Is there any interest in a REAL canyoneering association?

[CarpeyBiggs]

I'd like to gauge the interest of members here on Bogley to see if there truly is any interest in creating a true canyoneering association, one with a democratically elected board.

I'd also like to hear what people think this board should have as it's goals and aims, and if it truly would be beneficial in any way. We've heard a lot over the past few months from those who have been in the sport for a long time, but I'd like to hear what others think.

Myself, I think a true association would be great for the community, even though we have bits of loose associations available in an a la carte fashion already.

I'm basically going to copy the options from the ACA thread, since obviously we have a very different demographic of people who participate over here. And since the picture of what the ACA truly is has become somewhat more clear, I wonder if there is really any serious interest in creating a new entity.

Feel free to add options in the comments if the poll is not comprehensive enough.

[Deathcricket]

Based on my experiences with the "caving" community. I would say I have zero interest.

[mdd]

I sent a note around this morning gauging interest from a few people. Several have replied expressing interest in at least having the discussion. I was thinking about starting an egroup to discuss it since several of them do not read forums. Perhaps have the discussion both here and there? Point them here? Any thoughts?

M

[DOSS]

Based on my experiences with the "caving" community. I would say I have zero interest.

This

[CarpeyBiggs]

I sent a note around this morning gauging interest from a few people. Several have replied expressing interest in at least having the discussion. I was thinking about starting an egroup to discuss it since several of them do not read forums. Perhaps have the discussion both here and there? Point them here? Any thoughts?

M
if they want to participate here, that would be excellent. however, i know there are plenty of folks who won't participate here because they don't like the atmosphere on bogley, or they find the forums annoying to read (prefer egroups).

i personally can go either way. you'd almost certainly get a different character of responses from an egroup than you would on bogley. i think the biggest crowd of "casual" canyoneers hangs out on here though.

in short, i dunno... :ne_nau:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Based on my experiences with the "caving" community. I would say I have zero interest.

being totally ignorant of the caving community, i'd be interested in hearing details and how it would apply to this situation.

[canyoncaver]

Based on my experiences with the "caving" community. I would say I have zero interest.

Based on my experiences with the caving community (which I have been a part of for the last 18 years), I would say that canyoneers could benefit greatly from the kind of networking, skills workshops, safety information, publications, and institutional knowledge that cavers share. The caving community feels like a family, while the current state of the canyoneering community feels more like an acrimonius competition.

[Deathcricket]

Basically it's a bunch of elitest pricks who hold back all and any info, and limit trips to "their friends" that they deem worthy using variables that they made up. All in the name of keeping info private to "protect the caves" from harm. I think having the canyoneering community so decentralized benefits it greatly in that no one is "the boss" and it's real easy to get picked up for a trip with the different "camps". Once you start a centralized authority dictating rules the community will far apart IMO and you'll just have a bunch a canyon douche's left who like to punch out a noob who doesn't want to carry ropes.

As a small example, take the helmet law for instance. I go with groups where helmets are encouraged but not required. And I go with some groups where a helmet is required or they won't take you. Pretty easy to qualify for either group. But what if a group wouldn't pick you up unless you had a helmet, ascending gear, knew how to tie a clove hitch, stone knots, figure 8, water knot, and the devious sheep shank. And you were also required to have done a half dozen canyons before they would pick you up? And if they were "caught" taking you into a canyon, they would be shunned by the entire group, invites for them would be no longer forthcoming. That's pretty much the place caving is at right now.

And these rules can pretty much be applied to all the aspects of a group where people differ in opinions. Just using that as a small example. I see no benefits to having a REAL canyon association, none. And I feel if one were put into place it would devastate the community.

[trackrunner]

I don't think a new association should be involved in teaching, guide certification, or guiding. the academy and ACGA guides or other outfitters like ZAC, Canyon Country Guides, etc will handle that.

my favorite parts participating in the ACA events were:


meeting new partners & networking at rendezvous
free natural anchors & basic skills safety workshops allowing people to learn how construct/inspect anchors and not rely too much on placing bolts.

In the access issues in Zion, Arches, Grand canyon I've wanted a coordinated group to lobby for our access.

the community already has three diverse forums. no need to start a new one.

the other question is will members of the community put in enough volunteer time to properly run it.

just my 2 cents

[SRG]

I don't really run into any problems(other than the fun kind!) in the canyons, so my initial response was gonna be that an association would be unnecessary.

However I know the permit system in Zion is messed up and there was a fuss about a Moab system, so maybe an association that dealt with access issues would be helpful.

Also, there are plenty of great resources for canyon safety information and proper canyoneering etiquette and unfortunately there's also lots of human erosion, litter at campsites and avoidable accidents, so I'm thinkin' that establishing another place to echo these sentiments/ distribute information can't hurt.

[Iceaxe]

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately..... I'm not sure if an umbrella organization is required. But I'm interested in being involved in any discussions regarding a possible future organization and its direction.

If an organization is deemed necessary I see it being more of a "Guidance Council", similar to the old ZCC (for those that were around back than). A group that can watch out for the general interests of canyoneers and rally support for items like permits, access or the new Arches management plan when required. Such a council would not dictate to the membership, but simply provide easy to understand information and a suggested course of action. This allows members to support a particular issue in a manner they deem appropriate.

