Climbing without supplementary oxygen...

This is Krakauer's main criticism of Boukreev, and it strikes me as a fair one.

Few people, if any, dispute Boukreev's heroism in the 1996 disaster, and it's beyond question that he saved lives during the chaos, but guiding without gas seems to me to be really, really reckless behavior, even for a superstud climber like Anatoli Boukreev.

Oh well! He died in an avalanche on Annapurna!

Of course, climbing a G.D. killer mountain is pretty reckless in the first place, so you're pretty much getting what you ask for if you die on one of these 8000 meter beasts.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

Climbing without supplementary oxygen...

This is Krakauer's main criticism of Boukreev, and it strikes me as a fair one.

Few people, if any, dispute Boukreev's heroism in the 1996 disaster, and it's beyond question that he saved lives during the chaos, but guiding without gas seems to me to be really, really reckless behavior, even for a superstud climber like Anatoli Boukreev.

Oh well! He died in an avalanche on Annapurna!

Of course, climbing a G.D. killer mountain is pretty reckless in the first place, so you're pretty much getting what you ask for if you die on one of these 8000 meter beasts.

I don't think it's a fair criticism. He had climbed without it before and performed well. He assessed the risk of becoming aclimatised to climbing with Oxygen and the effect on himself and the group if that oxygen ran out.

It doesn't appear that his behaviour was affected because he didn't use oxygen.

Josef K wrote:He assessed the risk of becoming aclimatised to climbing with Oxygen and the effect on himself and the group if that oxygen ran out.

I can't tell what this statement means. It's central to your argument, so please explain the intent of this statement.

Josef K wrote:It doesn't appear that his behaviour was affected because he didn't use oxygen.

It wasn't really a question of affecting his mental acuity. Krakauer's point was that Boukreev's lack of supplemental oxygen forced him down the mountain -- and away from his team -- more quickly than if he had had oxygen because he had no room for error with respect to the cold and fatigue (i.e., oxygen = energy). Boukreev went to great lengths to explain why Scott Fischer sent him down the mountain ahead of the others (an explanantion that remains disputed to this day). I believe that Krakauer made a compelling case that Boukreev descended simply because he needed to get back to shelter more quickly due to his lack of supplemental oxygen.

He is a clip from a NOVA interview with the incredible Ed Viesturs, one of mountaineering's biggest proponents (along with Reinhold Messner) of climbing without supplemental oxygen.

NOVA: Why do you use oxygen when you act as a guide for other climbers?

VIESTURS: It's a safety factor when you're guiding to be using oxygen. The theory is that when you're guiding with oxygen, you're more mentally alert, you're warmer. Typically, when you're guiding you're going quite slowly simply because the clients are going at a normal, average pace. To go at that speed, at that altitude, you need to stay warmer so oxygen provides you with the warmth. It provides you with a little bit more mental acuity. When I'm climbing without oxygen I constantly test myself mentally to make sure that I'm in control, and if I feel that I'm not I should turn around.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

Josef K wrote:He assessed the risk of becoming aclimatised to climbing with Oxygen and the effect on himself and the group if that oxygen ran out.

I can't tell what this statement means. It's central to your argument, so please explain the intent of this statement.

Take it easy, we're not in court.

Boukreev didn't want to climb with oxygen because to do so would have meant that he would have become dependant on it. Meaning that if problems occured (with the group oxygen supply or something else requiring an extended stay in the death zone) he would probably have to have given his up to the clients. The oxygen withdrawal, he felt, would have a greater negative effect on his ability to work than not using oxygen at all.

Hope this makes it clearer.

Josef K wrote:Boukreev didn't want to climb with oxygen because to do so would have meant that he would have become dependant on it. Meaning that if problems occured (with the group oxygen supply or something else requiring an extended stay in the death zone) he would probably have to have given his up to the clients. The oxygen withdrawal, he felt, would have a greater negative effect on his ability to work than not using oxygen at all.

Do you really believe what you just wrote?

You should refer to this excellent exchange between Boukreev and Krakauer, which includes this comment from Krakauer in response to Boukreev's "oxygen withdrawal" argument:

Anatoli states, "In my experience it is safer for me, once acclimatized, to climb without oxygen in order to avoid the sudden loss of acclimatization that occurs when supplementary oxygen supplies are depleted." In truth, once acclimatized, any climber -- including Anatoli -- would be better off using bottled oxygen on a summit attempt and having it run out late in the day than not using it in the first place. The harmful effects of hypoxia are cumulative; the longer you go without oxygen, the more deleterious the outcome. If Anatoli doubts this, I suggest that he consult any reputable expert in high altitude physiology, or compare notes with such accomplished Himalayan climbers as Alex Lowe and Ed Viesturs -- who have demonstrated that they are at least as strong as Anatoli above 8,000 meters -- and wouldn't think of guiding without using gas.

