mtnfund

Hi Chris and thanks for the PM. I don't have any beef with any of the A's. As far as I can tell they all do a good job at what they do and deserve to be supported. I think the industry could do a much better job at looking outside of its own borders though. Climbing for instance doesn't just take place here but is a global sport. There is a lot for the industry to gain in extending its reach beyond our own borders. Orgs like KCS for example, create a lot of goodwill that enhances the image of the outdoor industry in Nepal. Being a good global citizen is important. If the industry is going to promote the recreational opportunities in other countries we could do a better job of giving back to those countries. It is interesting that there are quite a few organizations like KCS that are run by individuals from the US outdoor industry but not, so far as I have been able to discover anyway, much support going from the outdoor industry as a whole to those organizations and those countries. This is a global industry with product sales and use all over the world. I am suggesting the industry do a better job of recognizing that and re-align its social programs to reflect the global nature of its business. All the A's, with no disrespect to them, are about taking care of our own at home. That's a good start, time for us to reach out more though. Just an opinion.

Those kinds of stories are true. A couple of years ago I brought a group from Engineers Without Borders to a village in Nepal to look at the stove issue. At a nearby clinic we support we were seeing too may negative health impacts from the smoke in the air due to the living room campfires most homes used. What we learned is that it was ok to vent the smoke out, so long as we only vented it up into the attic and not clear out through the roof. In the case of these villages they stored food in the attic and the smoke kept it free of pests. In Gatlang which is near one of our health clinics in Nepal a group came and built a 3 stall toilet for the village. They didn't spend much time talking to the village about this idea though and that's where it all went wrong. The people of Gatlang had never had a toilet. They went in the fields and used rocks for toilet paper. It did not take long before all three holes were filled with rocks and the toilet is still there, filled with rocks and doing nothing. Cultural issues enter in as well as you have noted. Most all of Nepal follows the Hindu caste system, even in villages like this that are not Hindu. Tamang are not low enough in the caste system (they are low, just not dalit) so cleaning and caring for a toilet is not their place in life. We'd have had to import a dalit to the community to maintain the toilet and that would mean going to Kathmandu, finding a dalit, convincing them to move to Gatlang and then putting some sort of public funding program in place to pay the dalit to maintain the toilet. Too often I see projects take the classic - study, implement and leave approach. The toilet people did that. They studied that were no toilets, built one and left. Too bad too as the next bunch that wanted to install toilets had a hard time of it. The villagers felt ripped off from the first go around and would only accept individual toilets for each family. Practical Action Nepal was putting some in last time I was there in March. Problem is they don't have enough resources to give one to everybody so some will have and some will not. That's probably going to be a source of trouble in the community at some point in time. Funding sources make things like this problematic for the nonprofits though. They like hit and run tactics. It's hard to find foundations who will support staying long term in an area and working slowly through one problem after another. They prefer the 3 year plan at best. Year One - study the needs of an area, prepare a plan to correct, Year Two- implement the plan and Year 3 - leave and start over somewhere else. If the team in the post above hadn't gone back to check those outhouses would still be in pieces on the ground. I see those projects all over the place. If groups don't keep going back and providing the education to make them viable what happens is villages end up feeling ripped off and after a while they don't even want to discuss projects, they feel too betrayed, too many times. That 3 year plan is pretty deeply ingrained in the donor community though, its hard to find long term support to stick with something. In Mountain Fund's case, it has been possible only because a majority of our budget is from individual donors, not foundations. That's made it possible, so far, to stay in an area and work through the issues that are certain to come up once you do one thing. I'd love to hear more of your fathers stories, good lessons to learn there I bet.

I am very interested in that, if you see something particularly good please let me know, and thanks.

I would like to clarify something about this post. I will take responsibility for any lack of clarity that leads you to conclude this is about deriding any other charity. It is not. They do what they do and they do it well. But let's not be coy about this either. If you gather canned goods at Thanksgiving and give them to the Salvation Army to feed the poor that is charity. If you serve a big turkey to your family, that's having dinner. My issue is only with the practice of a great many outdoor companies (and not the charities) is that are keen to use places like Nepal (or insert Peru, Kazakhstan etc) for the purposes of a photo op showing their products being used but reluctant to spend the money those products earn on the people of those countries. That they are free to choose to do so is clear. Does that make it right? I don't think so. If these countries are good enough to use for marketing, they are good enough to make more investment in too. If they are nothing more than a convenient place to show off your products but somehow not a worthwhile place to invest your money, then I think we've done a grave disservice to the people who live there. Exploitation may sound harsh, but is it really? If a toothpaste company shows me a bikini clad woman using their toothpaste in an effort to get me to buy that toothpaste is that exploiting women? I think it is, frankly. If you show me your gear at base camp Everest but through your corporate giving practices exclude the inhabitants of the area from the process then I think you've tried to dupe me. I don't care who they give their money to, that's their business. Just don't try to sell me a bill of goods about it.