As I see it the majority of canyoneers just want to have fun and enjoy canyoneering. But they are willing to rally and provide support as a group for items they deem important when the need arises.

The Guidance Council would only require a simple website and a mailing list you could sign up for. Similar to the old ZCC. And I don't see a Guidance Council becoming a hugh work load for any one person or group. Most of the information gathering an distribution is already being done by several individuals that take an interest or concern in these types of matters.

I would expect the Guidance Council to be run by a large and varied democratically elected board of directors.

I don't see an additional forum being required. It would just dilute the waters and you can easily get a message to most canyoneers by a simple mailing list and/or posting to one of the current 2 1/2 forums (I counted the ACA site as 1/2 because of lack of traffic and you never know who is allowed to post).

High quality schooling, guiding and beta are currently available in many forms and should not be of concern to a Guidance Council. The good schools, guides and beta remain and the weak are quickly thinned from the herd.

I don't see a need for a Guidance Council to provide rendezvous or fests. The current organizations and forums do a nice job of that already. If someone wants to organize a social event they are welcome to do it on Bogley, and I know the Yahoo group has also support individuals organizing social events in the past. There is also a rumor that "Tom-Fests" will be starting back up, which were always a great time.

A Guidance Council should provide recommendations for proper technic and ethics with regard to environmental matters (rope grooves, erosion, etc).

Anyhoo..... that's my 2 cents.

[Wasatch]

Yay for Tom-Fests:nod:

[Bshelton]

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately..... I'm not sure if an umbrella organization is required. But I'm interested in being involved in any discussions regarding a possible future organization and its direction.

If an organization is deemed necessary I see it being more of a "Guidance Council", similar to the old ZCC (for those that were around back than). A group that can watch out for the general interests of canyoneers and rally support for items like permits, access or the new Arches management plan when required. Such a council would not dictate to the membership, but simply provide easy to understand information and a suggested course of action. This allows members to support a particular issue in a manner they deem appropriate.

As I see it the majority of canyoneers just want to have fun and enjoy canyoneering. But they are willing to rally and provide support as a group for items they deem important when the need arises.

The Guidance Council would only require a simple website and a mailing list you could sign up for. Similar to the old ZCC. And I don't see a Guidance Council becoming a hugh work load for any one person or group. Most of the information gathering an distribution is already being done by several individuals that take an interest or concern in these types of matters.

I would expect the Guidance Council to be run by a large and varied democratically elected board of directors.

I don't see an additional forum being required. It would just dilute the waters and you can easily get a message to most canyoneers by a simple mailing list and/or posting to one of the current 2 1/2 forums (I counted the ACA site as 1/2 because of lack of traffic and you never know who is allowed to post).

High quality schooling, guiding and beta are currently available in many forms and should not be of concern to a Guidance Council. The good schools, guides and beta remain and the weak are quickly thinned from the herd.

I don't see a need for a Guidance Council to provide rendezvous or fests. The current organizations and forums do a nice job of that already. If someone wants to organize a social event they are welcome to do it on Bogley, and I know the Yahoo group has also support individuals organizing social events in the past. There is also a rumor that "Tom-Fests" will be starting back up, which were always a great time.

A Guidance Council should provide recommendations for proper technic and ethics with regard to environmental matters (rope grooves, erosion, etc).

Anyhoo..... that's my 2 cents.


I've started to reply and give my 2 cents a few times now but none of them seemed to come out right in Black and white so they were deleted with the intentions to try and put thoughts together at a later time.

I no longer have to worry about my "writers block" thanks to Iceaxe. I don't think I could've said it any better.

As a noob to the politics of canyoneering but not a noob to the canyons, my 2 cents would mirror the above post. I love the canyons but dont live in Utah nor do I have the option to be at every organized event or every land management meeting I would certainly appreciate someone taking my opinion to them and speaking for me, or at least speaking for the majority,( me and the majority may not always agree).

With regular information flowing through one of the "21/2 forums" or a simple mailing list, I will be able to stay informed. If I really feel that strong about an issue I will arrange to take personal involvement and speak up or be at these meetings myself.

I agree the BOD should be a diverse group, democratically elected and there should be some dues process by members to cover costs of any such mailings.

Thanks for puttin' it together for me Iceaxe.

[spinesnaper]

Making and running such an organization is going to be nearly a thankless task. I say nearly because I think that anyone reading these threads understands the importance and necessity of such an organization. Some hardy soul or group has to step up to make this happen. When this occurs, the community will crystalize behind this effort. I for one will support the new organization. I suspect that many will do the same. I suspect these threads are critical for developing the necessary interest to push forward to build such an organization.

Ken

[CarpeyBiggs]

i don't think there will be any shortage of people willing to make this happen, if we can decide if it is truly worth making happen. i also believe the forums will be redundant, but i do see value in more organized fests, social gatherings, service projects, pro-active measures to interact with land agencies, etc...

there are many people with the knowledge, passion, and commitment to make it happen, as long as a community is willing to support such a cause, especially now that it is clear that the ACA's mission is not representative of the community.