Please also refer to the comments of the incomparable Reinhold Messner ("No one should guide Everest without using bottled oxygen.") and the great David Brashears on pp. 318-324 of the Anchor Books paperbook edition of "Into Thin Air".

It was arrogant and reckless of Anatoli Boukreev to guide Everest without supplemental oxygen.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

Josef K wrote:Boukreev didn't want to climb with oxygen because to do so would have meant that he would have become dependant on it. Meaning that if problems occured (with the group oxygen supply or something else requiring an extended stay in the death zone) he would probably have to have given his up to the clients. The oxygen withdrawal, he felt, would have a greater negative effect on his ability to work than not using oxygen at all.

Do you really believe what you just wrote?

Yeah, why should I doubt what Boukreev has himself stated?

Boukreev was an athlete and a highly experienced moutaineer. If anyone should be able to comment on his modus opperandi and capabilities it is Boukreev himself.

Look at the all the people from the expedition that responded to correct the events as described in Krakauer's original article, why are you so sure that his version is any more credible that their's?

Another thing that we should consider here also is what are high level guides expected to do? What are they actually paid to do?

It's irresponsible to expect a guide to carry clients down (or up) a high mountain. I don't even think the word client is appropriate when climbing at that level. They are mountaineers, anyone up there should be capable of making their own decisions and be fit and experienced enough to climb. You can't delgate that to a 'guide'.

I saw this film last night.

Was pretty good. I have to admit that McCandless reminded me of my friend who died in an avalanche while climbing Denali last May. So much that it was almost creepy. Got me all sad and shit post-movie. Considering it was date night at the Pure L household, I had to really rally to "seal the deal" with the wife.

Also, it was another salient reminder that I am not an outdoor-adventure-type dude.

The music? A bit too cliche for me (i.e. Eddie Vedder doing some mountain-esque 'yodeling' with McCandless doing the Jesus Christ Pose with the camera circling him atop some mountain) but I don't know how this type of story couldn't seem that way. I mean, what would they play at this point? David Bowie's "Fashion"?

Note: I did not read this book. The wife did and she said there were some notable differences. I didn't ask about them though. I was too busy thinking about my friend's final realization that he was indeed fucked. Much like McCandless's realizations at the end of the movie.

I would have rather watched Boogie Nights.

Not crap.

I liked it. Felt it could've been cut a little and was a bit heavy-handed in parts, but Sean Penn waited to do this movie for 10+ years and it showed.

However, there is one particular scene that made me chuckle out loud and it's the part where it's silent for a bit and then the silence is rudely interrupted by Eddie Vedder's horrific yodel...nonetheless, I felt like his music fit the film and I honestly can't say anything too bad against the man.

The Penn/Krakauer Inoconoclast episode prompted me to watch this tonight.

Great movie. Almost inspirational. I was noticably upset with how the story ended. The whole movie made me feel guilty about the lack of crap like that I've done.

Not Crap.

This film hit me right at home, literally. I drove to Fairbanks with my best friend when I was 17 from Santa Cruz, CA. IT was cool seeing the city i lived in for 4 years in a movie like that. My mom actually told me about McCandless when I went up there and I thought it was real bad idea to try to survive alone up there. Another great movie, although a bit boring, is Never Cry Wolf.
Both movies only showed living up there spring to fall. Supertramp would have never stood a chance in the winter. The fact that he killed a moose in the summer when you can't freeze the meat shows his incompetence.
I lived by myself in a cabin (14x20 box) with no water and an outhouse I'd have to crap in during -60 cold snaps. I had to constantly pour heating oil into a drum outside just to keep my cabin above 65 degrees. I cooked for a living and grew pot legally so it really wansn't the worst of lives but I wanted to live in a real city. It's not the least bit easy up there, that's why I'm in the Big Easy for the time being.
If anyone wants to live in the woods and survive off the land, go to northern California or even western Montana. It's plenty "wild" there and you aren't going to have to wait 9 months for plants to start growing again.