Jon does have a valid point. Saving lives will lead to greater population and that is going to have its own price to pay. Things about life are never one-size-fits-all. It really takes a very wholistic view of these issues to be helpful and not create one problem while attempting to solve another. We can look to certain benchmarks though in trying to balance the needs of people and the ecosystems. They aren't perfect either but create a loose framework at least. It sounds terrible to say this but there benchmarks for things like infant mortality. World Health and the UN track and measure that as a way to determine if aid programs are working. There are accepted levels of infant mortality. As bad as that sounds at first blush there are accepted levels for just about any of the leading causes of death in any country. Until levels are reduced to the accceptable range I am not sure anyone has asked, and then what yet? So, bringing infant mortality down in the developing world is one goal. It should be looked upon as a goal that must take place within a larger set of goals though and not happen by itself. As Jon points out, lower infant mortality without other goals, such as family planning, education, job creation and protection of the natural resources could do more harm in the long run. Nonprofits need to adopt the creed of the medical profession and first do no harm. None of this will happen overnight and if it does, well that's a problem too. The places we are talking about here, Nepal, Africa etc are called developing countries for a reason. The basic services for health, food security, education and jobs doesn't exist on a large scale. Inch by inch they can be introduced as the local community requires. Everything has be driven by the local people. The ones I see all the time do want many of the same things we do. They want their children to live, they want enough food, they want a clean and healthy environment. But the rate at which this things can be introduced into a community is an ever-changing thing. It's all tied together. Healthcare without education isn't sustainable. I see that one all the time. We can treat for parasites easy enough. The hard part is the education process on how not to get them in the first place. To us it sounds so simple, boil the water, use some iodine and problem solved. The primary villages where I work are living as if it is 2-300 years ago. Some of the concepts for public health are not in those cultures yet. A hundred years ago we didn't have the flu figured out and millions died from it. We had all sorts of strange notions about what caused it and how to treat it. So, education has to go hand in hand with healthcare for lasting change to take place. If you educate children you have to be able to create work or they will leave the village and go to the towns. The village then has a brain drain problem. That takes programs like micro-finance to jump start some sort of an economic base that will enable educated children to stay in the village, and it goes on and on like that. One day at a time, one step at a time. We are not so different in some ways. We have health issues that we have not gotten a handle on, such as diabetes. We have environmental issues that we don't fully understand. It's all a learning and growing process. We do come from a world where the water is safe to drink and human waste can be disposed of without tainting the water supply. Our issues just take place on a different plane of technology. We are very fortunate. I am not sure that if you have not been to some of these places you can really get all this. It is all unbelievable from where we sit. Diarrhea is the cause of death for 1.6 million people a year in the world. That's damn hard to understand or grasp I think. 25,000 people a day die from hunger. How can that be? That's the entire population of the small town I grew up in dying every day from hunger. I am not sure most of us can do anything with that information in our brains. It's numbers, big numbers of people dying from things we just cannot relate to. Before I started spending so much in these very poor places I couldn't do anything with that information really. What the heck could I do? Too big a problem. I now have names, faces and places though. I can grasp this one family at a time. The overall facts, the 1.6 million or the 25,000 still just are not real for me. I don't know how to make them real for you. That's how I got into this conversation in the first place. How does one go about making real things that by their very nature the average thinking person just cannot bring into the focus of reality. How on earth do you get to where the concept of 1.6 million people a day dying from something like diarrhea is real? I mean really, that just isn't supposed to happen is it? I do think all this is somehow our problem though. We are all human beings. I don't think I can count my own life as a success while I know others are barely able to hang onto life. I think for me having children had a lot to do with my thinking on that. I couldn't imagine a life where I was unable to provide the most basic things like clean water and enough food for my children and had to routinely stand by and watch them die. I don't think that in the villages where I spend most of my time there is a single family that has not lost at least one child. How hard that's gotta be. It too goes on the list called I can't fathom it. No parent should have to fathom such a thing though.