[Bshelton]

It would probably feel very much like a thankless task. But with that said it seems like some type of organization should be in place and would probably be leaned on more than anyone may admit right now.

I don't want to sound like I only want to sit back and let someone else do all the work, I would be more than happy to dedicate time and effort into such committee as requested or needed. I would even do it without a thank you.

No offense : (and I say that knowing someone will take offense) maybe there is just to many "walls" built up and to much "history" between some of those most involved right now. Maybe the entire community could benefit from some fresh eyes working closely with those who have dedicated so much time and effort over the years to progress this sport to it's current state, but less the "history" and bad blood. Even though said bad blood seems to be limited to a single individual or single group.

Just a new guy to the community's opinion, looking in from the outside.

If I'm too new here and don't know what the hell I'm talking, about please feel free to let me know. ( I know you will ) that's why I love this site!

[restrac2000]

i don't think there will be any shortage of people willing to make this happen, if we can decide if it is truly worth making happen. i also believe the forums will be redundant, but i do see value in more organized fests, social gatherings, service projects, pro-active measures to interact with land agencies, etc...

there are many people with the knowledge, passion, and commitment to make it happen, as long as a community is willing to support such a cause, especially now that it is clear that the ACA's mission is not representative of the community.

Support. I may have slightly different preferences but I would support a democratic association solely on the importance of that element. I don't need to have control over specific outcomes, I just need to know I have real input to affect change.

I would love to see an organization that interacts with agencies. It may not need to advocate specific outcomes but it would be helpful to have a reliable, direct line to the government agencies that create relevant policies. If it provided detailed, specific information regarding policy and options for stakeholder involvement than that would progress.

It may be "thankless" but I know firsthand that many people are willing to help. The email and sideband activity the last 6 weeks has been robust.

Phillip

[restrac2000]

It would probably feel very much like a thankless task. But with that said it seems like some type of organization should be in place and would probably be leaned on more than anyone may admit right now.

I don't want to sound like I only want to sit back and let someone else do all the work, I would be more than happy to dedicate time and effort into such committee as requested or needed. I would even do it without a thank you.

No offense : (and I say that knowing someone will take offense) maybe there is just to many "walls" built up and to much "history" between some of those most involved right now. Maybe the entire community could benefit from some fresh eyes working closely with those who have dedicated so much time and effort over the years to progress this sport to it's current state, but less the "history" and bad blood. Even though said bad blood seems to be limited to a single individual or single group.

Just a new guy to the community's opinion, looking in from the outside.

If I'm too new here and don't know what the hell I'm talking, about please feel free to let me know. ( I know you will ) that's why I love this site!

Agreed.
I would support new blood. After a decade it may be time to help develop or encourage new leadership in the community.

Phillip

[CarpeyBiggs]

If I'm too new here and don't know what the hell I'm talking, about please feel free to let me know. ( I know you will ) that's why I love this site!

there is a lot of history, no doubt. and some bad blood between the players. i can't speak for anyone but myself, but your perspective is exactly what i personally am interested in gauging. we know all the opinions of most of the "veterans" already. kinda seems like a fresh start might be able to mend some of those fractures and provide a foundation for an association that is of benefit to the community at large... or maybe not. the more input there is from a wider cross-section of the community, the better.

[Bshelton]

I would certainly be up for increased involvement and be honored to be a part of the future and direction canyoneering evolves.

I'm sure there are more people out there like me but, I have found ( I manage 160 employees - have 4 managers and 9 supervisors that report to me) most people only want to sit back and point out problems, but very few are actually willing to sacrifice their time and put forth effort to solve them.

I only assume and speak from my experience in life that the canyoneering community is probably not immune to this type of thinking.

This is probably exactly why this "association" or lack thereof is in it's current state. Those with strong opinions and even more dedication surfaced to the top years back (probably out of necessity, and thanks to forward thinking) to form whatever they could to protect and advance this sport. This was probably done initially with the beat of intentions with the "sport" in mind. But with all strong oppinioned personality's eventually they clash and the original gets lost someplace in the minutia.

I don't think anyone who drives out to a canyon today has room to do anything but thank those individuals who came before us and cut the path to where we are. Good bad or indifferent those differences of opinion's out there are owned by those who were actually involved.

IMHO the community needs the experienced and knowledgeable but it needs them to work open-mindedly and jointly with some fresh eyes.

If for no other reason, every successful organization has a succession plan.

[ghawk]

I'd say keep it simple and focus on big issues relating to access. Maybe some safety stuff too.

[Iceaxe]

but i do see value in more organized fests, social gatherings, service projects, pro-active measures to interact with land agencies, etc...

I have no problem and support all of these in general, but understand they are all labor intensive requiring a lot of man hours to arrange and coordinate. My feeling is these are items for a future BOD to address if/when an organization rises from the ashes.




Maybe the entire community could benefit from some fresh eyes working closely with those who have dedicated so much time and effort over the years to progress this sport to it's current state, but less the "history" and bad blood.

I agree fresh blood is great. But it also helps to have experience in the mix as those people have been down this road before and are aware of the many pitfalls. You need a wide and varied mix.

