American Canyon Guides Association ACGA

[Iceaxe]

It appears the professional guides are breaking off from the ACA. The following is from the ACA website.



American Canyon Guides Association


The time has come to separate the professional side of the ACA from the recreational. The American Canyon Guides Association (ACGA) has been incorporated and bylaws drafted. Initial Board consists of Charly Oliver (President/Chairman), Kevin Koprek, Rick Green, Eric Puelsch and Chuy Guererro. I am serving only as Technical Director.

The initial Board will make decisions regarding dues, requirements for certification and recertification, etc. A special election will be held in approximately six months to allow members to choose a more permanent Board.

Bylaws posted at: http://canyonguides.net/docs/ACGA_bylaws.pdf (http://canyonguides.net/docs/ACGA_bylaws.pdf)

[oldno7]

Same book, different chapter, same ending...................:facepalm1:

[restrac2000]

I am more hopeful, but that shouldn't be too shocking considering my recent comments on the yahoo group. This type of step has been taken in the past, possibly multiple times. However, it was always more symbolic than actual. The last "Pro Division" was to remain housed under the ACA which created some well-documented ethical and pragmatic dilemmas. It appears that Rich has fully divested the professional side from his "club". This was always the most important step (either that or donating/forfeiting the ACA to the community and starting his own service).

What the new board does with the ACGA is a big question. A lot of questions will have to answered. What level of reciprocity or articulation will be recognized outside the previous "ACA" certs? If they don't provide an avenue for non-ACA guides and services to join than once again the changes will likely be seen as solely symbolic (and for good reason).

Who and how you qualify for board elections is another major question. There needs to be transparency and since of empowerment within the broader professional community for this service to be worthwhile. The ACA's failure to truly empower the community was one of the major limitations of the past (professionals have accountability as well).

Interesting stuff. Will be interesting to watch in the long run.

Phillip

[rcwild]

The trouble with Phillip is not that he is ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn’t so. By "well-documented" he is referring to things he has written.

Don't count on me to waste my time responding in detail about all of Phillip's BS. I have better things to do.

The ACA will continue to be what it was always meant to be. It will continue to educate people and EMPOWER them to enjoy canyons safely. It will continue to teach people like Phillip, Tom, Kurt and others, who can take what they learn and share it with others. I feel a lot of pride reading the technical tips and advice these people give to others, knowing they are sharing what they learned from me and the ACA. No amount of whining about what the ACA should have done can take that away.

[rcwild]

For those of you interested in the facts regarding the ACGA and the ACA, I will be happy to keep you up to date ...

American Canyon Guides Association (ACGA)

The Board voted to increase the number of directors from 5 to 7 and added Steve Morga as the 6th member. The 7th member will be someone from Latin America. We have as many or more certified guides in Mexico and Costa Rica as we do in the U.S. Goal is to organize a separate board/committee in Latin America with delegates from each Mexican state and from other countries. This board/committee will choose representatives from among its members to serve on the ACGA Board.

Dues have been set for membership in the ACGA at: $125 for Certified Professional Members; $95 for Professional Members (non-certified); $65 for Associate Members. A significant portion of dues paid by members in Latin America will remain in Latin America. No amount has been set, but 75% has been mentioned in discussions.

The ACGA will recognize guides who were current with their ACA certification. They will be listed as ACGA certified guides upon submission and acceptance of a membership application and dues.

The ACGA will focus on certifying individual guides and instructors. We are discussing three levels of courses and assessments -- Aspirant (assistang/apprentice), Level 1 (core skills for all guides), and Level 2 (specialized, either Class A/B or Class C). Level 1 and 2 existed with the ACA. The need for a preliminary Aspirant level has been discussed off and on for the past few years.

As Technical Director, I am tasked with organizing a Technical Committee. That committee consists of Charly Oliver, Rick Green (Class A/B Coordinator), Kevin Koprek (Class C Coordinator), Eric Puelsch (International Liaison). I have also invited one more person from outside the ACGA, but have not received his response yet.

American Canyoneering Association (ACA)

When I started the ACA I looked at several other organization models, including the American Mountain Guides Association (AMGA), Arizona Mountaineering Club (AMC) and National Speleological Society (NSS). In an attempt to serve all canyoneers - professional and recreational - we attempted to mix the AMGA and AMC models (plus the NSS grotto model when we tried ACA chapters). Splitting the professionals from the ACA resolves a number of issues. I am now free to run the ACA more like an informal club.

The ACA will continue to host its forums and meetup groups and will continue hosting rendezvous. I will focus much more of my own time training recreational canyon leaders, including Scout Leaders. Canyon Leadership workshops will be free for everyone. I will also host a series of canyoneering challenges intended to allow canyoneers to test their technical skills in non-emergency situations to help them gain confidence. The first one is an ascending challenge already on the calendar. Also working on a canyon orienteering challenge.

I surveyed the current ACA accredited schools to find out if they preferred having the ACGA run an accreditation program. The replies I have received so far unanimously favor keeping the ACA accreditation program. So the ACGA will certify individuals. The ACA will accredit schools that teach the ACA curriculum. The list includes my own company, Canyons & Crags, plus Excursions of Escalante (Rick Green), North Wash Outfitters (Jared Hillhouse), Desert Highlights (Matt Moore), Intrepid Adventure Sports (Steve Morga), Dark Horse Leadership (Steve Jackson, Clark Wiscombe), Pura Vida Adventures (Joe Moerschbaecher). A few more are in the pipeline.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Don't count on me to waste my time responding in detail about all of Phillip's BS. I have better things to do.
i doubt it... you are like a dog to it's own vomit.

[ratagonia]

For those of you interested in the facts regarding the ACGA and the ACA, I will be happy to keep you up to date ...

American Canyon Guides Association (ACGA)

The Board voted to increase the number of directors from 5 to 7 and added Steve Morga as the 6th member. The 7th member will be someone from Latin America. We have as many or more certified guides in Mexico and Costa Rica as we do in the U.S. Goal is to organize a separate board/committee in Latin America with delegates from each Mexican state and from other countries. This board/committee will choose representatives from among its members to serve on the ACGA Board.

Dues have been set for membership in the ACGA at: $125 for Certified Professional Members; $95 for Professional Members (non-certified); $65 for Associate Members. A significant portion of dues paid by members in Latin America will remain in Latin America. No amount has been set, but 75% has been mentioned in discussions.

The ACGA will recognize guides who were current with their ACA certification. They will be listed as ACGA certified guides upon submission and acceptance of a membership application and dues.

The ACGA will focus on certifying individual guides and instructors. We are discussing three levels of courses and assessments -- Aspirant (assistang/apprentice), Level 1 (core skills for all guides), and Level 2 (specialized, either Class A/B or Class C). Level 1 and 2 existed with the ACA. The need for a preliminary Aspirant level has been discussed off and on for the past few years.

As Technical Director, I am tasked with organizing a Technical Committee. That committee consists of Charly Oliver, Rick Green (Class A/B Coordinator), Kevin Koprek (Class C Coordinator), Eric Puelsch (International Liaison). I have also invited one more person from outside the ACGA, but have not received his response yet.

American Canyoneering Association (ACA)

When I started the ACA I looked at several other organization models, including the American Mountain Guides Association (AMGA), Arizona Mountaineering Club (AMC) and National Speleological Society (NSS). In an attempt to serve all canyoneers - professional and recreational - we attempted to mix the AMGA and AMC models (plus the NSS grotto model when we tried ACA chapters). Splitting the professionals from the ACA resolves a number of issues. I am now free to run the ACA more like an informal club.

The ACA will continue to host its forums and meetup groups and will continue hosting rendezvous. I will focus much more of my own time training recreational canyon leaders, including Scout Leaders. Canyon Leadership workshops will be free for everyone. I will also host a series of canyoneering challenges intended to allow canyoneers to test their technical skills in non-emergency situations to help them gain confidence. The first one is an ascending challenge already on the calendar. Also working on a canyon orienteering challenge.

I surveyed the current ACA accredited schools to find out if they preferred having the ACGA run an accreditation program. The replies I have received so far unanimously favor keeping the ACA accreditation program. So the ACGA will certify individuals. The ACA will accredit schools that teach the ACA curriculum. The list includes my own company, Canyons & Crags, plus Excursions of Escalante (Rick Green), North Wash Outfitters (Jared Hillhouse), Desert Highlights (Matt Moore), Intrepid Adventure Sports (Steve Morga), Dark Horse Leadership (Steve Jackson, Clark Wiscombe), Pura Vida Adventures (Joe Moerschbaecher). A few more are in the pipeline.

It is great to see a professional canyon guides association that Rich is only peripherally involved in.

Sorry, "will be".

:moses:

[rcwild]

It is great to see a professional canyon guides association that Rich is only peripherally involved in.

Sorry, "will be".

The ACGA Board knows that my intention is to serve as Technical Director only temporarily. Why don't you volunteer for the job, Tom. I will be happy to step aside if the Board approves you.

[ratagonia]

The ACGA Board knows that my intention is to serve as Technical Director only temporarily. Why don't you volunteer for the job, Tom. I will be happy to step aside if the Board approves you.

No thanks. I have no interest in joining an organization that would have me as a member.

Tom

[restrac2000]

I am not sure if you understand the full parameters of the idea "ethical", Rich.

Just one well known aspect of the ethical problems you created in the field of canyoneering:

1) Presenting the ACA as a professional association. This alone has provided it with a market advantage because of its assumed authority in the field. What is the ethical dilemma of this? You are automatically assumed to be of greater authority than the businesses in the field. Ironically, as many have predicted years ago, you are a sole proprietor without true association structure or goals.

You continue to create ethical dilemmas by housing the accreditation with the ACA. Who will be the professional organization, Rich? You are already undermining the value of the ACGA from the start. No to mention the fact that you already confusing "Rich" with the "ACGA". Shouldn't you leave public relations to someone else other than the technical advisor?

Phillip

[rcwild]

...

[Felicia]

Ack!

Ok - so we all get the personal conflict issues between numerous parties. Duly noted.

Can we debate this subject of ACGA using mature and mannered techniques?

Please?

[rcwild]

Felicia, I will be happy to answer any question you or any other mature, mannered person would care to ask about the ACGA or the ACA. I don't believe any of the ACGA Board Members participate in any forums other than the ACA forum. I came to this forum to make sure everyone who cares knows what is happening.

[restrac2000]

Ack!

Ok - so we all get the personal conflict issues between numerous parties. Duly noted.

Can we debate this subject of ACGA using mature and mannered techniques?

Please?

I would appreciate that effort myself. Felicia, feel free to point out anything I say as crossing the line. I like to think I deal with deconstructing ideas and not simple name calling. I still believe Rich is capable of addressing issues and not simply dismissing others observations as "BS" or "crap".

To lead off, Rich, why do you believe the structure of the ACA has not been unethical? I have pointed out one element of my case for the ACA problems here, and several others on the yahoo forum. To clarify, I am dealing with the ACA as your private business, not the ACGA. How is my observation and conclusion so wrong?

Phillip

[Felicia]

This thread is about ACGA. Yes?

Philip, you have well constructed questions. I think that they are not on point to this discussion. I would encourage you to consider a new thread.

I see Rich and ACA, like it or not, as a private business. This has already been established. As such, capitalism will address Rich's personal success.

I have NO interest in being a guide, but I would like those that do/are an opportunity to contemplate an organization without too much distraction/history. A fresh start?

There is a request to move forward. Rich appears to be offering to help "for now" and answer questions.

[Felicia]

Question to Rich: Will all ACGA leadership be required to be subject matter experts? If so, how big of a pool is there to draw from? If not, what is the board looking for?

[restrac2000]

I will have to disagree on one conclusion....

The ACA has decided to keep the certification program for other businesses. This maintains the problems I have addressed before. How does it make sense for the ACA to house business accreditation while developing a professional organization?
Also, if/when you visit the new website, it becomes obvious this, the ACGA, isn't so much a fresh start as a continuation of the ACA. The ACA plays a prominent role in the website, in a self-aggrandizing manner. I might be able to understand this from a marketing perspective but it exposes the same structural flaws that existed before. Not quite the fresh start.

I also fundamentally disagree that Rich gets to control the message and perception.


Phillip

[Felicia]

Also Rich, for those that do not want to converse with you, who would be an alternate contact person at this time?

Thanks

[restrac2000]

This thread is about ACGA. Yes?

I see Rich and ACA, like it or not, as a private business. This has already been established. As such, capitalism will address Rich's personal success.



There are more options than market forces. I am willing to be corrected on my BS, as Rich calls it, but until then I am participating in the most powerful way I can ... dissent. Until I am corrected—that Rich is benefiting from unethical practices—to a reasonable manner than I am not likely to stop asking the hard questions.

Phillip

[Felicia]

Rich, somebody did a lot of work to setup the site for ACGA - will the site be "turned over" at some point to ACGA? When? Phillip, would you want to professionally manage the site for ACGA?

[Felicia]

but until then I am participating in the most powerful way I can ... dissent. Until I am corrected—that Rich is benefiting from unethical practices—to a reasonable manner than I am not likely to stop asking the hard questions.

Phillip

I'm OK with dissent.

Felicia

[Iceaxe]

I will be happy to answer any question you or any other mature, mannered person would care to ask about the ACGA or the ACA. I don't believe any of the ACGA Board Members participate in any forums other than the ACA forum. I came to this forum to make sure everyone who cares knows what is happening.

Rich,

I appreciate you taking the time to keep us informed. My only trepidation at the moment is if the ACGA is really separate from the ACA or if the Kool-Aid has just been repackaged as "Country Time" with a "New and Improved" label attached.

My concern stems from the fact that the ACGA board is made up completely of ACA cohorts. I also noticed that the guides that do participate and support the various canyoneering forums are noticeably absent from the board.

When will the ACGA actually cut the apron strings?

Thanks again for taking the time to keep us informed.

[restrac2000]

Rich, somebody did a lot of work to setup the site for ACGA - will the site be "turned over" at some point to ACGA? When? Phillip, would you want to professionally manage the site for ACGA?

Nope. I put in some time with the Pro Division years ago even after I had pretty much retired from being a guide. I will likely never guide again due to susceptibility to heat related illnesses and loss of vision.

On a more specific note, if the idea is that I shouldn't make comments unless I am willing to contribute time than you are engaging in an extremely problematic logical fallacy. Ideas aren't validated in that manner. Rich often uses that form of argument to discredit his dissenters and it fails every time.

I will assume you were being genuinely curious. Not everyone, but many of the dissenting voices on this issues have donated time in the past.

Philip

[rcwild]

Question to Rich: Will all ACGA leadership be required to be subject matter experts? If so, how big of a pool is there to draw from? If not, what is the board looking for?

We borrowed heavily from the AMGA bylaws for the ACGA. The bylaws stipulate that up to 1/3 of the board can be made up of Professional Directors, meaning lawyers, accountants, business experts, etc. who can contribute in ways other than technically. The other 2/3 of the board must be members.

[rcwild]

Also Rich, for those that do not want to converse with you, who would be an alternate contact person at this time?

Board members are listed in Shane's first post in this thread.

[rcwild]

Rich, somebody did a lot of work to setup the site for ACGA - will the site be "turned over" at some point to ACGA? When?

I created the site with WordPress. Very easy to use. I know of at least one board member who is familiar with WordPress. He or someone else can start doing the work anytime they want.

The challenge in starting any organization is finding people with time available who are willing to donate it or finding money to pay someone. It will be a challenge for the ACGA until it starts generating revenue.

[ratagonia]

Felicia, I will be happy to answer any question you or any other mature, mannered person would care to ask about the ACGA or the ACA. I don't believe any of the ACGA Board Members participate in any forums other than the ACA forum. I came to this forum to make sure everyone who cares knows what is happening.

No true Scotsman... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Tom

[Felicia]

Nope.

I will assume you were being genuinely curious. Not everyone, but many of the dissenting voices on this issues have donated time in the past.

Philip

Phillip, I see your point. My question was one of curiosity with no intended malice.

Felicia

[rcwild]

Rich,

I appreciate you taking the time to keep us informed. My only trepidation at the moment is if the ACGA is really separate from the ACA or if the Kool-Aid has just been repackaged as "Country Time" with a "New and Improved" label attached.

My concern stems from the fact that the ACGA board is made up completely of ACA cohorts. I also noticed that the guides that do participate and support the various canyoneering forums are noticeably absent from the board.

When will the ACGA actually cut the apron strings?

Thanks again for taking the time to keep us informed.

The ACGA logo was created by a guide from Guadalajara Mexico who happens to be a graphic artist. He saw the announcement about the ACGA and took the initiative to design the logo. It looks very similar to the ACA logo. When we saw it, the first question we had was whether or not the two organizations should appear to be affiliated. That question remains unanswered.

Why would you be surprised by the ACGA board being made up of ACA guides?

All of the current ACA guides in the U.S. have been keeping up with what is happening with the ACGA. Some of them were quite content with the way things were and encouraged me to ignore the negative comments. Most understand why I wanted the split and why I ultimately want to move away from the professional side altogether. I have a lot of other irons in the fire.

There is also a question pending about whether or not the ACGA will start an accreditation program. I am advising against it. The AMGA struggled with this question for many years. The AMGA's primary goal is to certify individuals based on their technical competence. An accreditation program allows a program to receive a credential even if it does not employ guides who possess the desired level of technical competence. But once an accreditation program starts it is virtually possible to eliminate.

The ACA's accreditation program was not my idea. It was Dave Black's. It came at a time when the ACA was teaching all of its courses directly. 3-day courses for $195 to $295. Virtually every course was selling out and Dave, Charly and I could not keep up. The accreditation program was intended to get guide services involved who would teach the ACA curriculum. Over time, the ACA stopped teaching courses directly.

I already explained in a previous thread that the companies that are currently accredited by the ACA want their accreditation to continue. The ACA will continue as a "virtual" entity, providing the forums, meetup group and recommended curriculum, but it will not certify professional guides or instructors.

Will a connection continue between the ACA and the ACGA? Of course. Why not?

[restrac2000]

Why would you be surprised by the ACGA board being made up of ACA guides?

Will a connection continue between the ACA and the ACGA? Of course. Why not?

Because it still leaves the ACA as the root organization and you as the primary individual of influence. No doubt that will change over time but that could be a very long time, especially with a continued role as technical advisor. The foundational period of an organization helps define how broad its membership will be over time.

There must be a handful of non-ACA folks over the years that you didn't "influence" that can fill in the board.

The board will undoubtedly have strong loyalty to the ACA curriculum if there is not outside influence. It is likely that the ACGA will maintain the same biases as the ACA if new blood isn't brought in.

Accreditation: This is still something fundamentally wrong (unethical as a business) with one business owner intentionally trying to control the curriculum and standards. It deflects authority away from the ACGA by design. If you have such concerns about accreditation in general than why not just abandon the program? It inherently creates conflict with the role of a professional association. You must recognize that inherent tension you will be fostering? Which will be the source of canyoneering authority, the ACGA or the Rich's ACA club?

I assume you recognize this because the ACGA website praises the ACA for it source of knowledge and authority. The ACA is not isolating itself as a personal business, it is further integrating itself into the new professional association.

Phillip

[Scott Card]

:facepalm1:

[rcwild]

:facepalm1:

Fun stuff, eh Scott? :naughty:

[Iceaxe]

Why would you be surprised by the ACGA board being made up of ACA guides?

Will a connection continue between the ACA and the ACGA? Of course. Why not?


I'm not surprised to see ACA guides on the BOD... I'm surprised at seeing ONLY ACA guides that are currently in good standing with the ACA on the ACGA BOD.

Most successful organizations are made up of a varied BOD. Even an emperor needs someone around to point out he is wearing no clothes.

[rcwild]

I'm not surprised to see ACA guides on the BOD... I'm surprised at seeing ONLY ACA guides that are currently in good standing with the ACA on the ACGA BOD.

Most successful organizations are made up of a varied BOD. Even an emperor needs someone around to point out he is wearing no clothes.

I guess it might seem strange to some that an organization is being formed and the people involved are the ones who care the most about it. Go figure.

[Felicia]

I guess it might seem strange to some that an organization is being formed and the people involved are the ones who care the most about it. Go figure.

Rich, in fairness (and recognizing the foundational work), the ACGA was "announced" to the "rest of us". Correct?

[Scott Card]

Fun stuff, eh Scott? :naughty: I didn't want to get into this again. The Yahoo group thread on this subject was simply mind numbing. But dang it, someone is wrong on the internet! :lol8:

I will say, no one enjoys a good discussion more than me but when it quickly evolves EVERY TIME to ad hominem ad nausium, then I do the face palm. Seriously, if someone is not happy with a company, an organization, an owner, the by-laws, the "association", the history.... the what ever.... go start a competitor, do your own thing, get your own company! But for the love.... just stop whining. Rich, dood, what did you do, hide a body? father a child? befriend a commie? tinkle in someone's Gatoraid? I swear.... folks are now worrying about your influence. Heck, you don't even have to be present anymore! (The force is strong with you, old Jedi) :crazy:

The ACA is a company. It has people (or person -- it doesn't matter) who provide a product. If you don't own the company, tough. Start your own. Am I missing something here? What am I missing? What is so darn scary about Rich? He is a man (and apparently the myth and the legend AND "the influence" :lol8:)

Ya got something better than the ACA training? Anyone? If you do, please, oh please, oh please start a new company. Call it an association or what ever you want to call it. If the product is good, I will pay attention. I regret that I have never been able to participate in ACA training due to schedule, family, etc. The product I have seen indirectly is really good and people i trust speak very highly of the product, and Rich for that matter.

And for the record, I am not a member of the ACA. I have met Rich in passing two times and I was asked by Spidey and Clark to help them do a test where Rich was there as an advisor. Rich and Clark and Spidey and I as well as a couple of others went to lunch one day of the test. That is all the interaction I have had with the famous and now transcendent Rich Carlson.

And so, back to our regularly scheduled :facepalm1:

[Scott Card]

Rich, in fairness (and recognizing the foundational work), the ACGA was "announced" to the "rest of us". Correct? Is this a problem? If there are other guides who what to organize, by golly, let them organize! Perhaps Rick Green should have announced it. For some reason that escapes me, that would have been better?

[Scott Card]

I'm not surprised to see ACA guides on the BOD... I'm surprised at seeing ONLY ACA guides that are currently in good standing with the ACA on the ACGA BOD.

Most successful organizations are made up of a varied BOD. Even an emperor needs someone around to point out he is wearing no clothes.

All this does is raise a question of legitimacy in your mind. Again, guides or non-guides are welcome to start their own group. This really all seems to be a Rich bashing thing.

I really need to spend some time with Rich so I can get offended. :crazy::haha:

[ratagonia]

Even an emperor needs someone around to point out he is wearing no clothes.

:facepalm1: How did you know that??? :facepalm1:

[restrac2000]

I think the only ad hominem attacks come, in relation to my interaction, from Rich.

I fully understand that you don't find this discussion important. That is fine. I don't believe the way you judge the value of the content of the dialog actually is a fair summation. Plain and simple. If Rich had just run a "company" for years it wouldn't matter. But he didn't. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing (best metaphor I can come up with; though I don't think Rich intentionally meant harm, I just think he struggles to design businesses that avoid ethical problems.) And once again, the simplistic idea that its a business and let him run it.....no substance. The only element I read from your interaction is boredom with the content, i.e. no meaningful analysis or contribution. Let me know if I am wrong. Have you dealt with the structural problems presented thus far? Do you understand the ethical problems of an business disguised as an association led to unfair market advantages? Have you ever involved yourself in professional associations, their literature, bylaws, etc?