Racism? Are you fucking joking me? You GET REAL! Why does everyone believe we need to "Westernificate" everything. Disease? Who brought it there? We did. They seemed to take a shit no problem before, what has changed? If they want these things then fine, but forcing it on society is another thing completely. If they really want hospitals and such there is a great solution... MOVE TO A TOWN OR CITY WITH A HOSPITAL! These people aren't stuck there, they choose to be there and live that way. Actually, a lot of them are stuck there. Nepal, for example is 85% rural substinence farming. There are few cities and no jobs to be had in the cities. Poor farmers who feed their families with an average land holding of about an acre don't have the option of moving to city. Yes, they were able to "shit" as you put it long before we arrived. As the population density in the villages has increased the human waste problem has grown as well. In a couple of the villages we tested the water and every single water tap was contaminated by human waste. Drinking that water leads to very high rates of intestinal parasites which in turn weaken both pregnant mothers and young children significantly. A mother weakend from such illness is at very high risk of an unsucessful pregnancy and the child at high risk for death before age five. Most of the illness we see was not brought in from outside the villages but is a direct result of extreme poverty and ignorance.

Re: our involvement, food, leave no trace and Africa. Good points raised in all those posts and issues that should be considered for sure. William Easterly's latest book "White Man's Burden" is a good read on the question of when we in the west should get involved, and should not. It is also a pretty damning case study of how our involvement has not been productive. According to Easterly, one of the greatest flaws in our attempts to "help" has been to cut ourselves off from feedback of the very people we intend to help, the poor. Easterly argues quite well that too much aid has been measured not on the outcomes but on the inputs. So long as we, according to Easterly, can point to a large dollar amount of aid going in, we can avoid too much scrutiny of how effective that aid is in solving the problems of the poor it was meant for. Anyway, it's a good read on the topic. The issues we at MF work on are ones brought to us by local organizations in the country. We are not in the business of telling people in a country such as Nepal what they should or should not want. (It is too late on the cell phones though, they are aleady everywhere in huge numbers. I don't think text-messages have caught on yet, though by the time I return this fall, that may have changed.) If a Nepali organization asks for help that is another matter. It's their issue and the ideas and approaches are being driven by local people. Our intent is that the poor who are the targets of the programs have a direct line of feedback to us and can speak to the effectiveness of the programs. That can be more difficult to do than it sounds though. It is all to easy to hear what you want to hear, or for a group of villagers to tell you what they sense you want to hear, as is true in all conversations, message boards being no exception. As for poverty it is true that Africa has deeper poverty. We do work with one group who advocates for porters in Tanzania and another working with women in Uganda. That said, 7 out of 10 of the poorest people in the world actually live in Southeast Asia. The gross numbers for poverty in that part of the world are higher than in Africa. Still the poverty is deeper in Africa by which I mean the poor there are indeed poorer than the poor in Southeast Asia. When we are talking about groups of people that live on under $2.00 a day in both locations though, I don't know that it makes too much difference. Both Africa and Southeast Asia are extremely poor. Parts of Central Asia are likewise very poor. Last item from above is negative impact by climbers. I don't think that is much of an issue with the possible exception of the porter industry. From what I have heard, or seen myself there has been a lot of progress in the area of climbers being responsible. The porter issue is difficult. Without tourists there would not be jobs. With tourism there are jobs but often the porter ends up with the short end of the stick and isn't paid as he/she should be. Loads are not kept with standards that most of the industry agrees are reasonable. It's not a case of climbers setting the wages either. It is the local guide, for the most part, that does it to his own, so-to-speak. What we can do though is question the trekking company and the guides about the wages and loads and advocate for better treatment. It is a market driven issue to a great extent. Competition is high to book treks (and climbs) and that leads to a price war in which the lowest man on the ladder (the porter) often takes the brunt of the price war. If a price seems too good to be true, often it is being made good by the short changing of the porter. That holds true for Peru and Tanzania as well. Continued awareness on the part of the consumer is needed to send the message that while price is indeed important so is the welfare of the porter and if cheap price means exploitation of porters that isn't going to fly. Unless and until the in-country outfitters sense that their practices are being watched and questioned, there is little motivation to do anything but work off of price alone. thanks

Did it sound as if I were dismissing your comments? Sorry, I am not doing that. I am listening and quite sincerely to them. I get that you are sincere and offering up your best advice. I am making notes and taking it all to heart. Some people will care and some won't, that is very true. What they care about is important to discover though. Your advice is and opinions absolutely matter. Again, sorry if I came off as dismissive, not my intention at all.