As a side note, with the exception of Rich, the senior canyoneering community has always been able to work extremely well together when it cames to issues involving the general good of the canyoneering community. The initial problems with the ACA began when the senior canyoneering community would come to a consensus on an issue only to have it vetoed by Rich. It doesn't mean we always agree on every issue, but we have always been able to come to a reasonable agreement when it comes to issues like access, permits, ethics and etiquette.


:cool2: I'm not dissin' anyones ideas or thoughts, I'm just highlighting some items to provide more prospective from someone who has been down this road before. I'm enjoying reading the thoughts and ideas.

:2thumbs:

[Bshelton]

In no way did I mean to suggest that there needs to be a complete overhaul of people and/or ideas. I fully support and encourage integrating the new and inexperienced with those who have already been down the road before.

I also recognize that a lot of the conflict revolves around Rich and the way some interpret his management of the ACA.

I also agree that a lot of these issues should be addresses by a BOD. I think it would even be fair to suggest an immediate BOD ( emergency or interim if you will) to get things started. Democratic elections to follow.

I suggest (since the opinion is that Rich can not be counted on to follow through with his word) ( I do not hold an opinion on this) this begins from anew. New name,new structure, new mission statement ect... Or Whatever is decided may be needed.

The point is, if we are not getting what we want out of what currently exists then let's start something that works better for the majority.

[mdd]

I started an egroup to discuss this at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyonorgdiscussion/

The group is open to anyone interested in participating, or just watching to see what happens.

I envision the egroup more for people who want to actively participate in starting a new org, and this thread to be a place where people who aren't interested in actively setting up an org can contribute and discuss ideas too. I'll crosspost interesting tidbits between them if need be so those who don't read bogley can still get a feel what people are saying. If the conversation ends up being entirely through bogley, I'm ok with that too.

M

[Iceaxe]

FWIW: Bogley just set a record.... The most members online over 24 hours was 243, 10-07-2011 at 09:04 AM. The number is actual registered members who are logged in.

That time frame was the height of the ACA/Rich Carlson outting/bashing/questioning/exposing/whining thread.

Which tells me canyoneers do care about what is happening in their sport.

[Don]

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately..... I'm not sure if an umbrella organization is required. But I'm interested in being involved in any discussions regarding a possible future organization and its direction.

If an organization is deemed necessary I see it being more of a "Guidance Council", similar to the old ZCC (for those that were around back than). A group that can watch out for the general interests of canyoneers and rally support for items like permits, access or the new Arches management plan when required. Such a council would not dictate to the membership, but simply provide easy to understand information and a suggested course of action. This allows members to support a particular issue in a manner they deem appropriate.

As I see it the majority of canyoneers just want to have fun and enjoy canyoneering. But they are willing to rally and provide support as a group for items they deem important when the need arises.

The Guidance Council would only require a simple website and a mailing list you could sign up for. Similar to the old ZCC. And I don't see a Guidance Council becoming a hugh work load for any one person or group. Most of the information gathering an distribution is already being done by several individuals that take an interest or concern in these types of matters.

I would expect the Guidance Council to be run by a large and varied democratically elected board of directors.

I don't see an additional forum being required. It would just dilute the waters and you can easily get a message to most canyoneers by a simple mailing list and/or posting to one of the current 2 1/2 forums (I counted the ACA site as 1/2 because of lack of traffic and you never know who is allowed to post).

High quality schooling, guiding and beta are currently available in many forms and should not be of concern to a Guidance Council. The good schools, guides and beta remain and the weak are quickly thinned from the herd.

I don't see a need for a Guidance Council to provide rendezvous or fests. The current organizations and forums do a nice job of that already. If someone wants to organize a social event they are welcome to do it on Bogley, and I know the Yahoo group has also support individuals organizing social events in the past. There is also a rumor that "Tom-Fests" will be starting back up, which were always a great time.

A Guidance Council should provide recommendations for proper technic and ethics with regard to environmental matters (rope grooves, erosion, etc).

Anyhoo..... that's my 2 cents.

Makes sense to me. I'd support that.

...Be interested to hear what Tom has to say as well.

[Don]

I started an egroup to discuss this at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyonorgdiscussion/

The group is open to anyone interested in participating, or just watching to see what happens.

I envision the egroup more for people who want to actively participate in starting a new org, and this thread to be a place where people who aren't interested in actively setting up an org can contribute and discuss ideas too. I'll crosspost interesting tidbits between them if need be so those who don't read bogley can still get a feel what people are saying. If the conversation ends up being entirely through bogley, I'm ok with that too.

M

Only the 4th message on that new egroup and already the suggestion of a 'no linking to Bogley' rule. Wow, we really do have a reputation. (and I'm off to post a link to this comment...)

[ocanler]

Fully agree with the comments made by Bshelton and Iceaxe.
Training and skills can be left out to private guiding companies. There seems to be no lack of guides and skilled people doing that. The primary concern of a this association should be land access. The canyoneering community needs to have one unified voice to deal with access restrictions imposed by National parks and BLMs.
The Rendez-Vous are also nice and should be handled by this association.
Canyon topos ,Betas, and conditions can be handled by the many forums, websites, and books available. I must say it would be nice to have a monthly Canyoneering magazine by subscription just like Backpacker. I would buy it.
Looks like some "new blood" would also be a good thing. Judging from the tasty threads on Bogley in the last few days, it looks like the "old guys" could use a break, or be used as advisers.