Rich provides a great product. Never denied that. Rich operates a questionable business model which has made some of us a little more invested in certain outcomes. Rich by his own marketing material has tried to influence the direction of the canyoneering community for 15 years. Occasionally some us fund value in critiquing the business practices of the "premier" organization in the country.

Don't feel like we have much to contribute with each other, Scott. Could be wrong. I guess I see a few more options than starting my own company (which is going to happen). I see a benefit in challenging Rich to make professional changes. I see the social benefit either to those changes or the devaluing of his companies name from legitimate complaints.

Phillip

[rcwild]

Rich, in fairness (and recognizing the foundational work), the ACGA was "announced" to the "rest of us". Correct?

Yep. I don't expect too many people to be concerned about the ACGA. But I know there are a lot of people who are happy to learn that I will be focusing my time on the recreational side. I used to do a lot more free programs than I have over the past couple years. I will be doing them again now.

[Iceaxe]

Am I missing something here? What am I missing?

Actually Scott I have noticed you are missing something..... You seem to always equate these discussions with an attack on the ACA schooling... and that's just not so.....

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone knock the ACA schooling, I've heard criticism of particular techniques and practices, but nothing negative on the ACA schooling as a whole.

Where the ACA (Rich) gets in trouble is when he ventures outside his area of expertise (schooling). Or when the ACA tries to be all things and represent a majority of canyoneers without having a true majority, and the majority takes exception to the representation…... Or at least that has been my personal observations.... YMMV.

[Felicia]

Is this a problem? If there are other guides who what to organize, by golly, let them organize!

That's my point!



Felicia

[restrac2000]

No matter how much you try to simplify it doesn't make it true. Its more of an ACA critiquing concept which Rich has remained the emperor of by design. Rich doesn't get to play the victim card in a logical world.....

If you notice, Rich is the one who often fails to answer direct questions from dissenters. Rich is the one who responds with insults and character attacks. This is nothing new with Rich. He has a long list of such folks.

Phillip

[mdd]

I came up with a nice, well-thought-out reply with what I find to be interesting and thought-provoking points germane to the discussion, then I realized it was pointless as the 10+ year old "community leaders bashing other community leaders" merry go round will never end. So instead I impart you with a simple "enjoy making fools of yourselves and your organizations with your embarrassing shit-storm, fellas", while I go off and enjoy the great outdoors.

See you in the canyons! (maybe)

M

[restrac2000]

Luckily I don't have any professional or financial involvement in the community anymore. I do have personal interest in:

1) Making sure those who choose to represent our community do so in an honest and ethical manner.
2) Making sure that professional standards are accurately portrayed to customers in the field.

After witnessing enough of Rich's responses and social antics it became clear that he didn't take either of those professional standards seriously (I have detailed my thoughts on that already).

From Rich's comments, it has become clear that he has no intention of making the ACGA a broad-based organization. He views only those who have been loyal to him, not necessarily the ideals of the organization or profession, as those worthy of serious consideration. He controls the funnel and likely will always do so with iron grip. He knows this. He started a separate company years ago knowing full well that he had a conflict of interest.

So it is. So it may always be. I have hope for the ACGA as I know some of the members are strong candidates. But until the organization truly deals with the biases associated with the ACA then it will never mature into its own identity and mission. Its actually a fairly low professional hurdle.

Phillip

[rcwild]

Where the ACA (Rich) gets in trouble is when he ventures outside his area of expertise (schooling). Or when the ACA tries to be all things and represent a majority of canyoneers without having a true majority, and the majority takes exception to the representation…... Or at least that has been my personal observations.... YMMV.

This perception is at the heart of the problem, but it is totally bogus. Look back into the archives of the Yahoo group in 2002. I walked away from that group because I was tired of all the pissing matches about positions regarding SUWA, bolts, etc. I made it very clear that I had no interest in being involved in politics. All I wanted to do is teach.

I don't go to land managers to declare that I represent canyoneers. On the contrary, I go to them to ask what kinds of concerns they have to get ideas for improving our training. When they tell me they are concerned about rescues, I offer them rescue training.

Very unlikely there will ever be one association that could represent all canyoneers because the interests are too diverse.

When Ram said he didn't agree with some of the ACA's stances, I knew exactly what he meant. He thinks the ACA should support SUWA. We have never been pro or con. We are a training organization. Supporting such an organization is not part of our mission. If any of our members want to support SUWA, they can join SUWA. The ACA never will. Get over it. It ain't ever gonna happen. In fact, the more I learn about SUWA, the more anti-SUWA I am becoming. We all love wilderness and do our best to protect it in our own ways. We don't need to support SUWA to prove we care. And ... a good argument could be made ... canyoneers who care about access should all be anti-SUWA.

Ram should start a pro-SUWA canyoneering group if he thinks there should be one. I would be very curious to see what he would do if a democratic association was formed and it was discovered that the majority of canyoneers are actually anti-SUWA. Would he (and others) still be happy that there is a "representative" association? I doubt it.

[Iceaxe]

Because Scott keeps bring up the "love it or leave it" senorio.... and because I could careless what the ACA does, except when they try to represent me where I don't agree with their program or agenda. And by Rich being the only voice that counts under the ACA banner that is exactly what happens when the ACA wades into just about any issue....

A little history lesson for those interested....

I was part of discussions in 2002 regarding formation of a canyoneering organization, for lack of a better term some called it the OCA or "Other Canyoneering Organization".

The discussions included anyone and everyone that was anybody. If you were part of the just beginning to boom canyoneering world at the time your opinions were counted and included..... And it was pretty much a unanimous decision at the time that an umbrella organization was not needed.

Canyoneers had SUWA, Sierra Club, Access Fund and USA-All representing the different sides of the land use issue.

Canyoneers had the ACA, ZAC and a few other offering good canyoneering schools.

Canyoneers had the Zion Canyoneering Coalition representing our interests in Zion with regards to the pending implementation of the soon to be infamous permit system.

Canyoneers had MK, Tom and myself dispensing truck loads of good reliable beta.

Canyoneers had ZAC and Desert Highlights offering excellent guide services. It was noted that Inferior guide services never lasted long.

Soooo...... after we all digested this it was felt that the interests of canyoneers were being served, and they could pick exactly what they wanted to support buffet style, instead of trying to eat an elephant sandwich like the ACA is always trying to do. Has the situation really changed over the past 10 years?

[restrac2000]

Can you not at least admit that you have tailored the message and advertising of the ACA in a way that has led to these misunderstandings? Come on, Rich, show some honesty and accountability for once on an internet forum. You constantly try to manipulate and control every dissenting view of the ACA....and you do so with a fervor.

Everyone that I have encountered knows that you intentionally presented the ACA as a broad-based representative organization at least for the first ten years. Maybe not through the forum. Maybe not through voting. In fact, there was not structural element to support those ideas. But you and I both know your message was that THE ACA is THE CANYONEERING COMMUNITY. That message and perception did not happen on accident. You have benefited from that perception and marketing for 15 years. You aren't the go to voice because you are a successful business men. You are the go voice because you run the ACA and most folks have always perceived that to mean something greater than you created. You have lived off the fat of that for years all the while complaining how much of a victim you are of lies. It gets old. And its a shame because the model you envisioned but sabotaged had potential.

Phillip

[restrac2000]

Thats an unusual response for you, Mike.

[rcwild]

... instead of trying to eat an elephant sandwich like the ACA is always trying to do. Has the situation really changed over the past 10 years?

Some truth to your post, Shane. It is not necessary, advisable or possible for any one entity to try to serve all interests. Why else would there need to be three different canyoneering forums? There are people on Yahoo that would never come here. People here that would never go to Yahoo. Etc.

And even some truth to me trying to eat an elephant sandwich at times. People ask me for things and I have a hard time saying no.

Where you are wrong is in the assertion that the ACA has every tried to represent the canyoneering community. Just isn't so. I have never done any lobbying. I lurk on forums to learn what concerns people. I ask land management agencies what concerns them. I know the best way for me to serve is through training people and have been doing so free when the people who need it can't afford it.

The amazing thing to me in all of this is ... I owned and operated the first canyoneering guide service in the U.S. going back to 1990. Nobody ever questioned my motives. They knew I was running a business and expected to make money. I gave students and clients a service, they gave me cash. When I started the ACA, it was one of the most unselfish things I ever did. I started it to help people. But I have never felt so hated by a handful of people in my life. Suspicious of my motives? Why? My income is less than $10K per year. I have never turned away a student because they didn't have money. Virtually every canyon guide in the U.S. was trained by me or by someone who was trained by me. Training them was training my competition, yet I charged them next to nothing. Many of them I trained free.

I don't get it.

[restrac2000]

When I started the ACA, it was one of the most unselfish things I ever did. I started it to help people. But I have never felt so hated by a handful of people in my life. Suspicious of my motives? Why? My income is less than $10K per year. I have never turned away a student because they didn't have money. Virtually every canyon guide in the U.S. was trained by me or by someone who was trained by me. Training them was training my competition, yet I charged them next to nothing. Many of them I trained free.

I don't get it.

If that is the limited perspective you choose to operate from then I can understand why you are confused.

First, a compliment which is highly deserved. It was unselfish for you to start the ACA. Second, it was selfish of you to control the ACA in the manner in which you have. You are also inconsistent in the message about what the ACA is: one minute its a simple private business next its something so much more altruistic.

I gleaned that you never analyzed the implications of running a training service. This "competition" issue has come up several times in your unabashed take on the ACA. Competition is the desired outcome of an association. Competition helps lead to quality. You failed to truly implement that reality into the ACA and instead maintained control. This is an ethical problem and one that you seem fine with, since you are willing to maintain a "club's""accreditation". Votes don't change the reality of that problem. Heck, if I was running a business, I would likely vote to keep the ACA logo as well since I had invested time and money into it and the ACGA is highly uncertain. Simple cost benefit analysis.

You seem to have been able to say "no" when you were asked to relinquish the ACA control over the Pro Division more than five years ago. You seem to be hinting at "no" when questioned about the potential for non-ACA board membership of the ACGA. You aren't quite the martyr you try to portray on the internet, Rich.

You trained a lot of guides, Rich. But there are many out there who have been running successful guide services for years without your influence. When you start to take too much unearned credit it actually undermines your real value.

Phillip

[Scott Card]

Where the ACA (Rich) gets in trouble is when he ventures outside his area of expertise (schooling). Or when the ACA tries to be all things and represent a majority of canyoneers without having a true majority, and the majority takes exception to the representation... Or at least that has been my personal observations.... YMMV. OK, I'll play along. Besides the word "Association" being considered by some/many to be misleading, and if assuming the ACA is a sole proprietorship run by King Rich, what interests of the canyoneering community have been misrepresented or poorly represented that the majority of the canyoneers would do or say differently? Are you, Shane, Phillip, or anyone else speaking for the majority? Who is that person who does so? Seems to me that if there were many unsatisfied customers, the ACA would have folded years ago. Seems the classes would not be successful, seems like the ACA gatherings would fall apart. Seems the ACA forum would have died. Seems the majority of the canyoneers would have said all kinds of bad things about the ACA and it would have a crappy reputation. As an outsider looking in, it seems like the ACA is the majority view point on technique and skill set, is the source of credible training, is the only place where there is a gold standard. Bogley has no standards. :lol8: Climb-utah has no trainging/ guiding standards and doesn't speak for the community. Imlay Canyon Gear and Canyoneering USA.com don't speak for the community and don't train or have "standards". The Yahoo group is SUWA influenced and doesn't have any real direction and certainly no training or guiding standards. (Didn't the Yahoo group get its start by Rich????) And btw, I enjoy the Yahoo group, a lot. So who is it that sets standards and speaks for the community about canyoneering? What is the majority standard that is not being represented or misrepresented by the ACA? Seems that the ACA actually is the only entity that sets any protocol and/or standards for the community. It may be by default because they are the only organized game in town and it appears that they have the most members. The rest of us are unorganized and unaffiliated. And there is a vocal minority that is unsatisfied. But so far, it seems like it is unsatisfied by Rich. Is the ACA perfect? Nope, far from it. Should the ACA deal with access issues or land management issues? Well that is up the the ACA and if we don't like it, well quit the ACA, write a letter and state your opinion to the BLM, the Park Service or whoever it is that you want to hear your opinion. Rich speaks for Rich and the ACA. My responsibility is to speak for me if I disagree. If Rich doesn't agree with me? Well, big whoop.

So what has the ACA done that is so wrong? Seems like there are various camps of canyoneers and no one group will satisfy the majority of the camps. Bolt, no bolt. Access, no or limited access. Beta vs. secret. Big groups vs. small groups, scouts vs. exterminate all scouts and their leaders. Biner block vs. toss and go. Seriously, the only group of individuals who have taken a stand, put it in writing, taught classes, created a training curriculum and protocol for guiding IS the ACA. Again, where is this majority you speak of that is not being represented and what was so offensive that the ACA has done TO THE COMMUNITY? I must have missed that too. If Rich speaks for "all canyoneers" then he misspeaks. If he speaks for himself and the ACA, he speaks truthfully. If he speaks for the majority of the canyoneers, well, that very well may be true.

And so, we are back to my original statement, if there is only one game in town and you don't like it, start your own game and see who plays. Maybe you will be the majority some day. Why I may even join.

[Scott Card]

1) Making sure those who choose to represent our community do so in an honest and ethical manner.
2) Making sure that professional standards are accurately portrayed to customers in the field.



If you are "making sure those who choose to represent our community do so in an honest and ethical manner" then are you the spokesman for the majority or are you simply stating your own opinion? If you are the watchdog, who voted for you? What are your qualifications? Seems like we are all really just stating our own opinions aren't we?

About the standards, are there some you disagree with? I have read your arguments on the Yahoo group and they just aren't cogent to me -- they just don't hold water. The ACA IS the only standard for guiding and the only teaching protocol. If I want an expert witness in court, I look for certifications. The ONLY certification is the ACA. I am certainly missing what is inaccurately portrayed by the ACA because for me, the name is not a big deal since I understand business entities and the naming of business. Seems like we all ought to read the label rather than just trust the pretty cover. Seems to me that if a guide is ACA certified and he represents himself as such, he is honest. If the ACA says someone is not certified that is an accurate statement since there is only one certification. If I am not ACA certified and choose to guide, well, good for me I guess. There are no actual requirements or laws that say you need an ACA certification or any other certification. If the ACA states something I don't like, well I can voice my opinion and if I feel strongly enough I can run for office so to speak, doing my own and hopefully better thing.

What seems to be consistent with all your statements is they always are based on "Rich this or Rich that" and frankly i am still missing what is so wrong with the ACA (or Rich Carlson for that matter) and how they/ him have screwed up the canyoneering community so badly. What needs fixing with the ACA product? :ne_nau:

[ratagonia]

If you are "making sure those who choose to represent our community do so in an honest and ethical manner" then are you the spokesman for the majority or are you simply stating your own opinion? If you are the watchdog, who voted for you? What are your qualifications? Seems like we are all really just stating our own opinions aren't we?

About the standards, are there some you disagree with? I have read your arguments on the Yahoo group and they just aren't cogent to me -- they just don't hold water. The ACA IS the only standard for guiding and the only teaching protocol. If I want an expert witness in court, I look for certifications. The ONLY certification is the ACA. I am certainly missing what is inaccurately portrayed by the ACA because for me, the name is not a big deal since I understand business entities and the naming of business. Seems like we all ought to read the label rather than just trust the pretty cover. Seems to me that if a guide is ACA certified and he represents himself as such, he is honest. If the ACA says someone is not certified that is an accurate statement since there is only one certification. If I am not ACA certified and choose to guide, well, good for me I guess. There are no actual requirements or laws that say you need an ACA certification or any other certification. If the ACA states something I don't like, well I can voice my opinion and if I feel strongly enough I can run for office so to speak, doing my own and hopefully better thing.

What seems to be consistent with all your statements is they always are based on "Rich this or Rich that" and frankly i am still missing what is so wrong with the ACA (or Rich Carlson for that matter) and how they/ him have screwed up the canyoneering community so badly. What needs fixing with the ACA product? :ne_nau:

Certification is usually done by some kind of governing body, an Association, or at least, to a standard set out by a governing body. Engineering standards (for instance, for a carabiner) are set by the ASTM and the EC, in an open process, that anyone can show interest in, though not necessarily influence.



ASTM Overview
ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), is a globally recognized leader in the development and delivery of international voluntary consensus standards. Today, some 12,000 ASTM standards are used around the world to improve product quality, enhance safety, facilitate market access and trade, and build consumer confidence.

ASTM’s leadership in international standards development is driven by the contributions of its members: more than 30,000 of the world’s top technical experts and business professionals representing 135 countries. Working in an open and transparent process and using ASTM’s advanced electronic infrastructure, ASTM members deliver the test methods, specifications, guides and practices that support industries and governments worldwide. Learn more about ASTM International.

http://www.astm.org/ABOUT/overview.html

Rich has certifications as a canyoneering instructor from one or more of the national bodies in Europe. I am unclear on exactly how this makes his private business disguised as a national association a certifying body in the USA.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

The ACA IS the only standard for guiding and the only teaching protocol. If I want an expert witness in court, I look for certifications. The ONLY certification is the ACA.

Where is this standard for guiding? Can you provide a link?

Where is this teaching protocol? Can you provide a link?

At Zion Adventure Company, we have these things too, so the ACA is not the sole holder of such intellectual property. ATS has the same and/or similar, as do other guide services, for their guides.

I don't want to arm wrestle with you, Scott, I just think you are overstating the case. I concur with you that Phillip is overstating his case, too.

I do not easily find published standards and protocols on Canyoneering.net. And to anticipate your argument that the ACA Standards and Protocols are independent: they are not any more independent than any other one private individual's private business, except in that Rich holds certifications from national bodies in Europe.

Tom

[restrac2000]

If you are "making sure those who choose to represent our community do so in an honest and ethical manner" then are you the spokesman for the majority or are you simply stating your own opinion? If you are the watchdog, who voted for you? What are your qualifications? Seems like we are all really just stating our own opinions aren't we?

About the standards, are there some you disagree with? I have read your arguments on the Yahoo group and they just aren't cogent to me -- they just don't hold water. The ACA IS the only standard for guiding and the only teaching protocol. If I want an expert witness in court, I look for certifications. The ONLY certification is the ACA. I am certainly missing what is inaccurately portrayed by the ACA because for me, the name is not a big deal since I understand business entities and the naming of business. Seems like we all ought to read the label rather than just trust the pretty cover. Seems to me that if a guide is ACA certified and he represents himself as such, he is honest. If the ACA says someone is not certified that is an accurate statement since there is only one certification. If I am not ACA certified and choose to guide, well, good for me I guess. There are no actual requirements or laws that say you need an ACA certification or any other certification. If the ACA states something I don't like, well I can voice my opinion and if I feel strongly enough I can run for office so to speak, doing my own and hopefully better thing.

What seems to be consistent with all your statements is they always are based on "Rich this or Rich that" and frankly i am still missing what is so wrong with the ACA (or Rich Carlson for that matter) and how they/ him have screwed up the canyoneering community so badly. What needs fixing with the ACA product? :ne_nau:

Do you intentionally ignore the substance of a thread? I can see how it can lost when it spans multiple pages but with a little time you will see my ideas go well beyond just "Rich", but him being the ACA it is never to far away. Also as a refresher, the President or head of any organization is intentionally the symbolic person we complain to. Works that way in almost every level of social structure. So it only makes sense his name comes up quite a bit. Especially with a static empire of 15 years.

Substantive Issues:

1) The ACA was "designed", largely borrowed from multiple parties and individuals across the world, a certification and accreditation system that inherently rested on the opinions and ideas of one person. You can debate this but without an elected board that rotates this problem is innate with any "association". There is also a lack of transparency with how the ACA's expertise is defined and qualified outside its own self-aggrandized metrics.

2) The ACA is actually a private business that has profited off the social understanding of "association". This isn't as simple as being about "a name" like you mentioned in the past. Association was intentionally chosen to convey professional and social standards; Mr. Carlson did not chose "Carlson's Guide Service" for a reason (beyond which the example name sucks). With that name comes certain historical standards and assumptions, most of which have largely been ignored by the ACA. According to the history by Rich, the ACA started as an association and slowly emerged as a private business. The conflict of interest, i.e. ethical dilemma, of this was recognized and said President started a personal business known as "Canyons and Crags". It appears the ACA President abandoned that as his primary business when he realized he would lose authority, my observation/opinion, and the financial assets associated with the ACA (mostly in the form of name recognition). The President of the ACA, i.e. Rich, has always been hesitant to hand over power. Its a consistent message in his responses (which have been more detailed in the past 2 years).

3) Historically even "clubs" are run by true boards. Boards avoid many of the PR and structural problems the ACA has faced, i.e. it doesn't become about one individual. The "club" do often educate folks but I have never seen one try to define the content of courses across multiple platforms like we see with the ACA. The ACA has had a long struggle with social and professional measures like curriculum approval (this is evident with cert programs, accreditation, etc).

4) Most professional businesses, clubs and associations have processes for dispersing material and ideas. They aren't as haphazard as Rich's behavior has been within the context of the ACA. You may feel sympathetic for Rich but he created the target on his, literally and metaphorically.

5) Professional associations are meant to be broad based and beyond the petty opinions of a sole prioretor. Instead, the ACA has been plagued by this very problem. Association boards and committees diffuse responsibility and influence. Rich has rarely done either without the full knowledge that he is the President and can veto anything. For observation, just look at the new ACGA site. It has ACA smeared all over it. Its not about a new organization, if we are to properly interpret its advertising, its about the ACA. That fundamentally ignores and isolates the services and individuals that the ACA has disenfranchised over the years.

Your example of court issues is extremely important to my complaints. The ACA has become the standard and I don't believe anyone believes this accidental. But the ACA's self-defined expertise is problematic. The ACA is sole proprietor who created an industry standard. To borrow a phrase that Rich often misuses, thats putting the cart before the horse. Industry standards NEED to be the creation of multiple parties who are totally empowered to vocalize consent and dissent. That has never been structurally the case with the ACA. Yet, the ACA loves the social recognition and authority conveyed by its assumed but unfulfilled responsibilities.

May just be my opinion in the long run (but really what are most ideas posted on the net; I will wager that unlike you I have first hand professional experience with this issue). So be it. I find when enough ethical boundaries are crossed I need to participate in an more vocal manner. You may not like that, so be it; I can live with that problem. Unlike you, I see a myriad of options for changing what I see as a problem in the community (not just starting my own company)(I would be shocked if that is actually the only way you feel empowered as a community member.) One such option is vocalizing myself on the very platforms that Rich profits from, which go well beyond the $10k he makes a year.

[rcwild]

When I met Tom he had been canyoneering for around 3 years, but was already calling himself the emperor. I had already been canyoneering for 20+ years and guiding/teaching for 12.

I get the impression Tom doesn't want people to know he learned the overwhelming majority of his skills from me. Similarly, he didn't want people to know I started the Yahoo group. Shortly after I gave that group to him he removed the very first post -- the one in which I welcomed anyone who cared about canyoneering to participate.

A few of the "standards" Tom learned from the ACA:

Helmets are a good idea.
Working from a rope bag is more efficient than throwing a coil over your shoulder
There are other ways to rig besides toss 'n go.