Interesting points of view. A couple of weeks ago MF was questioned about supporting a group of American guides to go to Pakistan to teach women mountaineering skills. It was suggested that money shouldn't be spent on that but rather should go to providing basic needs for poor villagers. So I began to wonder, what do people value? All the cause-related marketing research indicates that the charitable activities of a company are important in making a buying decision. I wonder if that is true? Putting these questions out for discussion is an ongoing attempt to get at what is valued and what is true about cause-related marketing. I am still keenly curious about those questions. The personal attacks, well, whatever it is a free country. I am not certain why on one hand I was attacked for the personalization of a tax return, an admitted faux paux for which atonement was promptly offered, yet the discussion continues to focus on me, my personality, rather than the cause-related marketing question. Muffy's comments are helpful in understanding what matters and what does not. She is clear that her buying decisions are for the most part not influenced by corporate giving programs. She also states that she tends to give money locally. So that too is a useful piece of information as it indicates, in her case anyway, a preference for charity in local communities. If the trend were to hold that a majority favored local donations it would stand to reason that funding overseas work is not where support lies and that should be taken into consideration when determining how money ought to be spent. That's good insight to have. I don't think I should delete this and hope no one sees it. The purpose of discussion is to garner points of view. The points of view of this group on the matter of charitable giving (versus my personality) are valuable, to me anyway.

I didn't ask if they were under an obligation to donatne any money to any cause. No one is under an obligation to make donations to any cause at all. It is their money and they can do as they please with it. I am not suggesting there are terms under which they are allowed to make a profit. I've read Ayn Rand too. It's also not a question of shaming a company into doing anything. It's a question and a conversation intended to examine one aspect of the giving pratices: is it diningenuous (lacking in candor) to use impoverished mountainous countries as the backdrop for product sales and then not invest in those countries. I find it interesting that advertising photos abound with the products being used against a backdrop of some remote mountain range while seemingly, note that-seemingly, there is little interest in those places but for the photo ops. Is there an inconsistency of values in doing that? Much has been said about shareholder rights to direct profits and no one (at least I am not) is advocating otherwise. As a consumer, from whence all shareholder power is ultimately derived, should we examine such questions or just buy some stuff and not concern ourselves these matters?

So, here's a question. If the Acme Outdoor Company started building schools in Pakistan or schools in Nepal or health clinic for the families of porters in Peru, would people stop buying their products?

Peter Puget, sorry you feel that way. I edited the post to say OUR. I told you I agreed my first response was hard nosed. Yes I think my question does scream for attention. And so? Is there something wrong with an examination of the question. Is there a harm done by looking at it and having open and honest discourse about it? If so, what is that harm?

Olyclimber, I agree with you that they aren't in the business of altrusim. There is, I think, some real marketing effort to create the impression of it though. I am suggesting that some money-where-the-mouth-is practice may not be such a bad thing. And yes, you are correct that some do and I think do a great deal. I can't help but wonder though, back when Greg Mortensen started building schools in Pakistan if we (myself included) as an industry had put more stock in that practice if we'd live in a different world today. I don't mean this to be an "us or them" sort of discussion either. Mere ideas have power.

Agreed olyclimber, all points, so far anyway. What you say about investing where the stockholders and consumers can see is, or could be at least, a strong motivation. Consider this however. If your consumer and stockholder isn't going to travel to Nepal, for example, why so much use of that country and its mountains as the outdoor ideal to aspire to? Why not use Long's Peak, Wheeler Peak, Shasta or Rainier? This is where I suggest that something may be disingenuos. Are we being played for fools? Are these places only to be used to publish expedition logs that make the products look more enticing to us? If we are intended, as the advertising suggests, to pack up and go there, wouldn't we, the consumers, then SEE the investments being made? It's just a conversation.

In order that meaningful dialouge may occur on the merits of the conversation I hereby agree to call it "The Form 990 of the organization legally known as The Global Mountain Fund, Inc., but hereinafter for the purposes of these discussions known by all ye presents as The Mountain Fund" And no hard feelings Peter, that was a bit hardnose of me. Do I have a tone? The tone is meant to encourage discussion, as this is a discussion board is it not. The question posed to the group is a question, and as pointed out, not a statement of fact. It is an inquiry, so let us inquire then.