My 3 cents.

[tanya]

Only the 4th message on that new egroup and already the suggestion of a 'no linking to Bogley' rule. Wow, we really do have a reputation. (and I'm off to post a link to this comment...)

Crotchety old FARTS! :doorpeak:


Never Mind! That's Kip! He is neither old nor Crotchety. I don't get it.:roll::popcorn:

[Gambel Oak]

The big ticket items are where I like to see my donations go. Keeping members notified of proposed state and federal legislation with possible implications to the canyoneering community. Providing educational material/training to local groups of canyoneers that would assist them in organizing for local projects. Educational / training material on how to cultivate a positive canyoneering image among the local community. Promoting techniques for minimizing our impacts. Compromise is good.

[Bshelton]

I disagree with the "old farts" needing a break, I think they play a vital role in where we come from and certainly have the needed relationships to determine where we go.

But I certainly agree with the role the "association" would play. I would also like to hear the thoughts of the all mighty emperor as well as others.

IMO as much as some of the pioneers would like to abstain from an association, I think they have an unwritten responsibility to it.

A newsletter would be awesome and I would also subscribe, but probably something to look at after the foundation is laid.

Again, just to be clear I don't claim to know much of political history and my opinions are solely from what I have learned on this forum. If I am off base please let me know.

[ratagonia]

But I certainly agree with the role the "association" would play. I would also like to hear the thoughts of the all mighty emperor as well as others.

IMO as much as some of the pioneers would like to abstain from an association, I think they have an unwritten responsibility to it.


IMNHO, those who claim an unwritten responsibility to others, therefore have an equal or larger responsibility themselves.

An association of any sort not only requires leadership (chiefs), but also requires people willing to do stuff (indians).

I think a good association could be made based on TWO aspects -

1. Access issues modelled on the Access Fund (the REAL work) plus
2. Social club based around events, slyly sucking people into doing some of the REAL work.

Contrary to Mr. Carlson, I do not think the community has to be split on access "politics". Except for extremes on both ends, we mostly agree, and should not get lost in quibbles about the details. It is not SUWAites vs. USAllers. Nor bolters vs. purists. I think we are all "Treated Fair"ers.

Tom

[Sombeech]

Only the 4th message on that new egroup and already the suggestion of a 'no linking to Bogley' rule. Wow, we really do have a reputation. (and I'm off to post a link to this comment...)

I know that some people don't like the "attitude" on bogley that I keep hearing about, some say "edgy format" (?) and sure I've contributed to that with my spontaneous attempts at humor (if that's really what they're talking about) but I may be way off. -and I've tried to tone it down a little. We try to be as censor free as we can, even though Shane edits some of my stuff :roflol:

Is it just the fact that bogley isn't solely a canyoneering forum? If so, I would understand. But otherwise, dang, I'd really love to know how we can be more welcoming and accommodating. [no sarcasm]

With the new and continuing incline of online members here (mostly canyoneers), I saw that as a sign that creating more forums and egroups would only dilute the demographic and split them up even further.

Feedback is always welcome regarding how we can help accommodate. Even if the bulk of that would be "Sombeech, just stay out of the way". :mrgreen:

We've worked hard to provide features that make sharing trail data easier;


Embedded Google Maps and routes
Embedded Slideshows
Embedded Videos
Event Calendars and Invite notices

Or is it that these things are too much? It's understandable that some people just like the basics.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents. We're just trying to to make a good place for discussion. If anybody has any feedback please feel welcome to send me a Private Message and let's work some of these annoyances out.

Thanks :afro:

[Iceaxe]

For those new to this association type stuff.... the theory behind a large Board of Directors is that no one strong personality can bulldoze the group into submission. The basic idea is every ones opinion gets diluted into a common consensuses.

The larger and more diverse your foundation the better your chances of success.

[Scott Card]

Here is my one concern with a large board of directors. Who will actually take ownership of the "association"? The Association needs some one(s) to be in the store, someone to teach, someone to create the website, someone who is getting paid as a job to run the show.

I presume a board will appoint someone or someones and set a wage and duties under your plan??? Otherwise I fear anything a board does will die unless there is money attached to some leaders who will in essence take ownership of the thing and run it well.

There are other ideas floating out there but I will hold off discussing them for now.

[Bshelton]

I couldn't agree more. We all share a responsibility to be involved. We all enjoy the canyons, therefor we are all stakeholders in it's future. As I posted earlier I for one would be happy to do some work ( as an indian) I have my areas of expertise, organizing and running a canyoneering association is not one of them.

I would commit time, effort and money to any group who move forward with leading an association that listens to the community and spoke fairly for the majority based on an informed democratic process.

There is certainly two parts to this.

1) The primary function- dealing with land management issues, permitting processes, recognizing " best practices" ( safety, technique, ect..), keeping members informed and recognizing and steering the future of this sport as one voice for the majority.