"I learned more ropework in 6 days with Rich than I learned in 25 years of climbing." --Tom Jones

"Thank you for introducing me to the world of canyoneering." --Tom Jones autograph in Rich's copy of Zion Canyoneering

Photo pre-ACA courses ...

[rcwild]

Neither Phillip or Tom are being honest about the history of the association and they know it.

If anyone is interested: The ACA - An Unabashed History (http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?3790-The-ACA-An-Unabashed-History)

[Felicia]

Neither Phillip or Tom are being honest about the history of the association and they know it.


Rich, you're confusing me. I think their focus is about "standards": where did they come from? Who set them? Was there open debate? Etc...

My understanding of the direction of the conversation is: how is the ACGC going to establish/align itself with ACA?

A history lesson is good only if there is intent to learn an asset from said history.

Who can set standards? Who can voice opinions? Who can make changes? Why?

Felicia

...off to get some much needed coffee.

[canyoncaver]

I am very confused to hear in this thread that the ACA has a "gold standard" at all!

When I took the ACA's tech and advanced courses in 2009 there were no "standards," only tools for the toolbox. I actually went to the courses looking for the "standard" and never got it. We only got multiple ways of doing every aspect of canyoneering. We were not given much practice on these many ways, we were not tested on any of them to see if we actually retained any of it, and we were not given a manual or even a sheet of paper to refer to when we got home. Not even a cheesy piece of paper certificate to hang on my wall. I did however get a very real dent in my wallet.

This was my disappointment with the ACA. I (naively) thought that I was going to get training from an organization of canyoneers, not a private business. I was also very surprised to find that this "association" did not have preferred methods to teach to beginners. They only had tools for the toolbox, and so many of them that very few of the tools were retained. IMHO it is better to teach beginners one way that works and make damn sure they know how to do it. Then, when those skills are retained you can build on the basics.

Finding out that the "association" was actually a private business run by one man was the final nail in the coffin for me. Granted, I probably could have found that out in advance, but I did not. If it was training from the American Canyoneering Company, then it would be a lot more honest to those that take people at their word. Yes, words do matter.

[ghawk]

Neither Phillip or Tom are being honest about the history of the association and they know it.

If anyone is interested: The ACA - An Unabashed History (http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?3790-The-ACA-An-Unabashed-History)

I found this informative and interesting. I would be curious to see others share their version of things in as clear a way as Rich shared his view. As a side note I think it would be very difficult to put together an effective association, which has been the case it appears.

[ratagonia]

When I met Tom he had been canyoneering for around 3 years, but was already calling himself the emperor. I had already been canyoneering for 20+ years and guiding/teaching for 12.

I get the impression Tom doesn't want people to know he learned the overwhelming majority of his skills from me. Similarly, he didn't want people to know I started the Yahoo group. Shortly after I gave that group to him he removed the very first post -- the one in which I welcomed anyone who cared about canyoneering to participate.

A few of the "standards" Tom learned from the ACA:

Helmets are a good idea.
Working from a rope bag is more efficient than throwing a coil over your shoulder
There are other ways to rig besides toss 'n go.


"I learned more ropework in 6 days with Rich than I learned in 25 years of climbing." --Tom Jones

"Thank you for introducing me to the world of canyoneering." --Tom Jones autograph in Rich's copy of Zion Canyoneering

Photo pre-ACA courses ...

Nice to see that when I participate in a fairly mild way in a thread, I am then subject to a personal attack.

The (ironic) name "Emperor" came directly from a conversation with you, Rich, therefore I doubt it was used before I met you.

I learned a great deal of my canyoneering European-style ropework skills from Rich. As my endorsement quote from the ACA site states: a statement I have not asked Rich to remove from the ACA site even though I loathe him, because it is true. I have never contested it.

There is a lot more to canyoneering than European-style ropework. I learned a lot of that from Ram, SteveeB, and many, many others. There is a lot more to guiding than European-style ropework. I learned that from Nick, Jonathan, Evan, Ramsay, Calvin, Sarah, Scott, Rob and Hank; and a few others.

Signing statements in books are meant to be flattering. While you did not introduce me to canyoneering, Rich, you did introduce me to modern canyoneering ropework. This is the kind of hedge often made in signing statements.

I don't remember removing the first Post from Yahoo Canyons - it does not sound like something I would do. I do not know why the first post on the Group is missing, but your activity at the beginning of its life is incontestable, and well-represented in the archive.

I started canyoneering in 1999, and did a course with you in 2001. So yes, two years actually.

Memory is a "flexible" medium, tends to adjust itself to the ideology and goals of the memory-holder.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

Neither Phillip or Tom are being honest about the history of the association and they know it.

If anyone is interested: The ACA - An Unabashed History (http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?3790-The-ACA-An-Unabashed-History)

Well, I guess we are in good company, Rich, because your memoire is rather "flexible" with the truth.

Sorry, don't have the time to counterpoint Rich's interesting memoire. Rebuttal seems a Quixotic quest anyway, and a deflection from the point of this thread.

Tom

[restrac2000]

I think Rich's "unabashed history" has many truths AND many outright omissions. Rich has created a beautiful mythology of his hard work and aspirations. Much of theme involves his efforts and reflects the loyalty to him that he expects. The mythology and multiple-perspective history don't disagree with how hard Rich works....that has always been well established. Unfortunately, to many of us who have worked with him directly, that hard work often translates in dictator like control. This seems to already be affecting the ACGA.

There has been one or two posts of mine that involved flourish and overconfidence. I can admit that, I fall for the temptation of "reply" without editing on occasion. I also seem to be in the minority in regards to those who believe a broad-based association is a beneficial direction. I think the heart of my points remain honest, as stated to Scott. Maybe most simplified,the ACA continues to benefit from an unethical market advantage that is directly related to his historic advertising and name choice. This involves the garnering of undue authority from means that have explicit expectations. Those expectations have rarely been fulfilled.

Some folks may not choose to see the broader implications of the ACA. That is fine, I guess my perspective could be so skewed as not to contain any merit. Nonetheless, there have been long term social tensions in the community originating from one organization and I firmly believe they are related to the issues I have presented. I may not always communicate those well or may do so with extra confidence.

Phillip

[Don]

... Bogley has no standards. :lol8: ...

:haha:

[mdd]

Thats an unusual response for you, Mike.

Not really unusual at all, I

[ratagonia]

To be honest the most effective work I’ve seen in the last few years is from Ram, who has taken the time to engage rangers near North Wash, and has built relationships through the years with other rangers, such as Bill Wolverton.



Um, yeah, kinda sorta. A good example of how the community works, when working together. The original connection to BLM Richfield office was via an ACA canyoneering conference, which I then nurtured and Ram picked up and ran with from there. Ram is much better at schmoozing than other players in the field.

Tom

[ratagonia]

This thread doesn’t appear to me to be about furthering our community interests. Instead I see a few vocal “leaders” jockeying for position as the king of the canyoneering universe.

M

Kinda sorta.

There is also a defensive position here.

Rich makes outrageous, just-barely-true statements that reflect poorly on individuals who take pride in what they have contributed to the community. Those individuals are drawn to correct the record, as these statements by Rich tend to become "true" if left uncontested. Thus we get into a lot of petty he-said-she-said kinda stuff.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

I found this informative and interesting. I would be curious to see others share their version of things in as clear a way as Rich shared his view. As a side note I think it would be very difficult to put together an effective association, which has been the case it appears.

It is in Rich's best interest to promogulate the idea that it would be very difficult to put together an effective organization.

To me, the problem is that there is no compelling rallying purpose for an organization. The one we have (ACA) is based around the idea that there should be an organization, and Rich should be in charge. Not compelling to me.

Tom :moses:

[rcwild]

[QUOTE=mdd;474294]Not really unusual at all, I

[restrac2000]

Kinda sorta.

There is also a defensive position here.

Rich makes outrageous, just-barely-true statements that reflect poorly on individuals who take pride in what they have contributed to the community. Those individuals are drawn to correct the record, as these statements by Rich tend to become "true" if left uncontested. Thus we get into a lot of petty he-said-she-said kinda stuff.

Tom :moses:

I think this is the element I most struggle with. I can see how this may come across as a simple pissing match at times, that may be fair. But the occasional public power struggle can be beneficial. Is this one? Not sure. But I can observe that after a month's worth of internet dialog that Rich divested the professional side (kinda) from the ACA, structurally more so than he ever has in the past. The ACA also corrected some of the egregious advertising elements of its site....i.e. he took away some of the outright lies. I see this as good. That said, I see a benefit to undermining the social authority of the ACA until Rich makes further investments to create a true association. Tom and I may disagree with the need for an association, thats fair. I do see a need to either change the current one or protest its authority. I actually think constructing a second association is a worthy long term goal. But I think it would be unfortunate to that goal not to keep pressure on the ACA.

I also think its important to point out that I do contribute to tangental comments on this thread. I would also point out that Rich engages in highly successful yet highly questionable communication techniques. When we boil down many of these threads we see the trend of insult, character assassination and ego are fails consistent themes. I have participated. But it would be unfortunate to not highlight the ACA's consistent use of those communication tools to avoid the content of the threads. BS, crap, immature and the argument but "how ungrateful of them they are learned it from me" aren't cogent to the topic at hand. Ironically, it seems many of us who worked with him in the past aren't worth his time anymore. This seems solely related to public feedback. The ACA demands loyalty and ignores dissent.

I mean, no offense Shane, but Rich would rather answer your questions now than mine. Not the outcome I would have predicted 4 years ago ;^)

[restrac2000]

You're right, Mike. It doesn't really matter anymore what is true and what isn't. I know in my heart what I set out to accomplish and I know I failed. 'nuff said.

I think that is one of the most vulnerable and self-less statements I have seen from you Rich. I guess I still think a major course correction is possible for the ACA despite past failures. Do you not?

Edit: I will ignore the statement about truth for now.

[ghawk]

It is in Rich's best interest to promogulate the idea that it would be very difficult to put together an effective organization.

To me, the problem is that there is no compelling rallying purpose for an organization. The one we have (ACA) is based around the idea that there should be an organization, and Rich should be in charge. Not compelling to me.

Tom :moses:

I'm amateur and not interested in guiding, etc... to me the biggest advantage of an organization would be to push for access and limit restrictions. Sites like yahoo and bogley are great for getting the word out and letting people know their voice should be heard (recently many of us sent letters to push for pro-canyoneer policies for grand canyon access), but an association that represents the voices of potentially thousands of people can send one letter because its constituents already have shown their support and that message would hold a lot of weight potentially. It could also help in getting out new techniques and improving safety and stuff. I know guides and businesses would want other stuff, but to me that's what matters. Maybe a very limited and loose association for big issues like access? Anyway, this may all be rehashing old stuff. I'm relatively new to the community and haven't really even looked much at the ACA, mostly just pulled route descriptions from Tom and Shane, explored a little more lately, and recently shared trips and opinions on this site.

[restrac2000]

I'm amateur and not interested in guiding, etc... to me the biggest advantage of an organization would be to push for access and limit restrictions. Sites like yahoo and bogley are great for getting the word out and letting people know their voice should be heard (recently many of us sent letters to push for pro-canyoneer policies for grand canyon access), but an association that represents the voices of potentially thousands of people can send one letter because its constituents already have shown their support and that message would hold a lot of weight potentially. It could also help in getting out new techniques and improving safety and stuff. I know guides and businesses would want other stuff, but to me that's what matters. Maybe a very limited and loose association for big issues like access? Anyway, this may all be rehashing old stuff. I'm relatively new to the community and haven't really even looked much at the ACA, mostly just pulled route descriptions from Tom and Shane, explored a little more lately, and recently shared trips and opinions on this site.

I think many of us are in that boat, Gavin. I think the separation of the pro from recreational reflects the differences you highlighted (though they can be symbiotic). An association would also continue to legitimize us as individual stakeholders and a community (which can encompass the diversity of opinions of done right). On that previous note, it doesn't take an official organization to do so but it takes a lot more work without one. Many of the vocal people on this thread do lots of work behind the scenes to makes us more powerful and sanctified in the eyes of the all the agencies with have reciprocity with. Long road. If anything, an association would/could dilute some of the personal conflicts that have haunted us for the last decade (not all I guess).

Thanks for sharing.

Phillip

[reflection]

Years back I took a course "The Art of Negotiation" from a "certain" (State of Utah) university law professor; Five years later I took the course again, the memory of the sessions, generally never leaves me. The "art and style" of negotiation and the discussion of interests vs. "tired" bottom lines. Also the acceptance and awareness of subjective and biased leanings and the necessity (in negotiation circumstances) in having someone around to correct or balance bias.

Without first addressing the supposed substance of what has flowed (in four pages); it's interesting to note the frequent offering of vulgarity and the supposed "finality and moral right" this somehow lends to a certain parties argument. It's also interesting to see some "beat the matter with a feather" and not dare show any emotion or offer critique. Still others (some of them lawyers) badger writers for questioning the corporate and association grounding of ACA by simply offering - Oh go and start your own group or business. And then some of the key players - so defensive and direct at times (and frequent dodging too).

Some in this group are barely and others greatly, familiar with the trappings of ACA and what is and isn't. For over a decade - to trainees, businesses, public safety individuals and scout groups - ACA was perceived as a "viable" corporation and structured association. Hordes of canyoneers that participated in training sessions or retreats (most of them anyway) perceived ACA as "a structured corporation and balanced Association.

To the attorneys or business parties in the group. A Dejure (in law) business operation vs. a Defacto (in fact/perceived) operation. To most/many (even some Utah County lawyers), it does NOT matter that ACA in most recent years and for most intents and purposes, NEVER was and currently is not, anything but a sole proprietorship run by RC.

Go into a court/ hearing/meeting though, in front of a state court judge, a federal judge, a forensic accountant or band of attys and the actual trappings of a corporation and association matter. Corporations holding themselves out to the public, should be current, registered and have liability insurance connected to the business. A reported "association", in most eyes, would have a creation date, board, officers and regular meetings.

Questions that have come up in the past; Who and what is ACA? Who was/is it's board, where are the bylaws, officers; and what was/is the difference between the "business and association" sides? Who vested ACA with "certification authority" beyond a RC branded diploma? And how was/is this diploma any different than a beginner and (beyond that) advanced course, where skills and required learning/testing were taught at ZAC or Zion Rock in Springdale, or a course in Moab or Blanding (or wherever). And then if one were vested with an ACA canyon leader tag (and points), who (what orgainzation) authorized that person to then start re-teaching and charging for that persons own business courses?

When ACA was originally set up, it may well have envisioned an expansive and ubiquitous organization. Regardless, it's grounding and foundation, in recent years, is primarily one individual.

The clarity or transparency that some so loudly endorse would be benefit if the ACA moniker were retired and the RC training, course direction or rondy concept re-branded to match that of a private business, distinquishable from other like minded operations. And the ACG Assoc., if it wishes to start off anew, would benefit from establishing specific training standards/tests and operate independently from ACA. OR, let a new RC business operation, operate "any way it liked" when dealing with the new canyon guiding assoc./operation.

Does any of this matter? I think to most it doesn't. (many perceive it as a private "swat" against Rich, and in this context don't feel it's fair) The matter though does resonate and matter to many others. As to Phillip, whether one courts or disagrees with him, he offers a breathtaking view of a variety of concerns that "others" have (for years) offerered re ACA & RC. And TJ and SBurrows have (long term) perspectives too; and the "main player" RC, certainly has much at stake & more than a constellation of views to represent (and respond to) - as he's got part of his own reputation and identity to deal with.

A new guiding service organization and the intended continuation of ACA (certifying people) as it's always been? If organization A and group B are both married to ACA does this matter, or should there be some distance? And if someone is or wants to be a professional guide - and join the new group - who says they have to be tethered to ACA? (they possibly or probably don't?)

Control, some folk seek to have it, and once they do, never let it go. Under some/many business models, this is acceptable practice. I have NO PROBLEM in letting or allowing RC to put his "brand" on his busines operation, and there, run his outfit as he sees fit. By way of NEW disclosure though, maybe, "ACA a RC sole proprietorship entity". OR, the disbanding of the ACA moniker and the creation or emphasis on the RC sole proprietorship, under a new "brand". When public safety or scout or other groups walk in, they can/will SEE and UNDERSTAND this is an RC operation (not ACA); the same as they would see and understand if they went to a private business in Springdale, Moab or Blanding for canyoneering training. (Each of those does/would have a private owner as head of a business operation).

And none of these private businesses reach, teach or proselytize beyond their own boundary. They are not the ACA "one true" (church) organization; but they are more than adequate (secular) highways leading canyoneers toward "safe canyons" (salvation). Yo! it's Conference time, Hallelujah! Beware of false preachers, false prophets, soiled emporers and kings. A prayer or mercy on us all? (Those with passion and relevant purpose, play - preach - on)

[Scott Card]

I am offended that I was referred to as "a Utah County lawyer", not "Scott Card, THE Utah County Lawyer".... :lol8:

I get the corporate gripes and the corporate naming gripes. I know what happens in court (remember???? Utah County Lawyer?:haha:) I guess I am most concerned about the product, the safety, the quality of training, the material, the guidelines for becoming a "certified" guide. Seems to me there was only one game in town, until recently with the ACGA being created. What is wrong with Rich's product? What else is there? What is wrong with the guide certification check list and testing? What else is there? What is so wrong with Rich teaching and being a technical director? Seriously, Seems some want the ACA, yea, even covet the name. I believe most want to gripe but very, very few people are willing to put the time and effort into doing anything, including creating something else. Very few are willing to do service or rather will in fact participate in a service project.

Thanks to Rich for all he has done for the community which has not been a small contribution by any means. Thanks to Ram for all he has done for the community, again no small contribution. Thanks to Tom for all he has done for the community and the community gear needs/wants, thanks to Shane for all he as done for the community with really good beta, and thanks to all who are responsible canyoneers and for all they do for the community. I consider all of the above named "leaders" my friends -- bickering friends at present but my friends none the less.

I still don't see anyone stepping up to the plate to organize us canyoneers....... and I don't see it happening anytime soon. And if someone does, please use and start with all the really good stuff the ACA has.

[restrac2000]

What else is there? What is wrong with the guide certification check list and testing? What else is there? What is so wrong with Rich teaching and being a technical director? Seriously, Seems some want the ACA, yea, even covet the name. I believe most want to gripe but very, very few people are willing to put the time and effort into doing anything, including creating something else. Very few are willing to do service or rather will in fact participate in a service project.



I know of more canyoneers who have committed time developing programs, training others and dispersing information than not. I actually believe very few people enjoy "griping". You could ask my wife, the time I have spent on these threads has been unsettling. Its not pleasant or easy to confront a previous mentor in public.

I do think you still simplify the issue, i.e. it has nothing to do with "coveting". For me, it has to do with honoring and protecting the limited importance the name carries. There are fundamental elements to its concept that leave me unable to accept the status quo. We differ there. I firmly believe the process is as important as the outcome, in regards to standards of practice. We seem to differ there. So it goes.

Phillip

Phillip

[xxnitsuaxx]

I don't get this. You get in your car with some friends after work on Friday. You drive down some dirt roads and throw a sleeping bag on the ground. You wake up, slide down some ropes, bury some stuff in the dirt, swim around in some water, and walk back to the same damned place you started from. Most people don't know what canyoneering is and most people wouldn't care if they did. How the hell can such a ridiculous activity (because it's sure as hell not a sport!) generate the countless wasted man-hours that have been spent on whatever the hell it is we're talking about. (7 years of school and I can't understand what everyone is yelling about.) I almost miss the assholes I was in law school with :facepalm1:

[Spidey]

that hard work often translates in dictator like control. This seems to already be affecting the ACGA.
Phillip

This statement is truly comical! Clark Myself and other's that are now members of the ACGA are so prone to and fond of Dictatorial control over us.:lol8::lol8::lol8: I could be wrong, but you seem to make the assumption that because we support the ACA, or the ACGA dare I say it, might even be friends with Rich that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves.

You have at least got me figured out. I is just to darn dumb to think for myself,:crazy: all my friends already know that though.

[restrac2000]

This statement is truly comical! Clark Myself and other's that are now members of the ACGA are so prone to and fond of Dictatorial control over us.:lol8::lol8::lol8: I could be wrong, but you seem to make the assumption that because we support the ACA, or the ACGA dare I say it, might even be friends with Rich that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves.

You have at least got me figured out. I is just to darn dumb to think for myself,:crazy: all my friends already know that though.

Do you like engaging in rational conversations or just ridiculing people, Spidey? Because you haven't ever actually done much conversing with me yet. You can disagree with the statements, thats fine. (Something like, "Hey, I'm part of the ACGA and I haven't observed that yet"). The dictator-like control was observed during my tenure with the Pro Division. Its honest and accurate. Things may be different with the ACGA but the ACA language, structure, and 100% ACA membership thus far doesn't seem promising. But like I said in my first post on this thread, I still have hope.

Never made a statement about your ability to think for yourself. And yes, your assumption is wrong. I dare say, on the internet, you either lack an interest in actually engaging in conversations or lack the skills. Which is odd because I know second hand how much people admire you in the field.

Phillip

[restrac2000]

You have at least got me figured out. I is just to darn dumb to think for myself,:crazy: all my friends already know that though.

Are you always so antagonistic and sarcastic? I have seen several of your former "students" and I wouldn't have guessed that was one of your primary characteristics.

[restrac2000]

I don't get this. You get in your car with some friends after work on Friday. You drive down some dirt roads and throw a sleeping bag on the ground. You wake up, slide down some ropes, bury some stuff in the dirt, swim around in some water, and walk back to the same damned place you started from. Most people don't know what canyoneering is and most people wouldn't care if they did. How the hell can such a ridiculous activity (because it's sure as hell not a sport!) generate the countless wasted man-hours that have been spent on whatever the hell it is we're talking about. (7 years of school and I can't understand what everyone is yelling about.) I almost miss the assholes I was in law school with :facepalm1:

As a lawyer you probably have come across Foucault's concepts of "discursive forces" or "hegemony". Directly related here. Maybe you haven't been exposed to the sociological concepts of "structure", "agency", "hierarchy" and identity yet. Either way, "our activity" is very meaningful to some of us. We build community, culture, organizations, identity and a plurality of meaning around it. Very complex stuff if you want to dive deep. Political issues abound, if you understand "politics" to mean power and non-state governance.

Oh wait, were you just trying to be sarcastic :naughty:

[xxnitsuaxx]

As a lawyer you probably have come across Foucault's concepts of "discursive forces" or "hegemony". Directly related here. Maybe you haven't been exposed to the sociological concepts of "structure", "agency", "hierarchy" and identity yet. Either way, "our activity" is very meaningful to some of us. We build community, culture, organizations, identity and a plurality of meaning around it. Very complex stuff if you want to dive deep. Political issues abound, if you understand "politics" to mean power and non-state governance.

Oh wait, were you just trying to be sarcastic :naughty:

Dude. Phil. Seriously bro. You like, blew my mind right there. Foucault - didn't he make cars or something? And I don't believe in sociological concepts either; if it's not mentioned in the Bible I don't talk about it. That's devils' talk right there.