Explain that one oh sensitive one. Since I founded the org and give it most of its money, I think I earned the right to refer to it as mine. You are splitting some disingenuous hairs here, do you have a point, or was that somehow it?

No laws are broken. I may disagree but the point is do you? I am seeking your thoughts on this topic. Just looking for conversation about it. Your view equally valid to mine. Yes Peter Puget I mean The Mountain Fun 990, thanks for asking.

Outdoor Industry – Disingenuous? I pose this as a questions, not a statement of fact, hence the question mark. Some time back there was a post directed at me from Raindawg, it read like this. I think money is much better spent on programs such as the above than on a mountaineering class/experiment. 7,000 people and three villages are helped, rather than a few handful. Mountaineering is a luxury. No food, clean water and basic health care: no big expedition fun. That started me thinking. How many people feel this way? How much is this attitude reflected in the charitable practices of the outdoor industry. As Cascade Climbers members have proven to be passionate and vocal, as well as smart, I decided to put some things to you all for feedback. Does Raindawg have the right point of view? Should money be spent to provide basics? Well, if he does, he may be in the minority, let’s find out. I read the latest report from the Outdoor Industry Association today. They say that the outdoor industry is a $730 billion dollar a year moneymaker! That’s a bunch of outdoor stuff. You can read the report for yourself Outdoor Industry Report The Outdoor Industry Foundation, a part of the Association gives some money away each year too. Their program called Outdoor Idol promises media recognition of outstanding young athletes under the age of 23. They took in $600k in 2005 and spent it on “Promoting the benefits of outdoor recreation.” They (the association) also published a report on the participation of Hispanics in outdoor recreation that points out the potential lost sales by not making more effort to reach this fast growing sector of our society. It’s all on the web site. To be fair, I believe we do need to promote outdoor activity, we are all getting fat, our kids are getting fat at rates that are scary, hell I think I am getting fat too ! So, I figured with such a robust economy for the outdoor industry as a whole, there must be some charity going on out there too. I did a bit of google work on some of the most popular brands (look in your closet) and was somewhat surprised by what I found. I won’t mention names right out as I can’t afford a lawyer. For most all of the big name companies, I found that places like the Nepal, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Peru etc. figured prominently in their marketing. Buy this whatchamacallit and you too can conquer K2, Everest or some remote peak in some far off land. So, it stands to reason that if you are using these countries as your backdrop, you are helping out there too? Hmmm. Well........ One big company with a real rep for saving the planet says in its guidelines for saving the planet grants it gives out “we fund work that takes place in countries in which we do business (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Poland, Ireland, Austria, Spain, Scandinavia, Belgium, Korea, Japan, Chile and Argentina) Reads like a who’s who of environmental disaster zones to me. Another big boy with a logo more famous that Mickey Dee did not seem to have any information on its web site about giving anything to anybody. Guess they don’t need that sort of promo anymore? I know they do though as they gave my clinic in Nepal about $10,000 a few years ago. I never met anyone from that company and no one ever called to ask what I did with the money, still it was quite nice of them. Another biggie with a bunch of initials says it gives around $4,000,000 away each year. I checked and it does. All seems to go to US organizations though which struck me as odd. The same company has a travel business that offers to take you to Tanzania, Botswana, Nepal, and Peru to name just a few. You’d think they’d spend some money there? So, this got me wondering, where does the money go? I can’t near account for what you’d expect from a $730 billion dollar industry but I found a few of the dollars. For starters, all charities with the first letter of their name being A did well. The top three choices by most of the big gear makers are charities that start with A. One well-known A says it’s purpose in life is (take a deep breath, this is gonna take awhile) the promotion and dissemination of knowledge about the mountains and mountaineering in general as well as the cultivation of mountain craft, and the promotion of good fellowship among climbers; and the study of the high mountains of the world, the gathering of facts and the observation of phenomena pertaining to them, the production of a series of illustrated publications to present a complete description of the alpine mountains of the world; and the scientific exploration of high mountain elevations and of the regions lying within or about the Arctic and Antarctic circles; and the conservation and preservation of the mountain environment; and ---- well there are several ands. It all sounds good to me. I could use some more fellowship especially good fellowship. Lord knows my mountain craft needs updating. So, I decided to check this outfits tax return. As a public charity, they have to make it public you know. Wow, they have some money and a half. Over $8 million in assets. They take in around 2.2 million a year and pay out $315k in management, $145k for fundraising and spend about $1 million on programs. The programs are books and education (not quite $30k) (k means thousand) mountaineering research and library ($252k) and general support to expeditions and mountaineering related activities a whopping $700K. The next A I looked into struck me as odd but they are on almost everyone's list to give money to. The mission is this. The _______ is a non-profit organization that seeks to represent the interest of American mountain guides by providing support, education, and standards. I had no idea those guides had it so bad they needed a nonprofit to give them a hand? I promise to pay my guide better next time, really. According to their tax return they take in around $492k a year and spend $400k of that on programs, $47k on fund raising and $80k on support services. Oh, about $220k seems to have been listed as payroll, just fyi. But the outdoor industry likes them, or so it seems. The last A in the bunch may be the most productive. It’s hard to say for sure as I cannot locate their tax return. There is a brief posting on their web site that says that out of whatever they took in (around $1 million I’ve heard as a rumor only) they spent 15.5% on fund raising and admin, 49% on national policy, acquisitions & special programs, 22.5% on outreach and advocacy and 13% on something called general communications. These folks gave some money away as well. The guidelines to get money from though are very clear on one point; they will only fund projects inside the good old USA. Seems like that good old USA is about the only place this $730 billion dollar a year industry wants it money to go. So when Raindawg tells me what he did, I have to wonder how typical that thinking is. The gross national product of the US in 2000 was $10 trillion dollars. The GNP of Nepal is $42 million for 2006. Per capita GNP of the US is $38,000 per person as of 2000 the GNP per person of Nepal is $210.00 as of 2006. So, its pretty clear Nepal’s are not a likely market for all that outdoor gear. I wonder if that is why that $730 billion dollar industry invests little there. Your thoughts? And yes, my (OUR) tax return in right on my web site The Mountain Fund just click on the html version of the site, right there on the first page. Oh, a footnote. Mountain Hardwear has been very good to us, without them I could not take the 20 medical people I will take this year to Nepal and Peru. Osprey and Montrail have also been very supportive. A special thanks is due Dan Mazur’s SummitClimb.