2) As mentioned the social aspect. Although not the primary role or responsibility of the association it is a great place to recruit members( and their money and time to get the "real work" accomplished) but it is also a great opportunity to share the position of the association and reasons behind said position. An important optional role that should not be overlooked.

[Iceaxe]

someone who is getting paid as a job to run the show.

Getting paid???.... :lol8:

Your plan is much grander than mine.....

I'm thinking something modeled after the ZCC.

I know this can be done because we did it once before with the ZCC, which was a similar organization to what is being discussed here. The ZCC was also somewhat successful in its day with probably its biggest victory being getting some of the permit limits raised in Zion. "the Store" consisted of a mailing list, a small website where information was posted and questions could be asked and answered.

That's at least my idea until we actually have some money and a revenue stream. It at least gets the organization off the ground and flying.

[Scott Card]

You are correct, my plan is much grander and yes, it involves somebody getting paid from the dues and other monies that could be generated through well.... let's just say, stuff. :haha:

[Bshelton]

Getting paid???.... :lol8:

Your plan is much grander than mine.....

I'm thinking something modeled after the ZCC.

I know this can be done because we did it once before with the ZCC, which was a similar organization to what is being discussed here. The ZCC was also somewhat successful in its day with probably its biggest victory being getting some of the permit limits raised in Zion. "the Store" consisted of a mailing list, a small website where information was posted and questions could be asked and answered.

That's at least my idea until we actually have some money and a revenue stream. It at least gets the organization off the ground and flying.


Agreed.

[restrac2000]

Money in this arena will be limited for a long while, if I were to guess. Costs could be kept fairly low: printing materials, website, etc. Volunteering, maybe some "in kind" donations and out-of-pocket expenses could likely float an association for a while. In the long run some income will be needed for the organization for the burden to be diffuse.

Sustained membership fees will require a reliable product.

Phillip

[Felicia]

I would like to participate.

[ratagonia]

I started an egroup to discuss this at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyonorgdiscussion/

The group is open to anyone interested in participating, or just watching to see what happens.

I envision the egroup more for people who want to actively participate in starting a new org, and this thread to be a place where people who aren't interested in actively setting up an org can contribute and discuss ideas too. I'll crosspost interesting tidbits between them if need be so those who don't read bogley can still get a feel what people are saying. If the conversation ends up being entirely through bogley, I'm ok with that too.

M

People who would like to participate should join Mike's Group. First Step.

Tom

[Scott Card]

As I peruse the interwebs, I think a new and improved ACA could house the big issues of this survey including the "Fests", access, networking, lobbying, etc. The right board and the right face(s) to the organization could do this. This current movement on so many forums and so many different players reminds me of the 13 Colonies. Sooner or later, we need to unite if we are to be relevant or we are left to try to keep track of a bunch of side shows with no main event. I like the ideas, I like the passion, I like the excitement, but like my Garmin, it seems we are still searching for satellites. We need to triangulate. I have some ideas but the timing is not quite right. A few more phone calls, a few more emails and we will see if any ideas have any "stick" to them.

[Scott Card]

People who would like to participate should join Mike's Group. First Step.

Tom

Oh, and I joined. :cool2:

[lugnutz]

why is a link to teh yahoo egroup allowed from bogley but not a link to bogley allowed from the egroup? intolerance maybe

[skiclimb3287]

why is a link to teh yahoo egroup allowed from bogley but not a link to bogley allowed from the egroup? intolerance maybe

If you join over there and read through, it appears that Kip was trying to keep the conversation all in one place so it was easier to follow. Don't think it will all stay in one place though...

[lugnutz]

If you join over there and read through, it appears that Kip was trying to keep the conversation all in one place so it was easier to follow. Don't think it will all stay in one place though...

good intentions but it appears the conversation started here and then on the 24th post here he introduced yet another group

[bshwakr]

good intentions but it appears the conversation started here and then on the 24th post here he introduced yet another group

I you want this and other members of the 'SCC' (as shane calls it) to contribute, you should probably make up your mind where you want the discussion to be housed. Or do you like logging in to 5 different groups to hear the same thing over and over again?
k

[skiclimb3287]

I agree that the big item to have an association rally around is access. The voice of many individuals independently expressing their opinions vs many individuals voicing the collective opinion of an association on issues like access has a very different effect, and I think the collective voice has more power with the powers that be. If the perception is that the canyoneering community as a whole has such and such an opinion, that will get us a lot farther.

It has been brought up that an association delving into the politics will be challenged to gain a consensus on things like Bolt vs Natural, SUWA vs. anti-SUWA, etc. I don't think these need to be issues taken up by the association. If the issue is going to be polarizing to the community, why even step in that pile :topes:. Those issues only need to be addressed when directly relating to other issues of importance, like access. If land managers are going to take access away largely based on bolts, I think the community can come to an agreement that in that scenario it is better to go au natural.

Its going to be a fun ride for the next while!eclipsee_steering

:popcorn:

[Scott Card]

Some have the perception that playing in Bogley is like playing with a skunk. . . . . you are going to get stink on you. So I think that was another reason for the new egroup because some just refuse to play in Bogleyland. The Canyons Yahoo group is virtually silent on the issue right now.