Seriously man? Were you expecting me to be impressed at your ability to blather on about some ostensibly esoteric terms that are actually pretty basic concepts? I got a hint for you - pedantry doesn't work if the object of your condescension isn't impressed. It's pretty obvious that you misunderstood my question; you were probably trying to anthropomorphize the little facepalm guy that I used in order to parse more meaning from my question. It's perfectly reasonable that you would want to add some sort of structure to canyoneering. Personally, I see no need for it. Canyoneering is a fun way to spend a weekend for me, nothing more. If canyoneering is a strong part of your self-identity then it makes sense to create a culture around it so that you can belong. That structure and culture will inevitably result in the "hierarchy" and "agency" issues that you put "in quotation marks" so we could all be "real impressed" with your "big words". Not my cup of tea - but whatever. My issue is with the Machiavellian politicking that surrounds your attempt at "structure". This ain't international politics and it ain't multibillion dollar business deals. I'm not trying to belittle canyoneering; I love to do it myself. I'm just confused at the amount of vitriol, wasted energy, and bad feelings that surround something as seemingly simple as doing canyons.

I've got my dictionary out so you can use all the big words you want buckaroo.

[xxnitsuaxx]

Are you always so antagonistic and sarcastic? I have seen several of your former "students" and I wouldn't have guessed that was one of your primary characteristics.

PS - you're the one to whom EVERYONE is responding negatively. You think we're all just a bunch of antagonistic assholes or do your people skills need a little work? Piece of advice - if you think everyone is rude...it's probably you. That one's for free.

[Iceaxe]

I could be wrong, but you seem to make the assumption that because we support the ACA, or the ACGA dare I say it, might even be friends with Rich that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves.

Spidey, there is one item I just can't figure out in regards to your thinking..... The list of notable canyoneers that Rich has a continuing conflict with is extremely long and distinguished. It's a virtual who's who of U.S. canyoneering. Its not just a couple of them, but all of them. Most of them were strong supporters of the ACA at some point in time. Most of them donated substantial amounts of time, money and/or services to the ACA in one form or anther at some point in time. And all became disillusioned and cynical of the ACA for various reasons.

So my question to you is..... what makes you think your experience will end up any different?

Where you are, we once were.
Where we are, you will be.

[restrac2000]

Dude. Phil. Seriously bro. You like, blew my mind right there. Foucault - didn't he make cars or something? And I don't believe in sociological concepts either; if it's not mentioned in the Bible I don't talk about it. That's devils' talk right there.

Seriously man? Were you expecting me to be impressed at your ability to blather on about some ostensibly esoteric terms that are actually pretty basic concepts? I got a hint for you - pedantry doesn't work if the object of your condescension isn't impressed. It's pretty obvious that you misunderstood my question; you were probably trying to anthropomorphize the little facepalm guy that I used in order to parse more meaning from my question. It's perfectly reasonable that you would want to add some sort of structure to canyoneering. Personally, I see no need for it. Canyoneering is a fun way to spend a weekend for me, nothing more. If canyoneering is a strong part of your self-identity then it makes sense to create a culture around it so that you can belong. That structure and culture will inevitably result in the "hierarchy" and "agency" issues that you put "in quotation marks" so we could all be "real impressed" with your "big words". Not my cup of tea - but whatever. My issue is with the Machiavellian politicking that surrounds your attempt at "structure". This ain't international politics and it ain't multibillion dollar business deals. I'm not trying to belittle canyoneering; I love to do it myself. I'm just confused at the amount of vitriol, wasted energy, and bad feelings that surround something as seemingly simple as doing canyons.

I've got my dictionary out so you can use all the big words you want buckaroo.

Not quite...actually used those words because I know most lawyers have a foundation in philosophy well beyond my own. Mines limited to curiosity and my wife's degree. Big words....ah, precise words.

Concepts are pretty basic hence why I was shocked by your original response. I got your sarcasm, you got mine. I rarely engage in sarcasm much on the internet much because it often fails to communicate itself well. Just fundamentally don't understand why people "waste" their time on topics they have no investment in. I find it quite ironic. Its normally only the behavior of a troll who goes out of their way to comment on issues they have no investment or interest in. Especially when the primary gist of the comment is demean and belittle the worth of others opinions.

To your second comment.....my people skills can always use work. Never called anyone assholes on the forum. Your summation is only accurate in some ways. Some people are responding negatively (you, Spidey and Scott is what I can see; Felicia and I just misunderstood each other). I find free advice, especially from anonymous internet users, to be worth the price paid. Don't believe most of my posts have been rude to date, could be wrong.

And I don't think I am far off base on describing Spidey's comments as antagonistic and I think it is fair to guess it was intentional. And Shocked and curious as to why he can't disagree in a more civil manner.

[restrac2000]

Spidey, there is one item I just can't figure out in regards to your thinking..... The list of notable canyoneers that Rich has a continuing conflict with is extremely long and distinguished. It's a virtual who's who of U.S. canyoneering. Its not just a couple of them, but all of them. Most of them were strong supporters of the ACA at some point in time. Most of them donated substantial amounts of time, money and/or services to the ACA in one form or anther at some point in time. And all became disillusioned and cynical of the ACA for various reasons.

So my question to you is..... what makes you think your experience will end up any different?

Where you are, we once were.
Where we are, you will be.

The only exceptions I can think of are Charly, DB and Chuey. And I know Rich is honestly grateful for their help.

Phillip

[Scott Card]

For me, it has to do with honoring and protecting the limited importance the name carries.

Phillip Let me retrace my path a mile or two. IT IS NOT YOUR NAME!!!! it is not your concern. It is not my concern. Apparently no one but Rich owns the ACA. Isn't that the end of the story-- legal and moral and ethical? I am very sorry but you can't control what ain't yours. If Rich is as bad as you all say, you are not ever going to control or pay homage or protect that name. Well I guess you could pay homage but it still won't be yours and you won't have any say in it. Period.

I am not defending the ACA or Rich with these comments, just stating fact; cold, hard, fact. What is so wrong with all the big wigs starting the U.S. Canyoneering Association? The North American Canyoneering Association? The Area Formerly Known as Mexico Canyoneering Association? I don't see anyone doing that but those mentioned in the first post (i think) of this thread. I now see a promising group that has formed. This group is a group of individuals who are big boys, independent men and Rich is not on the Board (or what ever the leadership group is called -- operative word for many, "group"). Rich is involved..... (begin evil music now) da da dummmmmm. (end evil music) But under the corporate documents, he does not control anything. He can be fired. Right?

[restrac2000]

Sorry....not the ACA name.....the "Association" element. We just disagree about what options are available (or where the story ends). Doesn't seem like thats gonna change. Fair?

Phillip

[Felicia]

Just fundamentally don't understand why people "waste" their time on topics they have no investment in. I find it quite ironic. Its normally only the behavior of a troll who goes out of their way to comment on issues they have no investment or interest in.

... Felicia and I just misunderstood each other).

Gentlemen, I have no vested interest in ACGA. I'd like to think that I've been facilitative in the conversation about ACGA - at least that is my goal.

I would like to see the group move passed the past, take what they have learned from the past and try to create a positive future. All of you are very articulate and are able to stand your ground. All of you have assets to offer. I suggest you focus on what you would like to see from an entity such as ACGA.

Years back I told Rich, in public on Bogley, that I thought he was a mean and vindictive man. My definition of mean was "in the middle" and my definition of vindictive was "Having a tendency to seek revenge when wronged". For the record I used a dictionary and chose those two words purposefully. It's not my character to be 'mean' or confrontational. I generally consider myself a watcher and not a player. Rich has been evolving - I would like to see movement from everyone.

I'm interested in seeing all this conversation amount to something positive - even if it means that there is no need for such an entity.

Felicia

[restrac2000]

Though.....I guess we also disagree on who's concern it is. If you don't want it to be yours thats fine. You haven't made a compelling enough argument that its not mine.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

What is so wrong with all the big wigs starting the U.S. Canyoneering Association? The North American Canyoneering Association? The Area Formerly Known as Mexico Canyoneering Association? I don't see anyone doing that but those mentioned in the first post

What makes you think we need an umbrella organization or that an umbrella organization is the best approach?

And I still remember dealing with Zion NP when the whole permit thing happened. It went something like this:

Ice: Gosh Zion NP, I think the proposed permit system is too restrictive.

Zion NP: Well the ACA thinks we are taking the correct approach.

And this has nothing to do with any actual conversations that the ACA might have had with the park. It was the fact that the ACA's opionion carried a lot of weight with Zion NP. Zion was under the misstaken impression that the ACA was the collective voice of a large group of canyoneers. That is why I have problems with Association name being used by an individual.

[Felicia]

What makes you think we need an umbrella organization or that an umbrella organization is the best approach?

And I still remember dealing with Zion NP when the whole permit thing happened. It went something like this:

Ice: Gosh Zion NP, I think the proposed permit system is too restrictive.

Zion NP: Well the ACA thinks we are taking the correct approach.

And this has nothing to do with any actual conversations that the ACA might have had with the park. It was the fact that the ACA's opionion carried a lot of weight with Zion NP. Zion was under the misstaken impression that the ACA was the collective voice of a large group of canyoneers. That is why I have problems with Association name being used by an individual.

So what would you do if you could have the name American Canyoneering Association?

:ne_nau:

[Iceaxe]

I believe most the "big wigs" as Scott calls them are opposed to an umbrella organization for numerous reasons.

Personally I believe an Umbrella organization is detrimental to the sport. I prefer to support my causes buffet style.

[restrac2000]

Changes:

http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?4870-ACA-Needs-a-New-Owner

[Iceaxe]

ACA Needs a New Owner

It is time for me to leave.

If you haven't heard, I screwed up and let the ACA corporate filings expire. Notices were sent to an old PO box and were never received. It would be simple enough to remedy; pay the past due filing fees and late fees. But the situation has provided an opportunity for me to do some soul searching. The ACA now is nothing like I originally envisioned. Unlikely it will ever reach its full potential without some new blood.

The ACA exists in name only now and with this website. I intend to give it to someone who can come up with a good plan for it in the future. Post in this thread what YOU will do with it. Share your vision with others and be willing to follow through with that vision.

On November 1st, I will post a poll so everyone can vote on their favorite plan for the future. I will give this website and the rights to the name to the person who receives the most votes. They can take it from there.



I'll believe it when the moving van backs up to the ACA doors. This is not Rich's first melt down. Those who have been around for a while have seen this exact same movie before.

Rich posts this stuff to rally the ACA supporters so they will beg him to stay and post warm fuzzy threads. Same old story, just a different day...

:-)

[restrac2000]

Don't like the odds associated with betting on this one but I am more idealistic. Never been good at predicting long term outcomes myself.

Phillip

Edit: Hope someone with a positive approach gets voted the new owner.

[Spidey]

Spidey, there is one item I just can't figure out in regards to your thinking..... The list of notable canyoneers that Rich has a continuing conflict with is extremely long and distinguished. It's a virtual who's who of U.S. canyoneering. Its not just a couple of them, but all of them. Most of them were strong supporters of the ACA at some point in time. Most of them donated substantial amounts of time, money and/or services to the ACA in one form or anther at some point in time. And all became disillusioned and cynical of the ACA for various reasons.

So my question to you is..... what makes you think your experience will end up any different?

Where you are, we once were.
Where we are, you will be.

I Never tried to predict the future Shane. I replied to the insinuation that any of us that are now making up the ACGA are incapable of thinking for ourselves. Phil has pointed out my assumption was wrong, that although I believe his language implied that he did not mean that, issue resolved.

As for you and I ever being in the same place?:lol8::lol8: Other than possibly being physically in the same vicinity as each other at points in time.

[ratagonia]

I could be wrong, but you seem to make the assumption that because we support the ACA, or the ACGA dare I say it, might even be friends with Rich that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves.



Overstated.

I make the assumption that you have not yet had a conflict of any kind with Rich.

Come back and chat after you have.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

Dude. Phil. Seriously bro. You like, blew my mind right there. Foucault - didn't he make cars or something? And I don't believe in sociological concepts either; if it's not mentioned in the Bible I don't talk about it. That's devils' talk right there.

Seriously man? Were you expecting me to be impressed at your ability to blather on about some ostensibly esoteric terms that are actually pretty basic concepts? I got a hint for you - pedantry doesn't work if the object of your condescension isn't impressed. It's pretty obvious that you misunderstood my question; you were probably trying to anthropomorphize the little facepalm guy that I used in order to parse more meaning from my question. It's perfectly reasonable that you would want to add some sort of structure to canyoneering. Personally, I see no need for it. Canyoneering is a fun way to spend a weekend for me, nothing more. If canyoneering is a strong part of your self-identity then it makes sense to create a culture around it so that you can belong. That structure and culture will inevitably result in the "hierarchy" and "agency" issues that you put "in quotation marks" so we could all be "real impressed" with your "big words". Not my cup of tea - but whatever. My issue is with the Machiavellian politicking that surrounds your attempt at "structure". This ain't international politics and it ain't multibillion dollar business deals. I'm not trying to belittle canyoneering; I love to do it myself. I'm just confused at the amount of vitriol, wasted energy, and bad feelings that surround something as seemingly simple as doing canyons.

I've got my dictionary out so you can use all the big words you want buckaroo.

While Phillip has lived in Southern Utah for a number of years, he still has hope of finding people to have actual sophisticated, intellectual discussions with - ya know, with multi-syllable words et al.

Sorry Phillip. Try again elsewhere. Even the lawyers here (down south) are anti-intellectuals.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

PS - you're the one to whom EVERYONE is responding negatively. You think we're all just a bunch of antagonistic assholes or do your people skills need a little work? Piece of advice - if you think everyone is rude...it's probably you. That one's for free.

All true canyoneers respond to Phillip's discourse negatively. Tom does not respond to Phillip's discourse negatively. Therefore Tom is not a true canyoneer.

And you're a lawyer? :facepalm1:

:moses:

[ratagonia]

Let me retrace my path a mile or two. IT IS NOT YOUR NAME!!!! it is not your concern. It is not my concern. Apparently no one but Rich owns the ACA. Isn't that the end of the story-- legal and moral and ethical? I am very sorry but you can't control what ain't yours. If Rich is as bad as you all say, you are not ever going to control or pay homage or protect that name. Well I guess you could pay homage but it still won't be yours and you won't have any say in it. Period.

I am not defending the ACA or Rich with these comments, just stating fact; cold, hard, fact. What is so wrong with all the big wigs starting the U.S. Canyoneering Association? The North American Canyoneering Association? The Area Formerly Known as Mexico Canyoneering Association? I don't see anyone doing that but those mentioned in the first post (i think) of this thread. I now see a promising group that has formed. This group is a group of individuals who are big boys, independent men and Rich is not on the Board (or what ever the leadership group is called -- operative word for many, "group"). Rich is involved..... (begin evil music now) da da dummmmmm. (end evil music) But under the corporate documents, he does not control anything. He can be fired. Right?

I don't know, Scott. Fraudulent name, we have a report from someone who was defrauded. Sounds like CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT time to me. Gotta watch some late night TV, get that guy's phone numba...

:moses:

[Spidey]

Are you always so antagonistic and sarcastic? I have seen several of your former "students" and I wouldn't have guessed that was one of your primary characteristics.

No not alway's, but I certainly can be, if I feel a comment post, or thread warrant's it. You have informed me I read to much into that remark, issue resolved.

As for my ability to have constructive dialogue, feel free to assume whatever you want.

[restrac2000]

Try not to assume to much but your contributions thus far haven't given me much hope. Still have some, we share respected friends.

Phillip

[ratagonia]

Try not to assume to much but your contributions thus far haven't given me much hope. Still have some, we share respected friends.

Phillip

Spidey is a great guy in corpus, but has yet to settle on an Internet Persona. :bandit:

:moses:

[oldno7]

I'll believe it when the moving van backs up to the ACA doors. This is not Rich's first melt down. Those who have been around for a while have seen this exact same movie before.

Rich posts this stuff to rally the ACA supporters so they will beg him to stay and post warm fuzzy threads. Same old story, just a different day...

:-)


Heres my quote from this thread--I still stand behind it in every way.

"Same book, different chapter, same ending...................:facepalm1:"

Looks as if we are in complete agreement....

[Scott Card]

Changes:

http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?4870-ACA-Needs-a-New-Owner

Well, there is your golden ticket to Wonka land. Feel better now? We'll see who wins the "prize" although I am not sure with this group and the egos that exist in it that I would go anywhere near that "prize".

[Scott Card]

I believe most the "big wigs" as Scott calls them are opposed to an umbrella organization for numerous reasons.

Personally I believe an Umbrella organization is detrimental to the sport. I prefer to support my causes buffet style.

Frankly, I probably agree with you. I do like a training entity and I like standards. I particularly like the idea that there will be an association of guides that have testing and peer reviews. I like that. But as you can tell after about 12-13 years of active canyoneering, I never did join the ACA although I have sent several people their way for training. Time never worked for me to go get formal training. I have been the beneficiary of their training, however. Should there be canyoneering organization to cover me? I don't really care. If I like it I join, if i disagree with what they may represent to Zion Park I can write my own letter and tell them they don't represent me. It just seems in the past the membership and organization of the ACA seemed to suggest that they in fact did represent a whole bunch of people, whether a majority or not I don't know. It didn't matter because I never joined or quit or got offended.

[Scott Card]

How about 6 pages on this thread. Come on people, we are close. :haha:

[restrac2000]

Well, there is your golden ticket to Wonka land. Feel better now? We'll see who wins the "prize" although I am not sure with this group and the egos that exist in it that I would go anywhere near that "prize".

We'll likely never meet as I don't participate much in the larger circle of canyoneers anymore. That said, there is nothing about the outcome that was ever gonna make me feel "better"? I think people assume providing a dissenting voice is fun and easy. Its not.

Do I think it could lead to better outcomes. Yep. Will it? Time will tell. I think there may be people out there who can take it on. I have already passed on emails to about five folks in the larger outdoor/canyoneering community who I know have professional contacts. Who knows how many highly qualified people may come out of the woodwork. But I think its fair to say that most of us who have been vocal aren't the proper ones to take it on.

I actually wish Rich the best and think he could do wonders in the private sector.

Phillip

[Scott Card]

Gotta watch some late night TV, get that guy's phone numba...

:moses: And that there is the reason I will never advertise (on TV or Radio).....:haha: I am not one of "them."

[tanya]

I just want to know what kind of shoes Tom is wearing in that picture. :mrgreen:

[Petzl_Pretzel]

Is hanging on a single friction hitch still a part of the curriculum that is taught? {Satire unintended...just curious}

[Iceaxe]

I Never tried to predict the future Shane. I replied to the insinuation that any of us that are now making up the ACGA are incapable of thinking for ourselves. Phil has pointed out my assumption was wrong, that although I believe his language implied that he did not mean that, issue resolved.

As for you and I ever being in the same place?:lol8::lol8: Other than possibly being physically in the same vicinity as each other at points in time.


You remind me of the woman that marries the serial killer while he is in prision.....

Outside of his dining habits I'm sure Jeffery Dahmer was a nice guy...... :eat:

:bert:

[restrac2000]

This "PissAnt" has been officially banned from the ACA forum for asking relevant questions that have been deemed "ignorant and moot". For those wishing either to see success with the ACA or possibly take it over I would suggest using the ACA forum to ask the important, pertinent business questions that make or break its future direction.

I hope more folks (even if they are a possible minority) speak up on the ACA forum to help direct its future. In the past similar announcements have happened for the ACA. If anybody out there actually wants to see new leadership in the ACA than I suggest keeping the direction of the ACA thread relevant to the ACA success and not solely about Rich. There are hard and important questions about the ACA's infrastructure that need to be asked and answered over the next month if it is to move on. I hope someone is willing to ask them.

For those wondering why so many of the people vocal about the ACA have brought Rich's personality into the equation than I don't think you have to look any further than what just happened on their forum. A paid member (all courses) and one of the few who actually wrote a check to the Pro Division was just banned from the forums he helped make possible. This happened subjectively and solely because of my dissenting view. That doesn't happen in professional environments.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

If the future of the ACA is really up for grabs.... The ACA needs to be set up with a 12 member (or more) Board of Directors established by a vote of its membership. Board members should serve a 2 year term with the terms staggered so 6 members are up for vote every year. The initial 12 can be anyone willing to sit on the BOD with the first official election for all 12 seats set for 3 months in the future. All 12 initial seats would be up for vote with those receiving the most votes being put into the initial 2 year positions and the bottom six only serving one year to get things rolling.

A resolution passes when the BOD votes for an item and it wins by a simple majority. All BOD members share power equally. The future direction of the ACA would be established after the first official democratic election.

That sounds simple enough to me....

[CarpeyBiggs]

thanks yet again for giving us a lovely glimpse into the delusional world of rich carlson! stay classy! :eek2:

it's a shame you didn't leave it up long enough for everyone to get a look at the side of rich carlson we've all come to love over the years. :facepalm1:

[CarpeyBiggs]

thanks yet again for giving us a lovely glimpse into the delusional world of rich carlson! stay classy! :eek2:

it's a shame you didn't leave it up long enough for everyone to get a look at the side of rich carlson we've all come to love over the years. :facepalm1:

(for those following along at home, rich just posted a series of outbursts on the ACA site calling phillip a blathering idiot, regularly referring to him as "pissant," referring to a series of private emails where apparently many people concurred with the assessment. of course, after rich realized what a douche he looks like, he removed the posts...)

[restrac2000]

He moved them to thread called "piss ants"

[restrac2000]

He also dismissed the only questions and ideas about the future direction of the ACA. The thread is turning into a reflection of Rich's ego which is the worst possible outcome. The forum has served as a supplement to his ego for years. If he is successful, and his has been in the past, than the he will create a rally of enough folks to make him stay. That would be a bad outcome.

The direction of the future ACA appears to be filtered through Rich's bias. That is already manifesting itself on the thread designed to poll the next possible leader. Anyone outside his circle of influence is gonna have to be real savvy to avoid being ousted by his incessant filtering.

[CarpeyBiggs]

ah, perfect. when i looked at it the first time, it was there, not there the second. here's the updated link - http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?4872-Piss-Ants

is this just another of rich's attempts to look for sympathy? it's like deja vu every six months at the ACA. he threatens to quit, a few people express their undying love and affection for him, and he stays on again... only to repeat the process yet again.

i think the statement i made early on in this thread has turned out to be rather prophetic... "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"

[rcwild]

thanks yet again for giving us a lovely glimpse into the delusional world of rich carlson! stay classy! :eek2:

it's a shame you didn't leave it up long enough for everyone to get a look at the side of rich carlson we've all come to love over the years. :facepalm1:

Still there. Just moved it to its own "Piss Ant" thread -- http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?4872-Piss-Ants

[backofbeyond]

ah,

i think the statement i made early on in this thread has turned out to be rather prophetic... "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"

So a Carpey repeats his folly?

[restrac2000]

So, Rich, how are specific business question "irrelevant and moot"? If you are actually handing over control and letting a vote decide than why have you already minimized the responses of the only two people who have engaged the directives of the thread?

Love the "professional student" idea.....hehe. Another shallow jab. In case you were curious, didn't go to college from fall 2009 to Summer 2011 because of medical bills associated with my rare disease known as Ischemic Optic Neuropathy. Spent that time getting back to work and paying off medical bills. Just returned this summer to finnish my degree (finally!). Graduating with one extra semester under my belt because I had to withdraw mid semester in 2009 when I lost the majority of my peripheral vision.

As far as a fellow student believing I am a piss ant....who cares. I am learning and actually reading the assigned material.

Best of luck, Rich. I have no doubt that you will actually do better with "Canyons and Crags". Its a shame you never chose to engage my ideas and instead just insulted me; didn't need to go down that way. The entire series of threads started when you failed to accept a compliment. Actually happened twice now, when I was trying to defend the potential of the ACGA.