I encourage the folks reading this with a little spare change to contribute some funds to the clinic, but the Pakistani empowerment camping trip speaks for itself. Thank you so much for that. The KFK clinic donations go under the heading of healthcare, where you can also leave a note specifying only that clinic if you want, although the other clinic in Patale, Nepal is no less a worthy project and no better off financially. Here's the rest the HOT NEEDS List $8,000 to install a lab at the KFK clinic so we can better determine illnesses $15,000 a year to operate a home for young girls who were indentured servants in Nepal, that amount pays for 15 girls to have a home, go to school and eat. $5000, one time, to increase the amount of money we can lend to poor families in Cusco to start a small business or exapnd one they have now $4500 a year to run our Volunteer Center in Nepal that places short term volunteers in schools in Kathmandu $5000 to run two medical trips, one to take care of 250 school kids in a poor mountain village in Peru, the other to provide medical care to four remote villages in Nepal that can only be reached on foot $15,000 to build a school in Khane, Pakistan for girls $1800 to teach 20 women in Nepal skills needed to get jobs in the trekking industry. This is a once a year course taught by Empowering Women of Nepal $5000 a year to start and run a program to support porters in Peru. Today's bank balance at Mountain Fund is $491.05 and Karing for Kids has $26.41 just fyi. thanks for anything any of you do. scott