[skiclimb3287]

I you want this and other members of the 'SCC' (as shane calls it) to contribute, you should probably make up your mind where you want the discussion to be housed. Or do you like logging in to 5 different groups to hear the same thing over and over again?
k

I wonder if we can really get everyone on board with going to one group to discuss this. As has been mentioned before, many won't come here, and just as many don't like the Yahoo setup. I am not a fan of the Yahoo style, but I can get over that to keep the conversation in one place. Hopefully everyone can do the same, whether that is here or there?

[lugnutz]

I wonder if we can really get everyone on board with going to one group to discuss this. As has been mentioned before, many won't come here, and just as many don't like the Yahoo setup. I am not a fan of the Yahoo style, but I can get over that to keep the conversation in one place. Hopefully everyone can do the same, whether that is here or there?

whether they log on here or not to make their presence known they can still view the discussion. i loathe signing into a site just to see the information that is only being duplicated some where else that is already "guest friendly".

does he want people to log on for the numbers? because i have a casual interest in doing canyons and the moderators here at bogley may only be logging on over there just to view the discussion.

so if they don't like getting their hands dirty on bogley, what ever that means - they can still read the progress here in stealth

this is all that i will say on this subject.

[Iceaxe]

I'm not a big fan of the creation of yet anther forum... I would have suggested posting the info here and on the existing Yahoo site (as opposed to creating the new yahoo site). My reason being..... that's where the canyoneers.

[Iceaxe]

Money in this arena will be limited for a long while, if I were to guess. Costs could be kept fairly low: printing materials, website, etc. Volunteering, maybe some "in kind" donations and out-of-pocket expenses could likely float an association for a while. In the long run some income will be needed for the organization for the burden to be diffuse.

Sustained membership fees will require a reliable product.

AGREED!

I'll tell you guys the same thing I tell my crew when we begin a big project like designing an oil refinery or power plant.... "Do the easy stuff first, and when that's done all that's left is easy stuff."

If you tackle a project like this all at once its overwheming. So just start with the first priorities and work from there.

1. Decide if an organization is required/desired.
2. Figure out an inter BOD to get it off the ground.
3. Decide what your number #1 priority is (Access?) and get to work.

Simple! :bud:

[accadacca]

I'm not a big fan of the creation of yet anther forum... I would have suggested posting the info here and on the existing Yahoo site (as opposed to creating the new yahoo site). My reason being..... that's where the canyoneers.
Yep, exactly. Bogley has the largest population of active canyoneers on the internet. I challenge anyone to prove me otherwise. :stud:
Just look at how many topics and posts have been created here on this one subject. Not to mention the nearly 40,000 posts in the canyoneering section. :cool2:

[CarpeyBiggs]

if access is truly what is going to be the focus of the association (which I believe it is), what are the issues that need focusing on, immediately?

my first thought is the fact that the GCNP backcountry plan is under review. a lot of work behind the scenes has already taken place, mainly by rich rudow and todd martin. i think i can say confidently that they would support an official association, and would likely be able to put together a lot of meaningful content on the grand canyon situation.

what else is a pressing access/impact issue? what else needs to be addressed and represented by a community association?

[Iceaxe]

if access is truly what is going to be the focus of the association (which I believe it is), what are the issues that need focusing on, immediately?

Grand Canyon Management Plan (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?56499)

Arches NP Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?39928)

I'd say those two topic's should be at the top of the list.

A review of the Zion Permit system with possible suggested changes (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?58975) should also be on the list, but not at the top.

FYI: I spoke with the Arches rangers this summer. They say their plan is currently one or two years out. They are still in the process of gathering information, which to me means they are still open to possible suggestions and input.

[ghawk]

I would also add that discussion of low impact techniques (eg. staying in watercourse, natural anchors when possible/appropriate, following permit systems even when they can be tedious) and finding ways to get those techniques more widely embraced by the average joe canyoneer would be something to consider, because this directly affects access. If nobody does does something wrong, then access to new areas is easier an we maintain access to what we have. An association can advocate our cause and if a low impact mentality is part of our group then that gives more power to say "We are responsible, so you should give us more/easier access" or "this area has been closed because of bad behavior by previous canyoneers (eg. canyons on reservations) but we will follow your rules and respect the land". I know some of that is idealistic but I feel an association could help with these issues. I would like to see canyons on reservation land opened and I feel that creating respectful relationships through an association could help.

[Scott Card]

AGREED!

I'll tell you guys the same thing I tell my crew when we begin a big project like designing an oil refinery or power plant.... "Do the easy stuff first, and when that's done all that's left is easy stuff."

If you tackle a project like this all at once its overwheming. So just start with the first priorities and work from there.

1. Decide if an organization is required/desired.
2. Figure out an inter BOD to get it off the ground.
3. Decide what your number #1 priority is (Access?) and get to work.

Simple! :bud:

And that, Shane, is why you are successful. I look at it much the same way but I also would like to create some sort of a vision to work towards. Even in your business you start with the big picture in mind and then move to the easy stuff. One of my points is to define the picture, the plan, the renderings. Back in the day when I was drawing and painting, I never sat in front of a blank canvas or paper and just started free forming it. Some can do it and make great work (albeit unrecognizable most times) but I had to have a picture in my mind of where I was going. If i believe in the vision, then i go to work on filling in the blanks.