Phillip

[restrac2000]

Just for those who are curious....Back of Beyond is James Milligan, Rich's intern. He is also the other student who Rich claims believes I am a piss ant from his shared time in a course at SUU.

Phillip

[mdd]

This "PissAnt" has been officially banned from the ACA forum for asking relevant questions that have been deemed "ignorant and moot". For those wishing either to see success with the ACA or possibly take it over I would suggest using the ACA forum to ask the important, pertinent business questions that make or break its future direction.

Phillip, just let it go. I think the ACA is beyond repair now

[backofbeyond]

Just for those who are curious....Back of Beyond is James Milligan, Rich's intern. He is also the other student who Rich claims believes I am a piss ant from his shared time in a course at SUU.

Phillip

You solved another mystery! Good boy Happy Feet. I'm pretty sure who I am is old news, To clarify the words Piss Ant in association with Phillip have never crossed my lips. Another case of you having the wrong fact, I will go out on a ledge and assume you are referring to me as the fellow student who is not learning or reading the assigned material. This is another assumption on your behalf.

[Scott Card]

Let me end where I began....:facepalm1: The costumes have come off and yes, this is officially, in my humble opinion, a Rich bashing thread. Pathetic really. Very little to do with the ACA really and virtually nothing to do with the ACGA in this thread. :facepalm1:

For the record, I still see great value in the ACA. The product is still very very good. I personally think the name and the trained ACA certified guides still carry a bunch of clout. I may be wrong but just my opinion.

And wow, I am not sure I have ever seen anyone so consumed with so much nastiness towards another human being (OK I have but not over something that is fun like canyoneering. Not like a divorce here people). Getting miffed or your feelings hurt is one thing but holy cow..... let it go.

[tanya]

Thank you Rich for all your years of hard work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hail2thechief::hail2thechief::hail2thechief::hail 2thechief::hail2thechief::hail2thechief::hail2thec hief::hail2thechief::hail2thechief::hail2thechief: :hail2thechief:


All this drama must be hard to deal with. I wish you the best of luck in whatever it is that you decided to do.

[restrac2000]

Sorry if my previous comments leant to the idea that others were not reading or learning, that was unintentional wording (i.e. I was saying I don't care how others view me as I am getting what I need out of the class). I did assume it was you Rich was referring to......the problem with him being so ambiguous is I have to guess. Seems to fair to guess on my part when a character assasination is going on at canyoneering.net. So it goes, I was wrong. Guess there are more Rich allies there than I knew.

Phillip

[CarpeyBiggs]

So a Carpey repeats his folly?
absolutely. it's a reflection of the whole "community." i know you are new to the scene, and probably don't quite understand all the politicking or backstories, but this has been happening ever since i can remember (2007 is when i came into the scene, so i'm still not as jaded as the folks who've been around it for a decade...) but, it's always the same. people try to pay rich a compliment, he spins it into something full of drama, people try to engage him to discuss the situation, he throws a fit and goes ape shit, never answers any questions, alienates a whole bunch more people, threatens to quit, and then a handful of people jump in and tell him he is god, he suddenly gets another shot of confidence, reaffirms his commitment to the ACA, only for the whole shitshow to repeat yet again in 6 months...

so yes, safe to say i've contributed to that cycle. i just hope this is the last dying gasps before it all just dies, and the ACA disappears for good. :2thumbs:

[JONBOYLEMON]

I just lost the desire to ever try a canyon.....

[restrac2000]

Let me end where I began....:facepalm1: The costumes have come off and yes, this is officially, in my humble opinion, a Rich bashing thread. Pathetic really. Very little to do with the ACA really and virtually nothing to do with the ACGA in this thread. :facepalm1:

For the record, I still see great value in the ACA. The product is still very very good. I personally think the name and the trained ACA certified guides still carry a bunch of clout. I may be wrong but just my opinion.

Come on, Scott. Yep, the President of the ACA has the interpersonal an professional skills of a child. He has gotten bashed, so it goes. Rich is a political figure with power in the field......his name and ideas will be attacked. But I think when look back over the vast majority of the threads you will those who may be "bashing" him started with good intent and constructive language. But there is only so long before you occasionally slip into the language Rich himself uses so regularly.

I have actually tried to engage Rich and have admitted mistakes when I have made them (just did in this thread). Rich has never shown such effort (other than the very vague "I failed, nuff said).

Phillip

Phillip

[restrac2000]

[QUOTE=mdd;474462]Phillip, just let it go. I think the ACA is beyond repair now

[restrac2000]

Let me end where I began....:facepalm1: The costumes have come off and yes, this is officially, in my humble opinion, a Rich bashing thread. Pathetic really. Very little to do with the ACA really and virtually nothing to do with the ACGA in this thread. :facepalm1:

For the record, I still see great value in the ACA. The product is still very very good. I personally think the name and the trained ACA certified guides still carry a bunch of clout. I may be wrong but just my opinion.

And wow, I am not sure I have ever seen anyone so consumed with so much nastiness towards another human being (OK I have but not over something that is fun like canyoneering. Not like a divorce here people). Getting miffed or your feelings hurt is one thing but holy cow..... let it go.

Its not really malice ....

But there is at least one other person out there filled with such nastiness.....

He constantly used words like "piss ant", "BS" "crap" "a*s*o*e", etc on a regular basis. He does't discredit the behavior of the person (which is what I try to do, I may be imperfect) but just simply attacks them.

Look hard at the person you defend, Scott. The bashing his almost always started with him. Shane, Tom, ATS, and now me to just name a few.

Phillip

[backofbeyond]

Sorry if my previous comments leant to the idea that others were not reading or learning, that was unintentional wording (i.e. I was saying I don't care how others view me as I am getting what I need out of the class). I did assume it was you Rich was referring to......the problem with him being so ambiguous is I have to guess. Seems to fair to guess on my part when a character assasination is going on at canyoneering.net. So it goes, I was wrong. Guess there are more Rich allies there than I knew.

Phillip

Thanks for clarifying your intent Philip. For the record I did refer to you as "some asshole" just a few minutes ago when my wife was wondering why the sudden attack against me. I will withdraw that negative connotation as I now see we both perceived your intent inaccurately.

[restrac2000]

Thanks for clarifying your intent Philip. For the record I did refer to you as "some asshole" just a few minutes ago when my wife was wondering why the sudden attack against me. I will withdraw that negative connotation as I now see we both perceived your intent inaccurately.

Sorry to add any tension. I decided to join that class right when Judy joined the yahoo group and made some passive comments about me. We solved our differences via email afterwards to maintain some decorum in the classroom. I made the mistake of assuming it was you out of guilt by association, which always dangerous and poor logic. Sorry again. I try to keep my defensive walls low but often fail.

Phillip

[backofbeyond]

Sorry to add any tension. I made the mistake of assuming it was you out of guilt by association, which always dangerous and poor logic.
Phillip

No problem, I am used to the "guilt by association" bag I drag around here on Bogely.
.

[restrac2000]

Thats a shame. I know the ACA has some smart and hard working folks in it and try to refrain from making accusations about everyone involved in it. Heck, one of my favorite mentors has maintained a working relationship with Rich for 15 years.

Hope you get what you need out of the internship. Hope there is some framework in place to help you through November 1.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

No problem, I am used to the "guilt by association" bag I drag around here on Bogely.

48424

[nelsonccc]

Wow. Just read this entire thread and the one over on the ACA site. I've always heard great things about Rich and the classes offered. I've been doing canyons since 1998 when I first did Pine Creek and truly started 'canyoneering'. I still consider myself new. I probably would have benefited from an ACA course in the early days since most of my rope experiece came from doing aid climbing and big walls. I hope the classes are still offered for those that need it.

From this thread it appears that there are those who don;t like Rich and those who do. This Phillip guy sounds like a bit of a crybaby. I would in no way consider myself aware of all the issues or be naive enough to think that there is even a shred of truth being posted on here from any of those involved in this latest round of canyoneering politics. BUT......from just reading this thread it appears that this Phillip guy has a bone to pick and is actively trying to make this into a Rich bashing thread.

I'm not sure who posted it but someone said that it's just canyoneering. I agree. It's just not that complicated. If someone is unhappy with the ACA then start your own thing and quit crying.

[reflection]

And the merry-go-round continues, except the different riders (players) mostly speak different code talk and narrative. Speak to an issue and interests? No, blather vulgarity, attack, deny, simplify, dodge and then avoid cogent issues "some" have offered. Some seem to honestly engage; others lack the instinct, skill or interest....others scoff.

A concern (issue) I/others have voiced is the use of the term "Association" and image "branding" when the ACA corporate and organizational structure is NOT a registered collective class of people, but rather an individual. Some on this site - even 'reported lawyers" - seem to care less and are apathetic in engaging on the point. OR, the game dodge-em arrives and the "evidence" suggests folk should just strap up and go canyoneering, and move away from this "conflict" muddle.

Some/so many seem to either lack the insight re activity in the ACA (RC) for the past decade, or they are insulted that "a public figure" is being spoken about. Others malign the ideal that this continuing drama has any relevance in any setting.

I/others remember years back, speaking with "Ray and Cindy" in Zion, ideas were tossed about, options offered and the "bottom line" became, "Oh, ACA has endorsed what we are offering". The sweetest sound, the canyon wren calling...who needs a point of view if ACA dogma offers. (but that's in the past....?)

Long ago Shane rode into town (RC) and (thought he) brought order to the troubled canyoneering valley? But now Shane apparently saddles up and asks someone (anybody? really?) to save the day (purchase the web & organizational name). The big tent, maybe, never fit the business model of the modern day canyoneering crowd. Delusional really to toss the "ownership" to an unknown and untested bidder. A more responsible offering would be to let the ACA brand lapse, continue Canyons and Crags (if that's RC wish) and run training and courses under that name and moniker (Canyons and Crags, a dba for the sole proprietor RC). The web site could be re branded as Canyoneering, for the masses. And future canyon fests? - once upon a time Tom Fests - RC, C &C Zion Cyn fest. Nothing wrong with that in my view. Full disclosure and folk knowing what they are, and are not, connecting to.

November 1, a draw down; or maybe, instead of passing the baton (a real bad idea) the lead actor "in this play" could continue with much of what he is doing, but this time do it under his own personal name and "small" private business. Nothing stops him from continuing to send out emails, organize, teach, train and sponsor events. And with that ACA crown taken off his head, he will have no one to respond to but himself, and the direction he seeks professionally or personally to pursue will be his alone.

The gift of imagination? Imagining what another might think and feel. I don't have to agree with others and others need not agree with me. But then the cognitive offerings, or lack of, amazing really as some/so many scoff at serious engagement in discussion. And yes the dark drama, the stage curtain closes, but maybe only temporarily, until the genie puts a new "heart/soul" in RC and ACA (re-directed) sails on once again? Who knows? And then of course who, just who, has a stake (say) in all of this, and who really should ride with the banner? Those ACA canyon leaders, or those wishing to have nothing to do with the ACA canyon leadership (and it's points) program? Points of view from various corners, most sullied, if they don't match "another speakers" state of mind.

How to "simplify"? Let the ACA organizational and web name slide, and if you/he RC like, continue the vision/program/energy under the C&C registered dba moniker. But then some would say of course, this is nobodys' business but RC's? Well, welcome to the land of public and public figures; where most often, public opinion matters; but then some (naysayers) would argue with that - oh yea - lets just go do canyons, this is all a big fricken waste of time? Oops, the canyon wren just got swallowed by a raven. (who cares, about a point of view, and who cares to be civil and cogent in a discussion - by golly, lets be boistrous and brash, and shout, shout some more, - so mind numbing? so insightful and intellectual?) Lemmings, running to the rescue or running off a canyon cliff (really)?

And this new Canyon Guide Assoc. They should be able to pull interested parties from a quiver of training venues all over the west. Why does someone need to be an ACA canyon leader, if they have at least, comparative training and tutoring elsewhere? And really folk, want to be a guide? Print a card, get a web site and lodge a liability insurance policy with an agency. Apply with the FS or BLM, or operate on private land. Once you start guiding, no one will know or care that you have either "virtual or real" training. The arc of professional guiding on public lands..another discussion for another day.

[restrac2000]

This Phillip guy seems like a whiny bitch.
BUT......from just reading this thread it appears that this Phillip guy has a bone to pick and is actively trying to make this into a Rich bashing thread.



Could be. Not the reason I started engaging the ideas or thread. Feel free to guess at my intent though.

Phillip

[rcwild]

I/others remember years back, speaking with "Ray and Cindy" in Zion, ideas were tossed about, options offered and the "bottom line" became, "Oh, ACA has endorsed what we are offering". The sweetest sound, the canyon wren calling...who needs a point of view if ACA dogma offers. (but that's in the past....?)

Mr. Lewis,

Next time you talk to Ray ask him who came into his office claiming to be the access coordinator for the ACA. You might find it entertaining. It wasn't me.

[nat]

Wow.

This Phillip guy seems like a whiny bitch.
.

Wow...to refer to someone as a "whiny bitch" (someone who hasn't used any such language in any of his many posts on this thread), all I can say is: look in the mirror.

Nat

[Sombeech]

Thanks to Rich for all he has done for the community which has not been a small contribution by any means. Thanks to Ram for all he has done for the community, again no small contribution. Thanks to Tom for all he has done for the community and the community gear needs/wants, thanks to Shane for all he as done for the community with really good beta, and thanks to all who are responsible canyoneers and for all they do for the community.
Too bad, this seems like a great team right here.

You guys should go to some marriage counseling and just get to the part where they say "pick a thing about your partner you don't like, and just drop it" for hell's sake.

[mdd]

You guys should go to some marriage counseling and just get to the part where they say "pick a thing about your partner you don't like, and just drop it" for hell's sake.

As a coworker of mine is fond of saying, "This is like snowshoeing through a river of shit".

To be honest the best post I've seen from all of this is the suggestion that bogley take over the ACA. And that is because bogley-ites seem to be the only ones acting like rational, adult people in all of this. Which is pretty telling if you think about it.

Either that or this is an elaborate community-wide punking put on by Phillip and Rich.

Barring that I think a lot of posters on here, the ACA site and the egroup should take a vacation from posting. Please? Just a few day cooling off period?


M

[restrac2000]

As a coworker of mine is fond of saying, "This is like snowshoeing through a river of shit".

To be honest the best post I've seen from all of this is the suggestion that bogley take over the ACA. And that is because bogley-ites seem to be the only ones acting like rational, adult people in all of this. Which is pretty telling if you think about it.

Either that or this is an elaborate community-wide punking put on by Phillip and Rich.

Barring that I think a lot of posters on here, the ACA site and the egroup should take a vacation from posting. Please? Just a few day cooling off period?


M

Not a punk, never figured out the subtleties of internet humor to pull any joke off, nonetheless one of this scale ;^)

There will likely be a few day cooling off period simply because its the weekend, not as much use on the forums then. Makes sense.

At this point, I firmly believe such mitigation likely only leads to the ACA status quo. I can't control that as a long term outcome but so much but I can direct my actions to try and prevent that.

There are times (99% of the time in regards to the ACA) where I have taken much greater diplomatic care with my approach. I can't do that anymore. We just differ in that regard, in this specific situation, I guess Mike.

Phillip

[tanya]

Too bad, this seems like a great team right here.

There are too many macho men and egos in the room - you all need to make room for some energetic kid who does not take sides!

It's entertaining, but I know its not easy on your old hearts guys! You are all getting up there and can't take a lot of of this anymore. :mrgreen:

Why is the ACA not ran like the business with one owner in charge anyway instead of having all this fighting? As a business owner I sure would not want a board telling me how to do things. I want to do them my way. That's where the fun is. I know many of you own your own business as well and would not want anyone telling you what do to.

But then I have not read all the posts and may be totally on the wrong track? .. but I just felt like chiming in.

[airman]

As was said elsewhere, following this thread is like slowing down on the freeway to take a closer look at a wreck. And I'll add that it sounds like talk radio in the background.

eclipsee_steering :facepalm1:

From the viewpoint of someone who loves canyons more than politics, the relentless implementation of good ideas over endless complaining, and words of encouragement over malice, please tone it down.

Can't we all just get along?

:five:

Believe me, I get the point. I don't support unethical and deceptive practices, like holding out a private business as an association. I don't know enough to make a firm conclusion that that's want's going on here, but if it is, I totally empathize with the frustration. Candidly, I know very little about the ACA.

But in the end, I'd suggest there are better ways of handling the conflict than on an internet forum. Actually do something about it that might make a real difference. Call the person, sit down with them, reason together. Be civil. Don't fight fire with fire. Work it out. But by all means, please set your ego aside, put away the vinegar, and be cool. :cool2: If that doesn't work, I doubt anything else will. If you've been there, done that, then go compete in the marketplace. Be the solution. As a last resort, our society has provided a formal means for resolving disputes. It's expensive and I don't recommend it. But fixing it is more effective than complaining about it. :2thumbs:

[spinesnaper]

This is inside baseball. I think one is seeing the growing pains that every organization must go through. I hope a leadership core comes together to resolve this in a positive way. I see no reason why an ACA can't be a professionally run, not for profit, that looks to the best interests of a growing American canyoneering community. As such, it can look forward to the support of dues paying members. Inevitably with this type of organization, there will be many more members than the active leadership core. Politically it is not always best if the most unhappy vocal individuals come to the forefront and take up the mantle of leadership. Ultimately what counts is the concerted action of a dedicated core of like minded individuals. Once you've got that figured out, please let the rest of us know where to send the membership checks and what the sportscience t-shirt will look like.

Ken

[nelsonccc]

Wow...to refer to someone as a "whiny bitch" (someone who hasn't used any such language in any of his many posts on this thread), all I can say is: look in the mirror.

Nat

You're right, fixed it.

What I was trying to say is that from the outside looking in and reading all this, the phillip guy keeps saying the same thing over and over. We get it, ad nauseam. That was the point I was trying to make. He seems like a petulant child that doesn't get to play with someone elses toys. That may or may not be true but after reading all of this, that's the impression I got.

[restrac2000]

You're right, fixed it.

What I was trying to say is that from the outside looking in and reading all this, the phillip guy keeps saying the same thing over and over. We get it, ad nauseam. That was the point I was trying to make. He seems like a petulant child that doesn't get to play with someone elses toys. That may or may not be true but after reading all of this, that's the impression I got.

Both Piss Ant (thought Little Piss Ant always sounds better) and Petulant Child both have a nice ring to them.

I agree that many people get that impression.

Phillip

[tanya]

I have no clue who Phillip is, but Nelson is awesome and certainly far too large to be a piss ant. :mrgreen:

[Iceaxe]

Actually do something about it that might make a real difference.

Hahaa.... but that is where the problem orginiates.... all of those commenting, complaining or whining have done something about it. They all have invested a tremendous amount of time, money and energy into the sport of canyoneering and they are not happy that their contribution and/or work is being rip apart and undermined by anther party. The reason some of this is being handled in a open forum is that has provan to be the only way to actually get anything done in a transparent manner...

To the noob or casual participate of canyoneering.... I get it, I understand you don't have a grasp on why this stuff is important, but understand it is, or all the old dogs would not be growing at each other. This story has a long back history over 12 years in the making. It would be in the sports best interest if you at least tried to understand a little of what this is about.

But at least understand... Every time you stand in a permit line, rappel from a bolt, hire a guide, access through private property, descend a pristine all natural route, access beta, take a canyon class.... you are experiencing a portion of what this food fight is all about.... Things should all shake out in the end for the better, so just hang on and enjoy the show for now.....

:cool2:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Hahaa.... but that is where the problem orginiates.... all of those commenting, complaining or whining have done something about it. They all have invested a tremendous amount of time, money and energy into the sport of canyoneering and they are not happy that their contribution and/or work is being rip apart and undermined by anther party. The reason some of this is being handled in a open forum is that has provan to be the only way to actually get anything done in a transparent manner...

To the noob or casual participate of canyoneering.... I get it, I understand you don't have a grasp on why this stuff is important, but understand it is, or all the old dogs would not be growing at each other. This story has a long back history over 12 years in the making. It would be in the sports best interest if you at least tried to understand a little of what this is about.

But at least understand... Every time you stand in a permit line, rappel from a bolt, hire a guide, access through private property, descend a pristine all natural route, access beta, take a canyon class.... you are experiencing a portion of what this food fight is all about.... Things should all shake out in the end for the better, so just hang on and enjoy the show for now.....

:cool2:

echoes a lot of my thoughts as well. thanks shane. :2thumbs:

[Iceaxe]

Mr. Lewis,

Next time you talk to Ray ask him who came into his office claiming to be the access coordinator for the ACA. You might find it entertaining. It wasn't me.

Do you really want to go there Rich? I still have my correspondence with Zion NP over the permit system, In my humble opinion the ACA has more to do with the current permit system mess and quota's then anyone....... But of course you (the ACA) was working other objectives at the time like ACA guiding inside the park and requiring an ACA merit badge to obtain a permit, yada, yada....

I said it at the time and I'm even more convinced it is true with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight... The ACA position with regards to the Zion permit system is best described as the "Neville Chamberlain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain)" approach.

[oldno7]

Herein lies some of the major dig----

How would these land agencies treat the American Canyoneering "ASSOCIATION" (ACA)

Verses--The American Carlson Sole Proprietorship (ACSP)

My guess is, many doors are opened when you claim to be an association, rather than a lone entity(sole proprietorship)falsely claiming to be an actual association, representing yourself!!

And if you falsely claim 4-5000 members, because thats how many have signed up for your web site since inception, is once again, a deception.

How many of the land agencies involved with the recent workshop held at the ACA Rendezvous, actually understood they were dealing with a sole proprietorship rather than an association??

[spinesnaper]

Herein lies some of the major dig----

How would these land agencies treat the American Canyoneering "ASSOCIATION" (ACA)

Verses--The American Carlson Sole Proprietorship (ACSP)

My guess is, many doors are opened when you claim to be an association, rather than a lone entity(sole proprietorship)falsely claiming to be an actual association, representing yourself!!

And if you falsely claim 4-5000 members, because thats how many have signed up for your web site since inception, is once again, a deception.

How many of the land agencies involved with the recent workshop held at the ACA Rendezvous, actually understood they were dealing with a sole proprietorship rather than an association??

OMG..That's an argument that is cogent, on point, and does not involve the use of invective.

Patiently waiting the formation of a new American Canyoneering Association.

Ken

[oldno7]

Well, if irony was beer, bogley would be having a great fest right now.:drink:

Irony being Rich has become a top poster on bogley:2thumbs::lol8:

[restrac2000]

OMG..That's an argument that is cogent, on point, and does not involve the use of invective.

Patiently waiting the formation of a new American Canyoneering Association.

Ken

His comment does make me appear "blathering" and skilled in ad nauseum.

Thanks for the concise and thoughtful addition, Oldno...I could learn a thing or two

Phillip

[airman]

To the noob or casual participate of canyoneering.... I get it, I understand you don't have a grasp on why this stuff is important, but understand it is, or all the old dogs would not be growing at each other. This story has a long back history over 12 years in the making. It would be in the sports best interest if you at least tried to understand a little of what this is about.

But at least understand... Every time you stand in a permit line, rappel from a bolt, hire a guide, access through private property, descend a pristine all natural route, access beta, take a canyon class.... you are experiencing a portion of what this food fight is all about.... Things should all shake out in the end for the better, so just hang on and enjoy the show for now.....

:cool2:

Points taken. My comments were more directed at Phillip. I get that you and others have done a lot for the good of the sport. Should have been more clear. :2thumbs:

I also appreciate the transparency. There is value in professionally and politely exposing problems in a public way. Otherwise many, including myself, would be even more ignorant of the issues.