Dudes and Dudettes. I don't think I can make this clearer. The Pakistan Women's project is not, NOT, competing with the KFK clinic for money. Anyone can choose to donate to either, or both, independantly. You people reading these posts for instance can hop right on over to our site and fork out money for the KFK clinc. Mountain Fund has been the sole support for the KFK clinic, for example for the past two years. We take our committment to them seriously. It will fall to me, individually to put the money in their bank account to pay the bills if no one donates. I do, I have and I always will. Mountain Fund costs me a ton of money to run.(about $35k a year in real cash plus the value of my labor) Although my real estate company pays me a full time wage, I have not done any work there for two years and spend my every waking minute on Mountain Fund. My assistant David is also paid by my real estate company though he does zero work for it. Out of every dollar donated ninety cents goes back out to programs like KFK. I don't see a way to upload my tax return here or I would, I will put it on my own site soon so you can see for yourself. I have never let KFK run out of money and I never will. I will pay the bill myself, from my own money. But again, money donated to KFK does not get diverted to the Pakistan project. Only money donated for that purpose goes to it. So, if you are worried about the KFK clinic not having money, go now and donate. Get involved, stay involved and take some ownership of it. But please stop making this an either/or discussion as it is not. Some people will decide to support KFK and their money will go to KFK. Others will want to support the Pakistan women's climb and that is where their money will go. Some will discuss it to death and never donate a dime anyway, so what's the point of that? Go figure this one, if you really have to have an either/or sort of discussion. The Mountain Fund helps a bunch of small projects like KFK all around the world. Only 5% of our income goes to pay our bills (which I assure you are more than that) We took in a whopping $70k last year, our second year of operation - that's right we are only 2 years old and kickin butt around the world. The top two outdoor charities (hint, both start with the letter A) take in over a million a year! (EACH) At a minimum, 15% of their money is overhead expense (could be more, accounting is tricky business) The admin expense is about double what we take in. Do I have a point, yes, but I have to be careful how I make it. You can make up your own minds about the work of other organizations as compared to Mountain Fund. We help the poorest, in the poorest countries, we do it with almost no money and we do it in the name of the outdoor enthusiasts of the US, we represent you. We believe 100% that if we are going to climb in these countries we simply have to give back to the people that live there. If you have been to any of the places we work and don't think we should support local organizations who are helping local people, I'd really love to hear why you feel that way.

PS - I need a volunteer that knows how to program a discussion board too! We have an Invision board we are trying to work out some things with and cannot, so if anyone out there knows how to work the damn thing, let me know please. scott - ps I had better clarify that we are not intending to use our discussion board to compete in any way with the most excellent Cascade Climbers board. It's for a different purpose entirely.

Thanks for the feedback on this. If you go check out the donation page on my site at Mountain Fund you will see that you can specify how you want your donations spent. There is a specific line item for this climbing camp. Karing for Kids, is in healthcare along with the Mt Everest Foundation clinic at Patale. Our point of view is that we will support any charitable work effort that can be reasonably calculated to improve conditions for people in the mountain regions of the world. In Pakistan the advancement of women, in particular is critical so we have chosen to lend a hand. Our activity in this matter does not detract from projects like Karing for Kids though since it is a seperate financial matter. Some of you would, it seems, like to support the KFK clinic. That would be great as I am nearly out of money for that project right now. So please by all means go to our site and make a donation to healthcare. You can even add a note that you only want the money to go to KFK and we will honor that. We keep 5% of your donation to fund our own electric bill and phone bill. If you want to fund the women's climbing camp there is a special category on that donation page to do so. As a business matter, involving ourselves in the Pakistan project is important for another reason - marketing. We are a very small organization. Though you will see lots of "staff" on our site, they are unpaid volunteers. 90% of the Mountain Fund is myself and David Diaz. We both work full time at it. The budget for the Pakistan climbing camp is greater than we get for all our projects in an entire year. Our 2006 tax return shows we had a total income of $70,000, so we aren't a big player in the Pakistan climbing camp. We do own some tents we are loaning the guides. We were given the tents as a donation by Mountain Hardwear for our charity treks (see or trekking site at Trek4Good ) which is a small thing to do. We are asking for donations but we won't spend KFK clinic money, or any other program money on this camp, the donations will have to come in for the camp. The marketing aspect, sorry, I got off track. Ok, well look at this discussion for instance. There have been around 800 views of it and two of you are at least talking about a possible donation. If we hadn't chosen to back the women's climb we wouldn't be here talking about this and getting some much needed exposure. Savvy? Thanks much and as always ask me anything at all you want to know. Scott

This is in reply to Dechristo above a couple posts. Sorry, my error. The comment is above, not below. Someone posed the question why we are so hated when we give so much money. The post that was deleted is from where I posted something twice. Never said I was the sharpest tool in the shed. Scott

What is Mac and I will maybe give you an idea. thanks

Whomever posted the comment below, check out a book called White Man's Burden, things will become clearer. it is statements like this that help me to understand why despite all americans do to "help" other countries, that we are the most hated country on the planet. we think we are so much better and smarter and have i all figured out.