in "lesser style." Yeah, it's worthy of note that that freakazoid Honnold did it free solo, just as it is worthy of note when some high peak gets climbed without oxygen. But that's it. It has absolutely no implications on anyone else.

Oxygen is a tool that helps one survive a hostile environment that might kill you if given the chance. So does an insulated parka. The only difference I see is that you could make the argument that a lack of air is a part of what has to be overcome in order to climb a mountain. But isn't a lack of heat also something that has to be overcome? They are both just the environment of the mountain, an environment in which you choose to take whatever tools you think will help YOU to overcome. Yeah, you can depend on oxygen and it can run out and you can die, or you can depend on a down sleeping bag that gets soaked and you can freeze and die, or you can depend on your athletic prowess and lack of heavy gear, and you can break a knee and die.

Beached Nuts wrote: Your sense of accomplishment is your thing, but to actually say your accomplishment is on level with those who've done the same in far better style is plain wrong.

I believe this to be wrong. Building your ego by the style you climb with is what this sounds like. The people I surround myself with when asked if we've done a route we try to be as humble as possible. Why would any one push there style onto anyone else, or try to sound as if there accomplishment is any better. I would say that their style was more impressive, but the final outcome was the same right. Basically what I am saying is that certain styles are more impressive than others, but it is the same accomplishment. How many ways are there to skin a cat?? I the end the cat is skinless.

pacoarg9 wrote:Hello everyone, im bored at work and find this topic to be relevant and important to discuss. I am currently taking an EMT-B course and the first thing we are taught to do besides ABC's in an emergency is to get the patient on oxygen asap. Now, I have never been climbing at a very high altitude and cannot speak with much experience about levels of hypoxia when mountaineering...hopefully this will change in a few years. However I have read enough and know enough to understand when something is being abused. Oxygen is used for emergency situations!!!!....why is it that these days people are relying on this to even make a summit attempt? The only way I think oxygen should be used is if you have already climbed the mountain without it. (ex. guides who have summited w/o o2 using it to be stronger for the sake of helping a client in the future). I feel that if you know you can't make it without this emergency medication, you do not belong on the mountain. There are sooooo many peaks around the world...why not climb something you are physically able to do without relying on something that is used for emergencies. The only way I think oxygen should be used is if you attempted to climb without it and are coming down because you are too hypoxic and need emergency help. or like i stated before....you climbed the mountain already without it and are now guiding people on it. Thoughts?

I am fairly certain that the majority of people who climb at high altitude use o2. That being said it would be easier for the summit asterisk to be on the guy who didn't wear oxygen. Ex. when you read about a famous mountaineer they always mention the routes he did without o2 not with.

pacoarg9 wrote: I am currently taking an EMT-B course and the first thing we are taught to do besides ABC's in an emergency is to get the patient on oxygen asap. Oxygen is used for emergency situations!!!!....why is it that these days people are relying on this to even make a summit attempt? The only way I think oxygen should be used is if you have already climbed the mountain without it. (ex. guides who have summited w/o o2 using it to be stronger for the sake of helping a client in the future). I feel that if you know you can't make it without this emergency medication, you do not belong on the mountain.

Like many others who have commented, I have not done any high altitude climbing or mountaineering.
I will start by saying that I get the feeling that your EMT-B training has skewed your view on supplemental oxygen. Yes, oxygen IS a medication, but it is not only used in emergencies. Plenty of people wear oxygen on a daily basis just to prevent hypoxia at SEA LEVEL. There are SO many contributing factors in who could safely summit without oxygen and who could not that we really are in no position to judge someone's summit as tainted or unworthy. What about the otherwise healthy 25 year old who was born 4 months early and has damaged lungs as a result, or those with cystic fibrosis, or anemia, heart disease, cancer survivor, etc...
I say give people the benefit of the doubt. You just never know what they have been through to get to where they are.
Oh, and FWIW, the guides who have already summited and spend a lot of time at high altitudes are generally much better equipped to do well in an enviornment with a lower oxygen pressure. Nature does their blood doping for them!

pacoarg9 wrote:Some of my opinions were formed after the information I read in the book " High Crimes". in one of the expeditions, they bought used and refilled oxygen tanks which worked down low but failed at high altitude. the expeditions leaders and guides were blamed for this and recieved a lot of negative press. Families of the deceased put these guys on trial for "manslaughter". While I wish I had personal experience to site in regards to oxygen use...I do not, so it is fine if my opinions are discredited. I just thought that when I started to climb I was entering a world where ethics and respect for the difficulties of the sport were recognized. I guess this thread was more of a vent into describing my issues with people who show no respect or appreciation for the complexities that go along with the sport. i guess, like a lot of other things in life people want the easy road to the top. i thought that wasn't possible with mountaineering...i guess i was wrong

I think you've missed the point. You are reading and talking about people who, for the most part, aren't mountaineers or climbers at all. They simply want to get to the top of a mountain to say they did it and they have no problem paying a lot of money for it. These are the same people who will be the first to get shot into space when that becomes a business.

You have to have your own set of ethics in life and let others have theirs. If you really climb for the right reasons then you can't even identify with the guided climbers (hikers) on Everest and shouldn't give two shits how they try to get to the top. If you ever get the chance to climb high w/o oxygen then do it and that will speak for itself.

The proper way of doing things always gets destroyed. For every person that acts in an "ethical" way, there will be a hundred who do not. One of our jobs in life is to figure out how to deal with the fact that everything good in this world is always ruined by a few morons. Everest in particular, means less to me than the hair on your butt. Not because I don't want to climb it, but because it has been turned into a money making toilet of a mountain. I have a lot of respect for every person who has been involved with climbing the thing but that doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with everything that goes on there.

BTW, if I buy used ropes that stopped working at a certain height and one of my clients dies because of it, I will probably be charged with manslaughter also. Don't for one second feel bad for those guides. They brought it all on themselves and it started way before they bought the bad tanks.