My main point was about civility. In my professional career I sit on several boards and committees for professional associations in my industry. It's been my experience that internal "industry" bickering is more destructive than helpful. But if you say this is all for the good, I'll trust you. But I think it's safe to say that there is a large constituency of canyoneers that don't participate in these forums, and if there was a bit more professionalism, they would, and the sport would be positively benefited as a result.

I've been canyoneering consistently for over 20 years. I spend more time in the canyons than on the keyboard. Sorry if I don't understand the politics.

I think it might be best if I directed by energy elsewhere. I appreciate your contributions and wish you the very best.

[Bo_Beck]

Did you know that the human head weighs 10 lbs.?

[Iceaxe]

In my professional career I sit on several boards and committees for professional associations in my industry.

That is probably the real root of the problem... we are not dealing with a professional organization when dealing with the ACA. We are dealing with a specific individual that many respected canyoneers consider unreasonable/unprofessional.

A professional organization with boards and committees is much easier to deal with. :bandit:

[Bo_Beck]

That is probably the real root of the problem... we are not dealing with a professional organization when dealing with the ACA. We are dealing with a specific individual that many respected canyoneers consider unreasonable/unprofessional.

A professional organization with boards and committees is much easier to deal with. :bandit:

Then go git er did! The doors wide open!

[restrac2000]

Then go git er did! The doors wide open!

I hope its as wide open as it seems. A paying member here as soon as its official.

Phillip

[shae]

The Area Formerly Known as Mexico Canyoneering Association?

That rolls off the tongue nicely. I'll vote for it.

[shae]

"No Rich, it really is that simple. If you are interested in turning the keys over to a board of directors I'd be happy to hustle this along for you. I run a multi-million dollar company, I sit on the BOD of three cooperations.... this canyoneering stuff is really much easier then my day job...

Anyhoo... I doubt you are actually leaving, but if you do I'd be happy to set up an intern BOD to handle the day to day business for the next three month's until democratic elections can be held. I'd even be happy to fund the ACA out of my own pocket and get the legal stuff in order until after the elections, I mean what the heck, my company lawyer isn't doing anything next week and I still have to pay him anyways.

I have already spoken with what amounts to a who's-who in the U.S. canyoneering world and would have no problem establishing a skilled, fair and diverse group of talented people to sit on the BOD, at least temporarily until an election can be held.

Nothing would make me happier than to see the ACA become what is was pitched to me back in 2000 when I was a loyal supporter. So how is that for an offer?"

Perhaps I'm crazy...but I like Shane's idea. The title ACA seems to have some influence with important agencies. Why not try the BOD thing completely separate from Rich? Keep the standing "association" title but turn it into an actual collective pull of the community. It still has a lot of potential. I don't believe that bridge has been burned.

[oldno7]

Looks like you could do a startup anyway, Shae

https://secure.utah.gov/bes/action/details?entity=5058912-0111

[Iceaxe]

Looks like you could do a startup anyway, Shae

To really make the ACA work you would need Rich to get completely out of the way.... I mean really, its been 12 years and in that time Rich has managed to alienate just about everyone of any importants, alienate the majority of his loyal supporters, Rich has much less less support now than he did 12 years ago, he has done his share to fracture canyoneers as a community. And most importantly, he doesn't have and never will have the financial backing to make it work.

If Rich really cares about the ACA as he preaches, it's time for him to hop off the pot and give someone else a chance. I don't know of any company that would keep its CEO after 12 years of fail.

[shae]

I didn't put Shane's quote very well into the thread. His words are in the quotations above. I simply added my support for his idea.


He gave a suggestion on the ACA site that I think could be worth pursuing.

[bshwakr]

To really make the ACA work you would need Rich to get completely out of the way.... I mean really, its been 12 years and in that time Rich has managed to alienate just about everyone of any importants, alienate the majority of his loyal supporters, Rich has much less less support now than he did 12 years ago, he has done his share to fracture canyoneers as a community. And most importantly, he doesn't have and never will have the financial backing to make it work.

If Rich really cares about the ACA as he preaches, it's time for him to hop off the pot and give someone else a chance. I don't know of any company that would keep its CEO after 12 years of fail.

Give me a break Shane! The same could be said about you or anyone else involved in the community for that long.

k

[restrac2000]

Give me a break Shane! The same could be said about you or anyone else involved in the community for that long.

k

Very true....I have even caused some of the damage Shane describes within the last month. Nonetheless, only one person has ever really done so under the name of a community organization.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

Nonetheless, only one person has ever really done so under the name of a community organization.

That is the diffenrence... ^^^

I will not argue that I have championed my own agenda's, same can be said for every public canyoneer I know of.

[restrac2000]

Give me a break Shane! The same could be said about you or anyone else involved in the community for that long.

k

Due to side-effects from a new antibiotic I spent about 3 hours reading a large portion of the threads from the yahoo group between the years 2000-2002. Definitely some roots for historic and lasting tensions and relationships. I was actually shocked to remember how quickly the "community" went from "forming" to "performing". I think when the history is read 2 important themes come up:

1) Some of the greater benefits we see in the community definitely saw there foundation then. I was shocked to see how much of what we value was developed by community interaction and not just the ACA. Canyoneering styles, rating system, "canyoneering pamphlet" and a few other notable elements of our sport were the collaboration of the yahoo group in general. Beyond specific technical hard skills (blocks, mounter/mule, rope bag) the community hasn't relied on the ACA for direction as much as the organization is given credit. Its all there in those years.

2) For you bushwhacker:( Yahoo Message #2791 ) Rich "If the ACA is ever perceived as a threat to anyone's enjoyment of this sport, let me know personally what we can do to fix the problem and it will be fixed. If we do not exist to serve you, we should not exist at all." Rich was communicating to the broader canyoneering community, not just the 50ish ACA members at the time.

Many of us have done harm and good. Only the ACA executive director has done most of this in the name of "consensus of the canyoneering community" (#757). The same person who talked about voting rights, industry standard and eventual movement in the BOD.

Phillip

[ratagonia]

And the merry-go-round continues, except the different riders (players) mostly speak different code talk and narrative. Speak to an issue and interests? No, blather vulgarity, attack, deny, simplify, dodge and then avoid cogent issues "some" have offered. Some seem to honestly engage; others lack the instinct, skill or interest....others scoff.

A concern (issue) I/others have voiced is the use of the term "Association" and image "branding" when the ACA corporate and organizational structure is NOT a registered collective class of people, but rather an individual. Some on this site - even 'reported lawyers" - seem to care less and are apathetic in engaging on the point. OR, the game dodge-em arrives and the "evidence" suggests folk should just strap up and go canyoneering, and move away from this "conflict" muddle.

Some/so many seem to either lack the insight re activity in the ACA (RC) for the past decade, or they are insulted that "a public figure" is being spoken about. Others malign the ideal that this continuing drama has any relevance in any setting.

I/others remember years back, speaking with "Ray and Cindy" in Zion, ideas were tossed about, options offered and the "bottom line" became, "Oh, ACA has endorsed what we are offering". The sweetest sound, the canyon wren calling...who needs a point of view if ACA dogma offers. (but that's in the past....?)

Long ago Shane rode into town (RC) and (thought he) brought order to the troubled canyoneering valley? But now Shane apparently saddles up and asks someone (anybody? really?) to save the day (purchase the web & organizational name). The big tent, maybe, never fit the business model of the modern day canyoneering crowd. Delusional really to toss the "ownership" to an unknown and untested bidder. A more responsible offering would be to let the ACA brand lapse, continue Canyons and Crags (if that's RC wish) and run training and courses under that name and moniker (Canyons and Crags, a dba for the sole proprietor RC). The web site could be re branded as Canyoneering, for the masses. And future canyon fests? - once upon a time Tom Fests - RC, C &C Zion Cyn fest. Nothing wrong with that in my view. Full disclosure and folk knowing what they are, and are not, connecting to.

November 1, a draw down; or maybe, instead of passing the baton (a real bad idea) the lead actor "in this play" could continue with much of what he is doing, but this time do it under his own personal name and "small" private business. Nothing stops him from continuing to send out emails, organize, teach, train and sponsor events. And with that ACA crown taken off his head, he will have no one to respond to but himself, and the direction he seeks professionally or personally to pursue will be his alone.

The gift of imagination? Imagining what another might think and feel. I don't have to agree with others and others need not agree with me. But then the cognitive offerings, or lack of, amazing really as some/so many scoff at serious engagement in discussion. And yes the dark drama, the stage curtain closes, but maybe only temporarily, until the genie puts a new "heart/soul" in RC and ACA (re-directed) sails on once again? Who knows? And then of course who, just who, has a stake (say) in all of this, and who really should ride with the banner? Those ACA canyon leaders, or those wishing to have nothing to do with the ACA canyon leadership (and it's points) program? Points of view from various corners, most sullied, if they don't match "another speakers" state of mind.

How to "simplify"? Let the ACA organizational and web name slide, and if you/he RC like, continue the vision/program/energy under the C&C registered dba moniker. But then some would say of course, this is nobodys' business but RC's? Well, welcome to the land of public and public figures; where most often, public opinion matters; but then some (naysayers) would argue with that - oh yea - lets just go do canyons, this is all a big fricken waste of time? Oops, the canyon wren just got swallowed by a raven. (who cares, about a point of view, and who cares to be civil and cogent in a discussion - by golly, lets be boistrous and brash, and shout, shout some more, - so mind numbing? so insightful and intellectual?) Lemmings, running to the rescue or running off a canyon cliff (really)?

And this new Canyon Guide Assoc. They should be able to pull interested parties from a quiver of training venues all over the west. Why does someone need to be an ACA canyon leader, if they have at least, comparative training and tutoring elsewhere? And really folk, want to be a guide? Print a card, get a web site and lodge a liability insurance policy with an agency. Apply with the FS or BLM, or operate on private land. Once you start guiding, no one will know or care that you have either "virtual or real" training. The arc of professional guiding on public lands..another discussion for another day.

:2thumbs: :haha:

Tom

[bshwakr]

Due to side-effects from a new antibiotic I spent about 3 hours reading a large portion of the threads from the yahoo group between the years 2000-2002. Definitely some roots for historic and lasting tensions and relationships. I was actually shocked to remember how quickly the "community" went from "forming" to "performing". I think when the history is read 2 important themes come up:

1) Some of the greater benefits we see in the community definitely saw there foundation then. I was shocked to see how much of what we value was developed by community interaction and not just the ACA. Canyoneering styles, rating system, "canyoneering pamphlet" and a few other notable elements of our sport were the collaboration of the yahoo group in general. Beyond specific technical hard skills (blocks, mounter/mule, rope bag) the community hasn't relied on the ACA for direction as much as the organization is given credit. Its all there in those years.

2) For you bushwhacker:( Yahoo Message #2791 ) Rich "If the ACA is ever perceived as a threat to anyone's enjoyment of this sport, let me know personally what we can do to fix the problem and it will be fixed. If we do not exist to serve you, we should not exist at all." Rich was communicating to the broader canyoneering community, not just the 50ish ACA members at the time.

Many of us have done harm and good. Only the ACA executive director has done most of this in the name of "consensus of the canyoneering community" (#757). The same person who talked about voting rights, industry standard and eventual movement in the BOD.

Phillip


I vaguely recall being there at the beginning of both the Yahoo Group and the ACA. I know what Rich wanted it to become and what it eventually became. I sat through many meetings about it's future and nobody in the overall community took the initiative to improve it just like nobody will take the initiative now. Let's not be naive though, anyone really involved in the canyoneering community knows that the ACA had become primarily a training entity. So for me, I find it futile to 'pile on', especially when we were all silent observers.

k

[ratagonia]

Wow...to refer to someone as a "whiny bitch" (someone who hasn't used any such language in any of his many posts on this thread), all I can say is: look in the mirror.

Nat

Nelsonccc always acts like a whiny little bitch - it is his Internet Persona. 500 more posts and he will be able to buy a pair of huecos...

(just amusing myself, Christian, please take no offense...)

:moses:

[ratagonia]

Did you know that the human head weighs 10 lbs.?

That is probably the real root of the problem...

(Jes' sayin')

:moses:

[nelsonccc]

Nelsonccc always acts like a whiny little bitch - it is his Internet Persona. 500 more posts and he will be able to buy a pair of huecos...

(just amusing myself, Christian, please take no offense...)

:moses:

Hey! I even, in what I thought was a very uncharacteristic act, changed it and even stated I was being an asshole! Now tell me how often does that happen? Internet anonymity makes me extra bold sometimes..

Shane did a good job of explaining that I, as a casual participant in canyoneering, should just sit back and let you guys figure it out. GOOD LUCK. Looks like a train wreck! Just tell me if you guys need anything!

[ratagonia]

Hey! I even, in what I thought was a very uncharacteristic act, changed it and even stated I was being an asshole! Now tell me how often does that happen? Internet anonymity makes me extra bold sometimes.

Shane did a good job of explaining that I, as a casual participant in canyoneering, should just sit back and let you guys figure it out. GOOD LUCK. Looks like a train wreck! Just tell me if you guys need anything!

:2thumbs:

Yah, I responded to Nats response while in the process of reading through the weekend's kerfuffle. I went canyoneering, it was fun, really fun.

Tom

[reflection]

The "pot still simmers" in spite of the weekend lull (away from the internet). Interesting, a mini-drama that plays out on at least three stages. Bogley (filled with a myriad of plus or minus views); Yahoo Canyon's group (some (to some degree) agree with Phil, others really don't like Phil or 'piss ant' hate him), Ram soft critique, Shane a very "cogent" suggestion re operation of a new ACA and then much soft stroking, yea or nay re RC/ACA; and then the ACA site offering, similar to a passing eulogy (of sort), soft/strong encouragement, endorsement and then mild to very strong critique of any and all ACA/RC naysayers.

One commentator (on the ACA site) (more than others) caught my attention. His statement in part; "There are people who do things and people who criticize. Critics spend a lot of time wondering why the world isn't perfect. They will never understand because they never have had to face the real challenges that come along with creating and doing."

(And just how many political campaigns, corporations, organizations, associations and firms has the fellow/lady worked in?)

Let's see? Some of us have been (actively) involved in the political/civics and business arena for how many decades? (and some of us canyoneering for 15 years). So kind (and insightful?) to suggest that folk will "never understand...never face real challenges....re creating and doing."

Some (many) have had much/little experience with ACA/RC. And that experience (for most) runs a wide gamut and can't be simplified. There is the good, not so good, the complimentary and sometimes (yes) the questionable. And along the way, there is/has been, emotion, opinion, view, perspective, and of course memory. As a "public figure" though, can't one be both complimented and questioned? Or are some solemn sacred cows only to be bowed down to and never sullied?

RC is an organized and effective teacher in many realms of canyoneering, rescue, EMT, etc. And he can laugh, smile, critique and has poltical views too (even on public social sites). Countless have benefited from his effort (work, skill) in the past decade(s).

The framework and evoloution of ACA (as an organization and association) though? Maybe all tongues should be tied and stilled? And/or as so many (continue) to offer, it's nobody's business but RC? It's the ACA, (his group) and he can run it anyway he likes.

In spite of Shane's "specific, organized and credible" offer to re-tool and temporarily run ACA (and then follow that up with elections) it's still my view that ACA, if RC doesn't wish to lead it, should lapse.

Chiefly I say this as a compliment to RC. ACA's image (present and past tense) stands, bows or falls based on it's leader. Makes little sense to have another/others modify, bend or reshape a "castle, house or kingdom" that was mostly RC's from the inception. I've been involved with a number of organizations,(not corporations where name branding is important) where originators wished to scale down or retire. Often they anticipated passing the mantle to another and then on further reflection realized that "new people running the group" required/needed a new name and new organization and structure (if one at all).

And then that 'prickly" tinkering with the 'memory' and evolution of the Zion permit system? False memory (on my part, or others?) and the offerings (in private) by a number of Zion officials (long ago), when asked..."Well just who supports and endorses the system you are proposing?" Let's see, the two Utah Scout Councils didn't support it (they lodged concerns); Zion Canyoneering Coalition didn't support it (generally) (Subway needed some limits); and the groundswell of support the Zion officials claimed they were getting from the canyoneering community? (canyoneers at comedy central, I/we guess); and those offerings that commercial canyon guiding should (ACA trained guides) be allowed (canyoneers at xyz farmers market, I/we guess)? Zion officials, long ago, shared a name (group of names - NO) and organization (an association - YES) that they claimed was generally in line with what they proposed (in the proposed public permit area realm). Is someone suggesting/implying that someone other than RC was speaking on behalf of ACA? Maybe there were in fact further wrinkles to ACA involvement, (I was unaware of) but when the term "supporters" (of your permit plan alternative)was bandied about, there is NO loss of memory re what "so many" on the park side said.

The "drama"? Why blankety drama's (or questioning) in canyoneering, some/many ask. (so many naysayers; "just go do canyons"; life so simple?) RC claims he wishes to continue to teach (that's laudable), but then the belief/hope/anticipation that ACA will continue in like model or mantle? Try and compliment a fellow/organization and he/she seems not to care? Ask though about this or that re the 'organization - association" and the furror (hostility) and defensive volleys follow. And views, twisted and pummelled, if they don't match (the soft or hard opinions of) opponents. The game of life, caring about ourselves and others, giving others slack and moving on; or life as fight & flight, the good the bad (and constant tossing out of the 'dark' opponents).

And then synergy. Synergy in relationships, groups and associations (while at times challenging) can be an enormous boon and benefit (if one wishes or is willing to see it that way); and if one is willing to be flexible and adaptable.

And the night lights in the sky. So many stars in the skies (heavens) and some sparkle bright, some fade and others shoot from the sky. Some (seem) to view the universe through their own own lens and have and sense their own bright stars, that somehow, someway always sparkle? Getting along with others, talking about constellations and a sense of wonder. And then getting stung by a wasp/bee, and not thinking about stars or anything else, except, how that 'damn' "bee" hurt me. Oh stars & the buzzing that abounds, in some circles. The "terrible" "beauty" of it all. (borrowing from the Yates, the poet)

[ratagonia]

The "pot still simmers" in spite of the weekend lull (away from the internet). Interesting, a mini-drama that plays out on at least three stages. Bogley (filled with a myriad of plus or minus views); Yahoo Canyon's group (some (to some degree) agree with Phil, others really don't like Phil or 'piss ant' hate him), Ram soft critique, Shane a very "cogent" suggestion re operation of a new ACA and then much soft stroking, yea or nay re RC/ACA; and then the ACA site offering, similar to a passing eulogy (of sort), soft/strong encouragement, endorsement and then mild to very strong critique of any and all ACA/RC naysayers.

One commentator (on the ACA site) (more than others) caught my attention. His statement in part; "There are people who do things and people who criticize. Critics spend a lot of time wondering why the world isn't perfect. They will never understand because they never have had to face the real challenges that come along with creating and doing."

(And just how many political campaigns, corporations, organizations, associations and firms has the fellow/lady worked in?)

Let's see? Some of us have been (actively) involved in the political/civics and business arena for how many decades? (and some of us canyoneering for 15 years). So kind (and insightful?) to suggest that folk will "never understand...never face real challenges....re creating and doing."

Some (many) have had much/little experience with ACA/RC. And that experience (for most) runs a wide gamut and can't be simplified. There is the good, not so good, the complimentary and sometimes (yes) the questionable. And along the way, there is/has been, emotion, opinion, view, perspective, and of course memory. As a "public figure" though, can't one be both complimented and questioned? Or are some solemn sacred cows only to be bowed down to and never sullied?

RC is an organized and effective teacher in many realms of canyoneering, rescue, EMT, etc. And he can laugh, smile, critique and has poltical views too (even on public social sites). Countless have benefited from his effort (work, skill) in the past decade(s).

The framework and evoloution of ACA (as an organization and association) though? Maybe all tongues should be tied and stilled? And/or as so many (continue) to offer, it's nobody's business but RC? It's the ACA, (his group) and he can run it anyway he likes.

In spite of Shane's "specific, organized and credible" offer to re-tool and temporarily run ACA (and then follow that up with elections) it's still my view that ACA, if RC doesn't wish to lead it, should lapse.

Chiefly I say this as a compliment to RC. ACA's image (present and past tense) stands, bows or falls based on it's leader. Makes little sense to have another/others modify, bend or reshape a "castle, house or kingdom" that was mostly RC's from the inception. I've been involved with a number of organizations,(not corporations where name branding is important) where originators wished to scale down or retire. Often they anticipated passing the mantle to another and then on further reflection realized that "new people running the group" required/needed a new name and new organization and structure (if one at all).

And then that 'prickly" tinkering with the 'memory' and evolution of the Zion permit system? False memory (on my part, or others?) and the offerings (in private) by a number of Zion officials (long ago), when asked..."Well just who supports and endorses the system you are proposing?" Let's see, the two Utah Scout Councils didn't support it (they lodged concerns); Zion Canyoneering Coalition didn't support it (generally) (Subway needed some limits); and the groundswell of support the Zion officials claimed they were getting from the canyoneering community? (canyoneers at comedy central, I/we guess); and those offerings that commercial canyon guiding should (ACA trained guides) be allowed (canyoneers at xyz farmers market, I/we guess)? Zion officials, long ago, shared a name (group of names - NO) and organization (an association - YES) that they claimed was generally in line with what they proposed (in the proposed public permit area realm). Is someone suggesting/implying that someone other than RC was speaking on behalf of ACA? Maybe there were in fact further wrinkles to ACA involvement, (I was unaware of) but when the term "supporters" (of your permit plan alternative)was bandied about, there is NO loss of memory re what "so many" on the park side said.

The "drama"? Why blankety drama's (or questioning) in canyoneering, some/many ask. (so many naysayers; "just go do canyons"; life so simple?) RC claims he wishes to continue to teach (that's laudable), but then the belief/hope/anticipation that ACA will continue in like model or mantle? Try and compliment a fellow/organization and he/she seems not to care? Ask though about this or that re the 'organization - association" and the furror (hostility) and defensive volleys follow. And views, twisted and pummelled, if they don't match (the soft or hard opinions of) opponents. The game of life, caring about ourselves and others, giving others slack and moving on; or life as fight & flight, the good the bad (and constant tossing out of the 'dark' opponents).

And then synergy. Synergy in relationships, groups and associations (while at times challenging) can be an enormous boon and benefit (if one wishes or is willing to see it that way); and if one is willing to be flexible and adaptable.

And the night lights in the sky. So many stars in the skies (heavens) and some sparkle bright, some fade and others shoot from the sky. Some (seem) to view the universe through their own own lens and have and sense their own bright stars, that somehow, someway always sparkle? Getting along with others, talking about constellations and a sense of wonder. And then getting stung by a wasp/bee, and not thinking about stars or anything else, except, how that 'damn' "bee" hurt me. Oh stars & the buzzing that abounds, in some circles. The "terrible" "beauty" of it all. (borrowing from the Yates, the poet)

:2thumbs:

hard to read perhaps, but worth the effort, nailing certain aspects pretty well. Well said.

