Letters: Mountain of Opinion

Jon krakauer hit it on the head when he wrote, "Climbing mountains will never be a safe, predictable, rule-bound enterprise" ("Into Thin Air," September). If I were leading a commercial guide service, I'd have the clients read and sign Krakauer's story as a waiver. Somehow I don't think I'd be in business long.

John W. Wheeler
Cameron, North Carolina

After reading krakauer's horrific story, I think Everest's name should be changed to "Mountain of the Vanities."

Nancy Anderson
Salinas, California

As compelling and as circumspect as Krakauer's story is, I find myself angered that he was on that mountain at all. George Mallory climbed Everest "because it is there." Others attempt the feat because their common sense is not there. Please don't let another contributing editor risk his life merely to give us a good read.

Edward Broughton
Kingston, New York

Krakauer's story was written with a level of integrity and soul unmatched in today's media. It is truly great journalism, that which can move the spirit long after it has been read.

Aaron Rogers
Portland, Oregon

Krakauer's analysis of the Everest tragedy was generally impressive reporting, but it is unfortunate that he had to try to find fault in the actions of Anatoli Boukreev, a friend of mine. Without the immediate threat of bad weather, and with Neal Beidleman and Scott Fischer accompanying the slower clients, it is easy to understand Boukreev's motivation to descend early. Because he went down before the others, he was able to search for lost climbers and bring up oxygen to them several times in whiteout conditions. His ability to function when clients, Sherpas, and other guides were lying helpless in their tents or up higher on the mountain was a result of his being able to acclimatize without oxygen. In fact, Boukreev carried an oxygen set all the way from Base Camp in the event he needed it at some point on the climb. On May 10, he gave the set to Beidleman near the summit. It is easy to second-guess Boukreev and to suggest that he could have saved more lives by remaining in a situation where other qualified guides were helpless. While he agrees with much of Krakauer's analysis, he feels this course of action would have resulted in more deaths. Regardless, Boukreev was always acting in what he felt was the best interest of his clients.

Bob Palais
Salt Lake City, Utah

Krakauer's reputation as an outstanding writer makes his view of my character and work habits very damaging. I'd like to clear up a few things. First of all, Krakauer mistakenly reports that I had summited Everest twice without oxygen. Previous to the May expedition, I'd summited three times without oxygen and will continue to do so in the future. Second, I was not offered a "hefty cash bonus" to short-rope Sandy Hill Pittman to the top. I was simply doing my job, trying to ensure that all my team members had a chance to summit. And contrary to what Krakauer reports, I was not shirking my rope-fixing duties by helping Pittman. It is standard procedure that the first group to leave Camp Four fixes the ropes. In this case the responsibility fell on Rob Hall's team. Besides, I didn't have any rope. Neal Beidleman took my ropes out of my pack when he saw that I was vomiting, which is my normal reaction to climbing beyond 8,000 meters. It seems ridiculous to me that strong, professional guides, who were paid more than I, waited for me at the South Summit to fix their lines. Finally, in regard to my "goldbrick" reputation, you may wish to know that I netted only $2,000 for this expedition.

Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa
Kathmandu, Nepal

Jon Krakauer replies: I'm sorry if Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa thinks the article implies he is more to blame for the tragedy on Everest than any of the rest of us who were there. However, his claim that it was not his responsibility to fix ropes ahead of the clients is contradicted by statements made by Neal Beidleman and Mike Groom-and seems to be contradicted by the fact that Lopsang left Camp Four at the front of Fischer's group, carrying two coils of rope to be fixed. I also feel obliged to point out that in a four-hour interview recorded in Seattle on July 25, Lopsang told me, "Every mountain I climb I go first, I fix line. In 1995 on Everest with Rob Hall I go first from Base Camp to summit. I fix all the ropes. But this year on summit day I am sick because [the day before] I am carrying 80 pounds, maybe 75 pounds, from Camp Three to Camp Four, I am carrying Sandy's telephone. I am also very tired because [on summit day] I take up Sandy together on rope above Camp Four. I am too tired, I vomit, so I tell to Ang Dorje [Hall's lead Sherpa], You fix line. He says OK. I tell to Neal, You take ropes from me."
I respect Lopsang highly for staying with the dying Fischer as long as he did, at considerable risk to his own life. There is no question that his intentions on May 10 were good. He nevertheless made some unfortunate decisions that had a profound impact on the day's calamitous outcome.
In response to Bob Palais, and as I pointed out in my article, Anatoli Boukreev performed heroically in the predawn hours of May 11; I admire him tremendously for going out alone in the storm and bringing in lost climbers. But his behavior as a guide earlier in the day is troubling. I don't doubt that his intentions were good. It's his judgment that I question. I simply can't accept that the most sensible course of action was for Boukreev to rush down alone ahead of his clients. It was fortunate that guides Beidleman and Groom managed to bring the group down to the South Col, or Boukreev would never have found them.
Palais implies that Boukreev did Beidleman a favor by giving him this oxygen near the summit. In truth, Boukreev jettisoned his pack and oxygen rig early on the summit climb, around 6:30 a.m., and Beidleman, who already had a full bottle, neither needed nor wanted Boukreev's bottle, mask, and regulator, which added approximately ten pounds to the large load Beidleman was already carrying. Boukreev was simply trying to strip his load down to the bare minimum, because he was climbing without gas and needed every possible advantage in the horribly thin air. Boukreev was paid $25,000 to perform as a guide, and there is absolutely no question that using supplemental oxygen would have allowed him to think more clearly and assist clients more readily.

Editor's note: For more on the Everest tragedy, go to Outside Online.

The Logging Wars
Doug peacock's "the last wilderness" (August) was flat-out the best article on British Columbia's magnificent, threatened rainforest that I've seen. As Margaret Atwood once said, "We would never buy paper made from dead bears, otter, salmon, and birds, from ruined native cultures, from destroyed species and destroyed lives, from ancient forest reduced to stumps and mud; but that is what we are buying when we buy paper made from old-growth clearcut trees."

Marc Evans
Greenpeace International
San Francisco, California

We were pleased to see outside recognize the serious threat to the temperate rainforests along British Columbia's central coast. This area is an enormous wilderness with more than 60 intact watersheds-but with industrial logging's voracious appetite for wood, they won't be intact for long. We encourage everyone to visit this incredible heritage and support us in our work to protect these endangered rainforests.

Merran Smith
Sierra Club of British Columbia
Victoria, British Columbia

I am very concerned that a reputable magazine like Outside would publish such an inaccurate picture of British Columbia's forest and forest policies. Peacock states that little has changed in the last four years, but in that time no jurisdiction in the world has moved more dramatically toward sustainable forest management than B.C. In that time the province has established more than 200 new protected areas covering 2.2 million acres, and the World Wildlife Fund-Canada recently gave B.C. an "A" for its efforts in protecting wilderness. Peacock also fails to mention that the midcoast timber supply area's annual allowable cut was reduced by 34 percent in 1992. In addition, our new Forest Practices Code was compared to 15 other similar policies around the world and was found, by the Victoria-based Westland Resource Group, to be among the best. Please set the record straight and apologize to the people of British Columbia.

David Zirnhelt
Minister of Forests
Victoria, British Columbia

Doug Peacock replies: British Columbia should be applauded for establishing 200 new parks and protected areas-but since this preservation accounts for approximately 3 percent of the land base, it is the other 97 percent of the province that concerns conservationists. The province was awarded an "A" grade by the World Wildlife Fund-Canada this year because it created new parks, not because its forestry practices have improved. "The grade in no way is an assessment of the province's broader environmental record," says the organization's president, Monte Hummel. Further, the actual amount of forest cut has not noticeably decreased since the New Democratic Party took over in 1991; it has simply shifted to smaller cut-blocks in more remote, less politically sensitive areas. In its first year, the Forest Practices Code has increased paperwork but has done very little in the way of changing practices in the forest. In fact, parts of the Code can be overridden by district forest managers, exempting specific companies from some rules. Still, we should wish British Columbia better success down the line. The fate of the world's last temperate rainforests is everyone's business.

We welcome your comments. Address correspondence to the
Letters Editor, Outside, 400 Market St., Santa Fe, NM 87501,
or send E-mail (letters@outsidemag.com). Please include your full
name and address. Letters may be edited for clarity and space.