:moses:

[CarpeyBiggs]

reading steve's posts is like playing mad-libs, where i'm never sure which noun or adjective to plug in where. maybe you can dumb it down for us who don't speak lawyer-ese? :eek2:

[oldno7]

reading steve's posts is like playing mad-libs, where i'm never sure which noun or adjective to plug in where. maybe you can dumb it down for us who don't speak lawyer-ese? :eek2:

Before Steve wrote that, I was going to call Nelson a "douche canoe". Boy am I glad I didn't, would have seemed petty.:mrgreen:

[jman]

Steve has a new name in my book now - "Mr. Quotes". Every post by "him", he "uses" "thousands upon thousands" (exaggeration by just a little) of "quotations marks" around "almost" every noun, and adjective. Sure it maybe "correct" that way, but it "just" reminds me of the "SNL skit" with Chris Farley, doing the "air quotes" every time he speaks. And whenever I "read" one of Steve's post, it's "fun" to read it out loud while doing the "air quotes". "haha".:lol8:

[nelsonccc]

His posts are hard to read. I usually give up half way through. Too much jumping around and reflection. Not only are the quotation marks everywhere but the (parentheses) are everywhere. There's at least 3 per paragraph. He must be a British Literature professor or something like that.

[nelsonccc]

Before Steve wrote that, I was going to call Nelson a "douche canoe". Boy am I glad I didn't, would have seemed petty.:mrgreen:

Paddling......:lol8:

[moab mark]

reading steve's posts is like playing mad-libs, where i'm never sure which noun or adjective to plug in where. maybe you can dumb it down for us who don't speak lawyer-ese? :eek2:

X2

Reading between the jibberish I thought one of his points was that the ACA was a backer of the current permit system in Zion? Can one of you old timers give us a short history lesson on how the permit system came to be.

[ilipichicuma]

His posts are hard to read. I usually give up half way through. Too much jumping around and reflection. Not only are the quotation marks everywhere but the (parentheses) are everywhere. There's at least 3 per paragraph. He must be a British Literature professor or something like that.

I definitely agree with that. I always get confused just by glancing at them and stop reading.

[reflection]

Any of you academic wonderkinds ever read literature or make an attempt at writing fiction, or ever comment on political happenings? Ever heard the terms, conflict or tension as used in writing, or sensed the same in a life circumstance?

These boards, at least some of them, are often burdened with some pretty simplistic offerings and in some cases it's hard to catch the context or supposed nuance of a writer.

And, when it comes to the field of discussing ACA, other canyoneering groups, or even the leaders or kingpin canyoneering circles, it's at best confusing at times, at least to me. And if this confusion, this knowledge of the tension and conflict that exists at times, is not obvious to the rest of you, at least it is to me. There is no illusion in my mind, I don't understand all the conflicts or tensions and the result, at least in my mind, is images and more images and then silly (excuse me) quotes, to remind, at least me, that there are so many interpretations and meanings, but more importantly, so much bias and so many points of view. Yes, so many meanings to so many simple words and thoughts. Like what does out mean?

Ram, Phil, Tom, Shane, RC, as examples, all dynamic and complex people. To be simplistic about them, their actions, attitudes or styles, at least in my view, would be wildly missing the mark. Easiest I think to comment that they are terribly interesting people, and leave it at that. (I won't put interesting in quotes, but I'd like to, as that term means so many things to so many people; is one being negative or complimentary?). And if there is doubt, beyond interesting, I find many of these, and other folk, to be admirable and held in esteem. But then of course there are those that knock me/others and so in reverse fashion, I guess, one makes an effort at knocking back, but hopefully never with F...U or that you are an arse.

Calling something, or borrowing from an English poet the line, terrible beauty, is a whole lot easier for one than to say, canyoneering primarily is a process of enjoying the beauty of nature; but some of the social interactions, and apparent dysfunction in some groups or organizations is not so pretty, or it's close to terrible; or you naysayers, use your own words. And the wonder of stars and the sting of a bee, is that so abstract it's to be considered absurd? Ever sit in canyon and look in amazement and think aloud, my this is beautiful, and then seconds later, for no apparent reason, someone barks out, FU? Well, the images of Dorothy, Kansas, the Wizard of Oz & the witch come to mind too; another image, yikes!; yet some will say no that never happens and others will remind, just a figment of your imagination, false memory?

So to all of you, that always have it all figured out, be starkly blunt, and use terms like....garbage, allegation, insinuation, character assination...and putting it where the sun don't shine... Is it fun to huff and puff, and act tuff & mean? I didn't put quotes on it, but that was/is the writing of one, minutes ago on the canyons group, speaking of poor pummelled Phil.

Tension, conflict, not having answers and not always having figured it out; and then images when the confusion abounds.
What's your mental, cognitive process, each of you? Is it always concise, safe reasoning, or do you ever stretch ideas and wonder?

My big mistake I guess, has been in participating in civic, political blogs for over a decade. I've become starkly aware though that the mixed narratives, quotes, metaphors, don't fit for most of the readers here, some/many of whom are brighter lights than I. OK

And so back to the boards I guess, with an offering like, Awhshucks, I don't much care about the politics of ACA, & who cares about a one man national association? Gosh, let's just go to the roost, have our favorite eve or morning drink, get those electrolytes via emergenC and not even look or pay attention at the sun or the moon or the stars; Heck, let's jest tawk bout doin canyeeens. And if someone trips me/us up, boy golly I'll swear and cuss with, darn you, don't do that.

My, I think "terrible beauty" (I quote, as it's not my line) stars and bees bring more imagery to me. Excuse me, maybe next time out, we put a microscope or probe on those that wander into the vulger or mean spirited side? Yea, I'm confused again, it's just fine to spew invective, always, and to give those folk, a pass? And I forgot, I do like bees, particularly the honey bee hive across the street from me. And to you lovers of RC, I complimented the guy and offered that he, like others, is complex and most interesting, and he's got a brilliant side too...and the writer, he slides into home base, safe. Hopefully anyway! More of you confused? More want to whine and complain? Oh, the best view of some things in life, via a rear view mirror, on the way, Out.

[restrac2000]

His posts take me a while to decipher but I do seem learn some things.

Increasingly, I can see us all better off without the ACA existing at all. It had a mission. Some of it was successful, some of it failed. What it is "good" at can continue be done by multiple parties across the states (already happening). What it was bad at need not be continued. Would still support an ACA run by a true BOD but I am less enthusiastic. That could change.

I have always thought we would benefit from a collective voice. Yet, I have heard that many people don't like that idea; seems fair. We still have our letters and phone calls to influence people. We still have people on the internet to bring group attention to an issue when it is "worthy".

I will keep up my internet dialog until November 1st, if/when Rich decides to end the ACA or hand it over. I fear he may decide to keep the ACA without any changes. In which case.....I guess I may have failed.

Phillip

[restrac2000]

Poorly timed response on my part.... both in the pipeline at the same time I guess.

I struggle to read his post but do learn (editing my last post). I actually like some of the "poetic" elements used on the net....even the ones used to insult me (philthy phillip). Though reflection trumped that alliteration and made it a triplet (though I guess to be fair, a pattern requires at least 3 variables to begin with).

Haven't read Yates, may need to.

Actually respond better to Reflections style of feedback (its there in the context) than insults. Which I agree there is plenty of on the intertubes. Its an goal, of which I am imperfect, to add more "poetry" than insults. I may have some work to do after this last 6 weeks.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

If you are interested in turning the keys over to a board of directors I'd be happy to hustle this along for you. I run a multi-million dollar company, I sit on the BOD of three cooperations.... this canyoneering stuff is really much easier then my day job...

Anyhoo... I doubt you are actually leaving, but if you do I'd be happy to set up an intern BOD to handle the day to day business for the next three month's until democratic elections can be held. I'd even be happy to fund the ACA out of my own pocket and get the legal stuff in order until after the elections, I mean what the heck, my company lawyer isn't doing anything next week and I still have to pay him anyways.

I have already spoken with what amounts to a who's-who in the U.S. canyoneering world and would have no problem establishing a skilled, fair and diverse group of talented people to sit on the BOD, at least temporarily until an election can be held.

Nothing would make me happier than to see the ACA become what is was pitched to me back in 2000 when I was a loyal supporter. So how is that for an offer?"


FWIW: Rich said he was leaving the ACA and wanted interested parties to post a plan. Rich also stated that the membership would vote on the plans presented after November 1. I presented a legitimate and thoughtful plan that I expect the membership be allowed to vote on.... that is all.

:cool2:

[CarpeyBiggs]

FWIW: Rich said he was leaving the ACA and wanted interested parties to post a plan. Rich also stated that the membership would vote on the plans presented after November 1. I presented a legitimate and thoughtful plan that I expect the membership be allowed to vote on.... that is all.

:cool2:

wow. didn't expect that from you shane... too bad i'm not a member of the aca. or i'd vote for ya. will there still be merit badges?

[restrac2000]

He just provided some extra clarity....would be nice if the expectations were forthright and not reactive.

He has thus far knocked down any ideas as unimportant, moot or irrelevant. Not the best way to start interactions in a thread designed to hand over a business. From the directions of his comments it sounds like he wants the ACA to remain an individual driven company and not a democratic association; if not, than the many questions he has posted can be dealt with a membership vote.

Its sad that he sees his limited experience with the ACA in the early years as "evidence" that a democratic system can not work. It seems like the institutions he has named and modeled himself after have had success with some form of elected representation for 20 years. Are we that different as a community?

I personally doubt it, but I have never assumed we were cats needed to be herded. We haven't had a true opportunity to proves ourselves yet either.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

wow. didn't expect that from you shane... too bad i'm not a member of the aca. or i'd vote for ya. will there still be merit badges?

Rich also asked me about merit badges (along with several other questions) and this was my reply........

The specifics such as advocacy, bolts, guides, etc are EXACTLY what a varied board of directors representing a large cross section of canyoneers should be establishing. And you can't really do that until you have a BOD.

What I presented was a sound business model, which might be why you didn't recognize it. The first item of business the ACA needs to address is getting its paper work and finances in order. Items I clearly covered in my proposal, in addition to establishing a mechanism inside the organization for establishing and accomplishing future goals.

At this point in time discussing items like advocacy, bolts and guides is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[ratagonia]

Rich also asked me about merit badges (along with several other questions) and this was my reply........

The specifics such as advocacy, bolts, guides, etc are EXACTLY what a varied board of directors representing a large cross section of canyoneers should be establishing. And you can't really do that until you have a BOD.

What I presented was a sound business model, which might be why you didn't recognize it. The first item of business the ACA needs to address is getting its paper work and finances in order. Items I clearly covered in my proposal, in addition to establishing a mechanism inside the organization for establishing and accomplishing future goals.

At this point in time discussing items like advocacy, bolts and guides is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.



Good on ya Ice. :2thumbs:

[rcwild]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just post a link to the thread so anyone interested can actually read all sides of the discussion?

http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?4870-ACA-Needs-a-New-Owner

[ghawk]

Rich also asked me about merit badges (along with several other questions) and this was my reply........

The specifics such as advocacy, bolts, guides, etc are EXACTLY what a varied board of directors representing a large cross section of canyoneers should be establishing. And you can't really do that until you have a BOD.

What I presented was a sound business model, which might be why you didn't recognize it. The first item of business the ACA needs to address is getting its paper work and finances in order. Items I clearly covered in my proposal, in addition to establishing a mechanism inside the organization for establishing and accomplishing future goals.

At this point in time discussing items like advocacy, bolts and guides is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.



Sounds good :nod:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Shane, I really want to see you and Phillip take over the ACA. Honestly, I do. I want to see where you take it from here. The two of you have earned a tremendous amount of respect in the canyoneering community and will certainly have the support of the "who's-who in the U.S. canyoneering world". With you guys in the lead, the ACA will accomplish great things in the future.

:roflol: looks like even rich would vote for you shane! why even wait for Nov. 1? :facepalm1:

[restrac2000]

Rich,

If what you say in post #40 is true:

1) Would you be willing to reinstate my account at canyoneering.net; it would help me trust that you are being "honest" and not manipulative and/or sarcastic.

2) If so, I would expect a statement on canyoneering.net from you admitting you broke the ACA forum rules (You agree through your use of the forums that you will not post any ... message that is abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, or otherwise inflammatory). I understand you had the "discretion" to move my post but it seems we should expect the moderators to behave by their own rules.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

Shane, I really want to see you and Phillip take over the ACA.

Thanks for the support Rich, but under the guidelines you have established future leadership will be decided by a membership vote in November. I have provided a proposal that mets your requirements for inclusion in the vote. I look forward to seeing the other proposals and how the voting goes. May the best proposal win.

[ratagonia]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just post a link to the thread so anyone interested can actually read all sides of the discussion?

http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?4870-ACA-Needs-a-New-Owner

Many of us do not feel very welcome on the ACA website forum. So I don't read over there. Nice to have it here, where all are welcome.

Tom

[oldno7]

Many of us do not feel very welcome on the ACA website forum. So I don't read over there. Nice to have it here, where all are welcome.

Tom

Exactly!! Rich seems to remove posts that pull back the secret veil.

[restrac2000]

Rich also asked me about merit badges (along with several other questions) and this was my reply........

The specifics such as advocacy, bolts, guides, etc are EXACTLY what a varied board of directors representing a large cross section of canyoneers should be establishing. And you can't really do that until you have a BOD.

What I presented was a sound business model, which might be why you didn't recognize it. The first item of business the ACA needs to address is getting its paper work and finances in order. Items I clearly covered in my proposal, in addition to establishing a mechanism inside the organization for establishing and accomplishing future goals.

At this point in time discussing items like advocacy, bolts and guides is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.



I support the need to first set up process and structure before moving onto specific goals. This change would be loyal to the weight of my original complaints.

Phillip

[moab mark]

http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?37717-Looks-like-there-is-going-to-be-new-leadership-at-the-ACA.

For those following along, we have been here before..................................

[oldno7]

Coupla quick points:

1) If anyone thinks that the money Rich may or may not earn is a problem, I think they are wrong. Rich deserves whatever he can make, I don't know of a single person that has been part of this saga that wouldn't concur. That is not, and never has been an issue that I'm aware of. NOBODY RESENTS RICH TEACHING AND MAKING MONEY

2) We all know there will be no voting by the "members" to decide the fate of the ACA. That would require a list of members since inception, I would bet lotsomoney, said list is non-existent.
Claiming members will choose the direction and new leader of the ACA would open up legitimate offers, such as Shanes, then maybe Tom's, how bout' Phillips??Not Going to happen.
A "select" group of members, might be given the chance though, in a behind closed doors, Rich is going to decide anyway, sort of vote...

[tanya]

I vote for whoever links to my website. :mrgreen:

[Scott Card]

I support the need to first set up process and structure before moving onto specific goals. This change would be loyal to the weight of my original complaints.

Phillip :ne_nau: Ya'll speak as if any of you have a say? Who ever it is that receives this company (yes, the word here is "receive") will set it up how ever they want. There is not a hostile takeover going on. Rich will do what he wants to do with this company. Yes, a common consent of some kind from the current members would be very wise in the future regarding a myriad of issues, but so far, I haven't heard that the company is a vacum waiting to be filled or that non-ACA members will have any say.

Perhaps we should split this thread. Just sayin. The original intent of the thread was to discuss guides and THEIR association, not the ACA.

[restrac2000]

:ne_nau: Ya'll speak as if any of you have a say? Who ever it is that receives this company (yes, the word here is "receive") will set it up how ever they want. There is not a hostile takeover going on. Rich will do what he wants to do with this company. Yes, a common consent of some kind from the current members would be very wise in the future regarding a myriad of issues, but so far, I haven't heard that the company is a vacum waiting to be filled or that non-ACA members will have any say.

Perhaps we should split this thread. Just sayin. The original intent of the thread was to discuss guides and THEIR association, not the ACA.

We are at 10 pages mostly about this subject, seems a little late to change the thread.

You may not know this....I was told my class fees included ACA life membership back when I was first joining. So I think that means I am still technically and ACA member. Also, Rich did not say the offer was only for existing ACA members but then again he wasn't very forthcoming with specific details last week.

Also, technically, I am part of the "their" you refer to in regards to the ACGA.

I respect your opinion that you don't think we should be dealing with this. Doesn't mean I am willing to agree with you or change my behavior.

Phillip

[restrac2000]

:ne_nau: Ya'll speak as if any of you have a say? Who ever it is that receives this company (yes, the word here is "receive") will set it up how ever they want. There is not a hostile takeover going on. Rich will do what he wants to do with this company. Yes, a common consent of some kind from the current members would be very wise in the future regarding a myriad of issues, but so far, I haven't heard that the company is a vacum waiting to be filled or that non-ACA members will have any say.

Perhaps we should split this thread. Just sayin. The original intent of the thread was to discuss guides and THEIR association, not the ACA.

:nono:I also find it ironic that one of the main contributors to this thread, Shane, also started it. Pretty sure he would be familiar with its "intent". ACA is mentioned twice in the only 2 sentences of the original thread. Its a hard stretch to assume the ACA isn't part of the original thread's context. :ne_nau:

[oldno7]

:ne_nau: Ya'll speak as if any of you have a say? .

Maybe because each and every one of us, is an ACA member, how bout you?

Rich's offer was "members" would choose a new leader.

What part of this are you having trouble following?

[ratagonia]

Maybe because each and every one of us, is an ACA member, how bout you?

Rich's offer was "members" would choose a new leader.

What part of this are you having trouble following?

Hey!!! You mean in Utah, I finally get to be a "member"???? :roflol:

Tom

[jman]

Hey!!! You mean in Utah, I finally get to be a "member"???? :roflol:

Tom

:roflol::roflol: Yes, Tom, "we" will accept you.
Btw, your tithe can go to Mark's Chevron location in Layton. I heard he needs the money to go canyoneering...

:lol8:

[Scott Card]

Maybe because each and every one of us, is an ACA member, how bout you?

Rich's offer was "members" would choose a new leader.

What part of this are you having trouble following?I am not a member of the ACA. I have never taken a class nor have I paid dues. Clear enough?

I am not having any problem with this at all. I think that many however forget that it was pointed out that RICH is the sole owner of the ACA and can do with it as he pleases. You have NO say in that. NONE. NADA. FACT. So what was it again that I was having trouble following? :ne_nau: Not trying to stir the pot but memory seems short around here.

Kinda funny how ya'll are voting and ya'll don't know what you are voting on and if that vote will have any meaning whatsoever. Just sayin'

[Scott P]

I first heard of the bad blood between members of the "Steve Allen Crew" and Rich about 10 years ago (though I never heard any details, nor did I ever ask for more details). Before that I had never heard of the ACA. After 10 years, I still don't know what all this is about, but I guess I really don't want to, nor would I want to try and choose a side (if there are sides).

Sometimes ignorance is bliss.:haha: Especially ignorance that has lasted a decade and hopefully will last a few decades more.:haha:

[Scott Card]

Hey!!! You mean in Utah, I finally get to be a "member"???? :roflol:

Tom Wait just a minute here.... Tom is a member and I am not? How'd that happen? :haha:

[ratagonia]

Wait just a minute here.... Tom is a member and I am not? How'd that happen? :haha:

Don't worry Scott - we're pretty tolerant of the Gentiles. Just don't let me see you rapping double-strand and we'll get along fine!!! :haha:

:moses:

[restrac2000]

I am not a member of the ACA. I have never taken a class nor have I paid dues. Clear enough?

I am not having any problem with this at all. I think that many however forget that it was pointed out that RICH is the sole owner of the ACA and can do with it as he pleases. You have NO say in that. NONE. NADA. FACT. So what was it again that I was having trouble following? :ne_nau: Not trying to stir the pot but memory seems short around here.

Kinda funny how ya'll are voting and ya'll don't know what you are voting on and if that vote will have any meaning whatsoever. Just sayin'

Its not about short term memory problems......ITS THAT WE DISAGREE WITH YOU. It can't get any simpler than that. Just because you say it over and over again doesn't make it true. I firmly believe in social pressure and I dare say the changes the ACA have thus far initiated seem correlated to the this round of internet dialog. The chance of his decisions being unrelated and random seem really limited.

Ironically......we do have a say and it has been very vocal. Rich does have the legal authority to make whatever decision he wants. We can make whatever social media decision we want. I don't confuse "having a say" with controlling the outcome. When it boils down to it...only Rich can do that. But as we have seen....we can make the internet a real uncomfortable place for his antics and business model.

The only thing I find funny or ironic at this point is that the ACA's fickleness is evident in your own statement. Rich has stated directly that he will give his company away based on an internet poll. Do you not trust his words as honest? I am even willing to trust him on this. I could be proven wrong.

I truly don't understand why you spend your time on an issue and thread that you obviously have no passion or interest in. Its easy to ignore us and the thread. Pretty simple, actually requires no key strokes or movement of the mouse. If you are trying to persuade me that this dialog and "cause" is invalid.....you are barking up the wrong tree. if it hasn't been obvious yet, I am pretty confident about it and committed to seeing this through.

Phillip

[moab mark]

:roflol::roflol: Yes, Tom, "we" will accept you.
Btw, your tithe can go to Mark's Chevron location in Layton. I heard he needs the money to go canyoneering...

:lol8:

:iagree:

[restrac2000]

Not trying to stir the pot but memory seems short around here.

There must be an official name for this style of "argument". Tom, the 'ole mighty Wikipedia Wizard?

After only 32 years of anecdotal evidence I have learned the opposite is likely true. The author likely knows that either: the intent is to insult; the desire is somewhere there to insult; or they fully accept that it will be the likely outcome and just want to save some face. I could be wrong this time.

Classic examples unrelated to your statement:

"I am not a racist or anything but (insert racist comment)"
"I don't want to be an asshole but (insert major insult)"

Phillip

[oldno7]

I am not a member of the ACA. I have never taken a class nor have I paid dues. Clear enough?

I am not having any problem with this at all. I think that many however forget that it was pointed out that RICH is the sole owner of the ACA and can do with it as he pleases. You have NO say in that. NONE. NADA. FACT. So what was it again that I was having trouble following? :ne_nau: Not trying to stir the pot but memory seems short around here.

Kinda funny how ya'll are voting and ya'll don't know what you are voting on and if that vote will have any meaning whatsoever. Just sayin'
Heres Rich's quote:
"On November 1st, I will post a poll so everyone can VOTE on their favorite plan for the future. I will give this website and the rights to the name to the person who receives the most votes. They can take it from there."

So, yes, it even looks like a non member who admittedly has had very little contact with Rich(you) can have a say. Probably carry as much or more weight than some of us who paid our dues, served on a committee for canyon leaders, put on a Rondy, started the longest standing thread on the ACA site, taught courses and collected ACA membership fee's, carried new canyon gear around the state at my risk, to sell for Rich, had the design idea for the totem, in use now and I could go on.

My wife and I paid for a technical course from Rich. My Wife, daughter and I paid for a rescue course we took with Bruce Silliman, I have never received any free canyoneering training from Rich, other than a WFA course, Jim Cleary and I took from him in Cedar City.

So bottom line is I invested a good part of my life to the ACA and was shit on like no other. So please Mr. Card tell me again how I don't understand the ACA, I understand I have no vote as that is only something Rich stated and it's apparent to most he is the Emperor of deception.

[ratagonia]

So bottom line is I invested a good part of my life to the ACA and was shit on like no other. So please Mr. Card tell me again how I don't understand the ACA, I understand I have no vote as that is only something Rich stated and it's apparent to most he is the Emperor of deception.

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angry fire::angryfire::angryfire:

Now YOU'RE in trouble, Dear Kurty...

Please, PLEASE. Rich is the KING of deception.

Any Emperoring will be done by MOI.

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angry fire::angryfire::angryfire:

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

There must be an official name for this style of "argument". Tom, the 'ole mighty Wikipedia Wizard?

After only 32 years of anecdotal evidence I have learned the opposite is likely true. The author likely knows that either: the intent is to insult; the desire is somewhere there to insult; or they fully accept that it will be the likely outcome and just want to save some face. I could be wrong this time.

Phillip

Start at "No True Scotsman" and try to parse it out from there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

And by the way, it is not a form of "argument", it is a form of logical fallacy, ie, an attempt to AVOID an actual argument.

Tom :moses:

[oldno7]

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angry fire::angryfire::angryfire:

Now YOU'RE in trouble, Dear Kurty...

Please, PLEASE. Rich is the KING of deception.

Any Emperoring will be done by MOI.

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angry fire::angryfire::angryfire:

Tom :moses:

I apologize to you Tom, bad word choice for sure.

King title is his, and well earned.

Little further irony---Rich always bemoaned Shane and considered and announced him as a liar on many occasions,things that make you go hmmmm:wtf:
at least Shane used to put a disclaimer under his posts:lol8:

[Scott Card]

ITS THAT WE DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I truly don't understand why you spend your time on an issue and thread that you obviously have no passion or interest in. Its easy to ignore us and the thread. Pretty simple, actually requires no key strokes or movement of the mouse. If you are trying to persuade me that this dialog and "cause" is invalid.....you are barking up the wrong tree. if it hasn't been obvious yet, I am pretty confident about it and committed to seeing this through.

Phillip Phillip, Phillip, Phillip. Are you now speaking for the whole group? This great big group of "WE"? :haha:

It is amazing how much you have divined about me. Truly! :haha: Phillip, you haven't been around these parts very long now have you. You don't know me at all. You don't have the foggiest idea about how passionate I am about canyoneering, training, and people who have contributed to the sport in a very significant way. I am not a very talented canyoneer really and not much to look at but maybe you ought to ask around about me and my "passions" before you make such wild statements. You are new to this forum (post count) and the vast majority of your posts are clearly Rich/ACA based. Nothing else really. I get that. But please, post away. Feel free to post anything you want within the very loose rules of Bogley. But please know that I have a long history of canyoneering, it is one of my passions, and I have earned my stripes (or at least my Freezefest chef's hat.) :haha: I am even responsible for starting many, many people in this sport. I have always been respectful of you and I will continue to do so. But it seems that you really have difficulty with opposing viewpoints. You telling me, in essence to "shut up" really is not pursuasive. And it certainly won't intimidate me. Again, you REALLY don't know me. :haha: As you post your opinion, remember I am entitled to remind the crowd of facts and express my opinion. So take a deep breath. Believe me, I am not trying to persuade you to do anything, or be anything, or believe anything. That would not seem possible now would it. I am a simple guy, stating simple legal/corporate facts and my little 'ole opinion, which really seem to bother you. Why does that trouble you so much?

BTW, if you were kicked out of the ACA and I am not a member, seems you and I ought to go out back and just yell at each other because neither of us have a "vote". :lol8: (But I guess that I can vote and so can you!!!! Yippee!)

So Philip, have a wonder evening. I will do the same. :2thumbs:

[Iceaxe]

at least Shane used to put a disclaimer under his posts:lol8:

:lol8: I still use it on occasions when appropriate....

**This post neither represents nor reflects the opinions of Climb-Utah.com (http://www.climb-utah.com) management. These statements may or may not be true. Shane has been known to be full of crap.

[Scott Card]

Dear Tom, I am not avoiding anything, am I? Do tell.

[oldno7]

:lol8: I still use it on occasions when appropriate....

**This post neither represents nor reflects the opinions of Climb-Utah.com (http://www.climb-utah.com) management. These statements may or may not be true. Shane has been known to be full of crap.

:haha:Yup, thats the one, honesty up front is refreshing:cheers:

vs. this:kicknuts:

[Scott Card]

Heres Rich's quote:
"On November 1st, I will post a poll so everyone can VOTE on their favorite plan for the future. I will give this website and the rights to the name to the person who receives the most votes. They can take it from there."

So, yes, it even looks like a non member who admittedly has had very little contact with Rich(you) can have a say. Probably carry as much or more weight than some of us who paid our dues, served on a committee for canyon leaders, put on a Rondy, started the longest standing thread on the ACA site, taught courses and collected ACA membership fee's, carried new canyon gear around the state at my risk, to sell for Rich, had the design idea for the totem, in use now and I could go on.

My wife and I paid for a technical course from Rich. My Wife, daughter and I paid for a rescue course we took with Bruce Silliman, I have never received any free canyoneering training from Rich, other than a WFA course, Jim Cleary and I took from him in Cedar City.

So bottom line is I invested a good part of my life to the ACA and was shit on like no other. So please Mr. Card tell me again how I don't understand the ACA, I understand I have no vote as that is only something Rich stated and it's apparent to most he is the Emperor of deception. Thanks for the Rich quote. As for your last paragraph, when did I accuse you of not understanding the ACA? I simply stated a corporate fact that applies universally. Please re-read my post.

I seem to be getting under some skin here. Sorry fellas.

And for the record, I like Jim Cleary, he was my WFR course instructor and a really good one at that. I like Bruce and I appreciate him assisting me when I was dun stuck in Trail a few Freezefests ago. Seems we like and respect a bunch of the same people. We just disagree about Rich. Again, you clearly have more experience with him.

[ratagonia]

Dear Tom, I am not avoiding anything, am I? Do tell.

Not finding the exact quote you are referring to, allows me to do-si-do any specific inflection I may have made... my intention was to point out that:

The general shape of this thread, which started over on Canyons, tunneled over to Bogley, tried to go back to Canyons, etc... is

1. Phillip makes a claim about facts about the ACA, and asks (essentially) for clarification from Rich;

2. Rich replies with personal insults and obfuscation, for example, the third post in this thread:



The trouble with Phillip is not that he is ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn’t so. By "well-documented" he is referring to things he has written.

Don't count on me to waste my time responding in detail about all of Phillip's BS. I have better things to do.

The ACA will continue to be what it was always meant to be. It will continue to educate people and EMPOWER them to enjoy canyons safely. It will continue to teach people like Phillip, Tom, Kurt and others, who can take what they learn and share it with others. I feel a lot of pride reading the technical tips and advice these people give to others, knowing they are sharing what they learned from me and the ACA. No amount of whining about what the ACA should have done can take that away.

3. Phillip reacts to Rich's (successful) personal attack and obfuscation with an emotional response and...

4. away we go.

5. repeat ad nauseum.

That is the "avoiding" I am talking about, perhaps more properly called mis-direction.

Your pointing out (correctly) that it's Rich's proprietorship and he can do what he (darn well) likes is perhaps interesting, but does not address "the issue".

"The Issue" is the alleged fraud perpetrated on the community by CALLING it something it is not (an Association) and Rich's success at getting it treated as a community organization, at least at some level, with members of the community, land managers, members of the ACA, the Canyon Group Owners, etc. all of which abet the alleged fraud by treating the ACA as something other than one man's sole proprietorship.

That the ACA acts in some ways like an Association, and is a benefit to the community (while an opinion that I hold, less strongly now than in the past) is not germane to the original claim. This, too, is a mis-direction and obfuscation.

Your pointing out that yes it is a sole proprietorship so he can do what he wants agrees with Phillip's premise, but avoids addressing the alleged fraud. When Rich is asked to address THIS issue, he generally goes to Ad Hominem attacks or Verbal Abuse, and then usually to a Martyrdom argument, which might fall under "Special Pleading": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Allow me to quote from the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling




Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[3][4][5][6][7] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument. However, because a statement can be countered by multiple lines of reasoning, any name-calling relating to the mental faculties of the opponent is typically a case of argumentum ad hominem. For example, ad hominem attacks would include saying the opponent is slow-witted, uneducated, too drunk to think clearly, or needs more sleep for correct judgment. "X's argument is invalid because X's analogy is false, there are differences between a republic and a democracy. But then again, X is idiotically ignorant." is gratuitously abusive but is not a fallacy because X's argument is actually addressed directly in the opening statement. "X is idiotically ignorant" is not a fallacy of itself. It is an argument that X doesn't know the difference between a republic and a democracy. But, the implication is that the opponent is too "idiotically ignorant" to think clearly, about anything. A example of a direct ad hominem fallacy would be "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?"

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."

Rich has made claims about giving up the ACA. Let us see if Rich is good to his word. I support Rich in being good to his word.

Tom :moses:

p.s. How's my shade-tree lawyering coming along???

[restrac2000]

Phillip, Phillip, Phillip. Are you now speaking for the whole group? This great big group of "WE"? :haha:

It is amazing how much you have divined about me. Truly! :haha: Phillip, you haven't been around these parts very long now have you. You don't know me at all. You don't have the foggiest idea about how passionate I am about canyoneering, training, and people who have contributed to the sport in a very significant way. I am not a very talented canyoneer really and not much to look at but maybe you ought to ask around about me and my "passions" before you make such wild statements. You are new to this forum (post count) and the vast majority of your posts are clearly Rich/ACA based. Nothing else really. I get that. But please, post away. Feel free to post anything you want within the very loose rules of Bogley. But please know that I have a long history of canyoneering, it is one of my passions, and I have earned my stripes (or at least my Freezefest chef's hat.) :haha: I am even responsible for starting many, many people in this sport. I have always been respectful of you and I will continue to do so. But it seems that you really have difficulty with opposing viewpoints. You telling me, in essence to "shut up" really is not pursuasive. And it certainly won't intimidate me. Again, you REALLY don't know me. :haha: As you post your opinion, remember I am entitled to remind the crowd of facts and express my opinion. So take a deep breath. Believe me, I am not trying to persuade you to do anything, or be anything, or believe anything. That would not seem possible now would it. I am a simple guy, stating simple legal/corporate facts and my little 'ole opinion, which really seem to bother you. Why does that trouble you so much?

BTW, if you were kicked out of the ACA and I am not a member, seems you and I ought to go out back and just yell at each other because neither of us have a "vote". :lol8: (But I guess that I can vote and so can you!!!! Yippee!)

So Philip, have a wonder evening. I will do the same. :2thumbs:

I think the "we" is accurate but I will rephrase.....I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

The passion comment, context is important. I think it is obvious that the context of that was related to this thread. Not the broader passion of canyoneering or training. Not freezefest or the number of canyoneers we have introduced to the sport. Not our shared passion for cooking. Not about the broader divining nature of your "passions". But about the ethical issues surrounding the ACA. And to this end I think it is fair to say.....you haven't dealt with those ideas. I think there is complexity were you think there is simplicity.

I do find it ironic that I am the only one who seems to get labeled for my "ad nauseum" habits. Ugh. Good gracious, I get that you think this boils down to the simple laws you have stated. I really do get that. I really get that. I really do. Really.

Difficulty with opposing views? I don't think you will find many other folks (on these forums) who have stood up to the level of personal attacks, insults about their ideas, and other noteworthy internet machinations who has avoided mostly attacking in kind. Not only that, but someone who has constantly gone out of their way to thank folks for their ideas that noticeably differ from mine or even those that attack me. That willingness to accept opposing views on my part has been obvious the last month. I engage just about every idea presented, even yours. That may not stop me from continuing my internet battle with Rich's ACA but it diminishes the extremely limited evidence to support your claim (one of the few that gets under my skin). And I will assume you intend to stir my pot on this one....its a well known and important skill for lawyers. You are good at wether intentional or not.

Don't believe I got kicked out of the ACA just the forums but it is up to Rich to clarify that. I don't hold my breathe....he shares you proclivity for derailing and subterfuge.

Never told anyone to shut up or tried to intimidate anyone here. To clarify, I called into question your intent for continuing to try and derail this thread. I called into question your complete and utter dismissal of our views without ever actually analyzing them in a public manner. (problems with opposing views?)

I try and engage responses that use my quote or name specifically. It is obvious that is a flaw. For my benefit and the communities it has become obvious that I should just not respond to you. I hope I can do better.

Phillip

[restrac2000]

3. Phillip reacts to Rich's (successful) personal attack and obfuscation with an emotional response and...

4. away we go.

5. repeat ad nauseum.

That is the "avoiding" I am talking about, perhaps more properly called mis-direction.


It has become painfully obvious how easily I fall for these traps. Its a consistent problem and it can affect the thread in a negative way. And I don't think I am too far off on recognizing such traps with Scott. There are moments were I am obviously naive and unskilled. Much to learn.

Phillip

[ratagonia]

It has become painfully obvious how easily I fall for these traps. Its a consistent problem and it can affect the thread in a negative way. And I don't think I am too far off on recognizing such traps with Scott. There are moments were I am obviously naive and unskilled. Much to learn.

Phillip

There's the old "count to ten" rule; for the internet, that's probably the "count to one thousand" rule.

:moses:

[restrac2000]

Yeah.....100 may work out better for me in the future. I try to edit and tease out "bad" ideas as much as possible. Unfortunately, that doesn't always account for the questions "should I respond" "does this help my original idea/comment" "is this an argumentative trap" etc. So be it....I guess I can still fall back on the fact that on most occasions I remain sincere.

[Scott Card]

Tom, this is good. I have perceived equal personal attacks on Rich as you state above against Phillip, but let me not protect the very, very good ACA product, that which Rich teaches, what which he has done for the community, or all things "Rich" in general. I will set that aside. I will set aside the legal definition (or lack thereof) of an "Association".

So let's continue. You speak rationally oh Emperor, my Emperor. Since I am not a part of the ACA or the direct history of the ACA, what was the first legal entity created that was "the ACA?" I must admit, I never cared what that entity was. I figured that if I wanted to join the club, I could. I was more concerned with the product and the face of the ACA, Rich Carlson, who never offended me. Of course I can't really think of anyone who offended me except this one girl in first grade who called me "strawberry freckle face". But I have since accepted my Opie-ness. (For you youngin's, find the Andy Griffith Show and watch it and you will know what I kinda looked like as a kid. :haha:) But i digress.....

Is it the name "Association" that troubles some of you and your definition of that word, or is it that the ACA evolved from a democratic entity to a nondemocratic entity or both? Or (as it seems with some of the more vocal out there) a deep hatred/betrayal/been dun lied to by..... :hair: Rich :hair:, that is so offensive? Are we confusing hatred for Rich and using the something like unto the "Straw man" fallacy? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument (Wiki is fun for all!). That is what it really seems like to many who have commented on this forum and on the Yahoo group. Is it the name that is so darn good that many will now vie for control?

And just for arguments sake, suppose Rich pulls the plug on the whole darn vote idea and offends the same people all over again. Would the next in line be therefore banned to the flatlands by all canyoneers? Would you give the next guys/gals a chance if Rich put them in place? Would you support a group who takes over the ACA simply because Rich gave/sold it to them and you didn't have a vote for something you didn't have a say in anyway?

I would frankly suggest that Rich rescind his internet vote offer for a bunch of reasons. I don't know much about these new fangled computers and such, but internet ballot box stuffing wouldn't seem to be too hard for these bright young computer savvy kids now would it? I don't think any "voted" in idea or group would hold any more legitimacy than an appointed fresh face. Future conduct and product will either keep and improve the ACA or it will die. Probably any result, appointed or voted, will alienate a bunch of people. Hopefully, whatever happens, people will be patient and positive.

But hey, as I have said all along, Rich can do what he wants to do. If it is a vote he wants, vote away. I will send my one in if I have a vote because I will play fair and vote only once. If he chooses his successor(s) then I will begin with a positive attitude and wait and see how it goes, and I hope it goes well.

[spinesnaper]

Scot

It is not understatement that my opinion here really does not matter. However, I do know a thing or two about nonprofit associations. I completely agree with you that internet votes are a non-starter. If ACA is really serious about changing the leadership, the most important thing is to not confuse this with democracy as in everyone has an equal vote. Associations have valuable resources and must be run as benign dictatorships. There must be a leadership circle, which is necessarily more important than everyone else in the organization. This type of transition needs to be performed in some smokey back room. They only recording of the proceeding should be the carefully prepared minutes of the acting association secretary as approved by the ad hoc executive committee of the newly reorganized association. This ain't democracy and it can't be. Some might whine about such a transition but the reality is that only a handful of individuals will ever put enough work into such an organization that their opinions should matter. Capisci?

Ken

[ratagonia]

Scot

It is not understatement that my opinion here really does not matter. However, I do know a thing or two about nonprofit associations. I completely agree with you that internet votes are a non-starter. If ACA is really serious about changing the leadership, the most important thing is to not confuse this with democracy as in everyone has an equal vote. Associations have valuable resources and must be run as benign dictatorships. There must be a leadership circle, which is necessarily more important than everyone else in the organization. This type of transition needs to be performed in some smokey back room. They only recording of the proceeding should be the carefully prepared minutes of the acting association secretary as approved by the ad hoc executive committee of the newly reorganized association. This ain't democracy and it can't be. Some might whine about such a transition but the reality is that only a handful of individuals will ever put enough work into such an organization that their opinions should matter. Capisci?

Ken

In this case it is not an Association, but a sole proprietorship. Rich is the Dictator. He gets to decide the process. He has proposed and committed to a process. I, for one, would like to see him keep his word. There are mechanics of the process to work out, to avoid "rigging", but it seems like a fairly reasonable process can be created.

Although I get your drift, Ken. Usually the Dictator has the privilege of choosing a junta, then resigning, then the junta collectively decides how to proceed from there.

:moses:

[ratagonia]

Tom, this is good. I have perceived equal personal attacks on Rich as you state above against Phillip, but let me not protect the very, very good ACA product, that which Rich teaches, what which he has done for the community, or all things "Rich" in general. I will set that aside. I will set aside the legal definition (or lack thereof) of an "Association".

So let's continue. You speak rationally oh Emperor, my Emperor. Since I am not a part of the ACA or the direct history of the ACA, what was the first legal entity created that was "the ACA?" I must admit, I never cared what that entity was. I figured that if I wanted to join the club, I could. I was more concerned with the product and the face of the ACA, Rich Carlson, who never offended me. Of course I can't really think of anyone who offended me except this one girl in first grade who called me "strawberry freckle face". But I have since accepted my Opie-ness. (For you youngin's, find the Andy Griffith Show and watch it and you will know what I kinda looked like as a kid. :haha:) But i digress.....

Is it the name "Association" that troubles some of you and your definition of that word, or is it that the ACA evolved from a democratic entity to a nondemocratic entity or both? Or (as it seems with some of the more vocal out there) a deep hatred/betrayal/been dun lied to by..... :hair: Rich :hair:, that is so offensive? Are we confusing hatred for Rich and using the something like unto the "Straw man" fallacy? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument (Wiki is fun for all!). That is what it really seems like to many who have commented on this forum and on the Yahoo group. Is it the name that is so darn good that many will now vie for control?

And just for arguments sake, suppose Rich pulls the plug on the whole darn vote idea and offends the same people all over again. Would the next in line be therefore banned to the flatlands by all canyoneers? Would you give the next guys/gals a chance if Rich put them in place? Would you support a group who takes over the ACA simply because Rich gave/sold it to them and you didn't have a vote for something you didn't have a say in anyway?

I would frankly suggest that Rich rescind his internet vote offer for a bunch of reasons. I don't know much about these new fangled computers and such, but internet ballot box stuffing wouldn't seem to be too hard for these bright young computer savvy kids now would it? I don't think any "voted" in idea or group would hold any more legitimacy than an appointed fresh face. Future conduct and product will either keep and improve the ACA or it will die. Probably any result, appointed or voted, will alienate a bunch of people. Hopefully, whatever happens, people will be patient and positive.

But hey, as I have said all along, Rich can do what he wants to do. If it is a vote he wants, vote away. I will send my one in if I have a vote because I will play fair and vote only once. If he chooses his successor(s) then I will begin with a positive attitude and wait and see how it goes, and I hope it goes well.

Your Honor -

Let the record show that the witness was asked a DIRECT QUESTION, which he very carefully evaded, heading off into the hinterlands of discussion. Perhaps the gentleman would be so kind as to answer the question FIRST, before giving testimony on new material. I ask you again, sir:

How

Is

My

Shade-Tree

Lawyering

Coming

Along?

:moses:



:haha:

(Perhaps a more germane response will make it out of my keyboard in the morning...)

[backofbeyond]

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f8834014e87471c4d970d-400wi

[Iceaxe]

:lol8: :lol8: :toofunny:

[Scott Card]

I love that little comic strip...:lol8:

[tanya]

:mrgreen:

[tylerhirshfeld]

:roflol:

[Scott Card]

Tom, my questions of the history of the ACA were meant as, well, questions. I was trying to understand the evolution of the ACA. Some have said that Rich's version is tainted. So I asked trying to understand the venom just a little bit better to rationally discuss the "issues". I was actually going to reread all the posts to figure out just why I am so darn dumb. BUT.....

Forget all that. I have had a good nights rest, got up early and played old man basketball (a little running and a lot of sweating) and had a fresh chocolatey Dunford donut. Boy, i am ready to roll. :haha: So here goes.

Assuming arguendo (that right there makes the whole undergrad degree worth it :haha:) that you are right. For the sake of argument, let's agree that Rich perpetrated a fraud on the community, that he lied, that he is a cheat, that he misrepresented who he was and who the ACA was to third parties (BLM, Zion, etc. whoever). Let's assume that Rich is rude and hurt everyone's feelings and you are all justified in feeling hurt and Rich needs to go. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Rich is bad, real bad, yea even the spawn of Satan! Let's assume that Rich slithers off into a hole somewhere and is never to be seen again. Let's assume that I am wrong and you are right. Let's agree to all of that for now. (Did I cover all the gripes? If not let's agree that I did that too.)

Now, what to do with the ACA. Will you give the new entity, whatever it may be (for profit, non profit, a true association, a money grubbin' corporation) a chance to succeed and earn your trust? Would you participate on an advisory board or board of directors or as a consultant?

Will you give the new person(s) a chance even if they are appointed by Rich? Will you give the new person(s) a chance if they are voted in and you don't like them?

Let's start there for now. Just to keep the discussion going and productive.

[bshwakr]

""

[ratagonia]

... had a fresh chocolatey Dunford donut. Boy, i am ready to roll. :haha: So here goes.

Assuming arguendo ... (lots of stuff)

Now, what to do with the ACA. Will you give the new entity, whatever it may be (for profit, non profit, a true association, a money grubbin' corporation) a chance to succeed and earn your trust? Would you participate on an advisory board or board of directors or as a consultant?

Will you give the new person(s) a chance even if they are appointed by Rich? Will you give the new person(s) a chance if they are voted in and you don't like them?

Let's start there for now. Just to keep the discussion going and productive.

Mmmmmmmm. Fresh chocolatey Dunford donut... Hmmm, wonder if they have those in Kanab, but not fresh... 20 minute drive...

Yes, I stand ready to serve, put energy and support with enthusiasm the new ACA, pretty much whomever the new leader/leaders are.

Since Rich has a lot of venom for me, I see little point in me being involved in the Junta, uh, I mean Transitional Board of Directors.

I would, however, not be interested in leading the charge - just too many things on my plate that I am not doing already.

While we are resurrecting things, I might re-vivify the ZCC (with a more national name), to lead the charge on access issues. I think the community is large enough now that the ZCC/CAC could be more than a one-man-show-with-supporters.

Tom

[ratagonia]

If you are intent on creating an organization that 'speaks' for all canyoneers, I would suggest Shane, Tom, Phil, etc not set it up; they come with way too much baggage!

K (Actually out there doing it!)

It's raining.

I agree. The org would be better led by folks with less baggage.

Tom