As to your number 1 item, I'd be interested in your thoughts why a organization would not be desired. I know it is not required but based on the interwebs, it seems to be desired unless all this furor the past month was just to take Rich down.

BTW, I'd be happy to be the facilitator of the discussion, the white board guy so to speak. My large conference room is available and can hold 40-50 people. I don't think of myself as one of the Gurus but I know how to work the volume button on the internet :lol8: and this is my interest. I don't mind inviting anyone or everyone who is interested. I would even draft a proposed agenda and email it to a you and others to tweek before this grand meeting. At the meeting we could select a board of interested individuals by vote to then define the easy stuff.

Or, as you suggest, a group of 12 could meet and then broadcast the findings to the various boards and see what the reaction is. Do we have 12 who are committed enough to stick with this thing long enough to make it happen? Whether a meeting of everyone or just 12, I don't know that it matters to me. Either way I am willing and available and my office and/or my computer and projector, white board etc. are all at the canyoneering communities disposal for this meeting. My projector and computer are mobile if we were to meet anywhere else. If desired, I could also facilitate an internet based meeting so ya'll don't have to get dressed. I personally prefer to see people face to face, in person, and based on discussions here and on yahoo, it may be desirable to meet face to face so that we are tempered in our comments or so that we can just go out back and work each other over and be done with it. :haha:

[accadacca]

I would be willing to help build a website for said organization and be the webmaster. I have access to resources and the technical skill myself. I manage a web team and direct a dozen technology professionals. I also have some server space that I could put it on for free. When it gets organized, if the need arises, then the offer is extended.

[Scott Card]

I would be willing to help build a website for said organization and be the webmaster. I have access to resources and the technical skill myself. I manage a web team and direct a dozen technology professionals. I also have some server space that I could put it on for free. When it gets organized, if the need arises, then the offer is extended.That is mighty generous. Thanks.:2thumbs:

[Cirrus2000]

I would also add that discussion of low impact techniques (eg. staying in watercourse, natural anchors when possible/appropriate, following permit systems even when they can be tedious) and finding ways to get those techniques more widely embraced by the average joe canyoneer would be something to consider, because this directly affects access. If nobody does does something wrong, then access to new areas is easier an we maintain access to what we have. An association can advocate our cause and if a low impact mentality is part of our group then that gives more power to say "We are responsible, so you should give us more/easier access" or "this area has been closed because of bad behavior by previous canyoneers (eg. canyons on reservations) but we will follow your rules and respect the land". I know some of that is idealistic but I feel an association could help with these issues. I would like to see canyons on reservation land opened and I feel that creating respectful relationships through an association could help.

Excellent thoughts - I agree that this is a two-pronged approach, where each can support the other: education and access advocacy.

[ghawk]

Originally Posted by accadacca
I would be willing to help build a website for said organization and be the webmaster. I have access to resources and the technical skill myself. I manage a web team and direct a dozen technology professionals. I also have some server space that I could put it on for free. When it gets organized, if the need arises, then the offer is extended.


That is mighty generous. Thanks.:2thumbs:

:2thumbs: x2

[CarpeyBiggs]

there appears to be consensus that there is a need for an association (or at least enough interest to warrant proceeding). i do feel that creating an interim board, as suggested by Tom's email on the ACA site is a good starting point, much like Shane has suggested. any thoughts on what Tom posted there? Of course, we'd have to rethink how the interim BOD could be decided, but hearing thoughts on this process could be beneficial.



RCWILD said: "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."

Rich asked for people to propose plans, and few have. Perhaps the following proposal will stimulate some proposals.

Ratagonia Plan #1 for transition of the ACA to a membership-owned and operated organization.

A. On Nov 1st, Rich will identify the top 50 posters on the ACA Canyoneering.net forum.

B. The new interim Board of Directors (iBOD) will consist of all of the top 50 posters who choose to serve, excluding the following individuals: Rich Carlson, Tom Jones. Rich will send an invitation to the top 50 posters (less exclusions) to join the interim BOD. Those who accept the invitation by November 10th (inclusive) will have their emails forwarded to all acceptors. The first acceptor shall operate as Chairman until a Chairman can be elected.

C. Should less than 10 posters choose to participate by Nov 10th, invitations will be extended again to the non-acceptors, and to the next 20 top posters, for another 10 days. This will continue until an interim board of at least 10 individuals has agreed to participate.

D. The Interim Board will elect by simple majority a Chairman at the earliest opportunity. Each iBOD member will have one vote. The iBOD will set rules for itself, and publish minutes of meetings on Canyoneering.net.

E. The Mission Statement of the (new) ACA is proposed as:

E1. The ACA is a membership-owned, membership-governed non-profit Association who's purpose is to serve the Canyoneering Community.

F. The Goals of the Interim Board of Directors are proposed as follows:

F1. Create and operate a fair, open and democratic process for the membership to elect a founding Board of Directors of the new ACA, on or before April 1, 2012.

G. Membership in the ACA is frozen as of Oct 11, 2011. All members of the ACA as of Oct 11, 2011 are members of the new ACA.

H. At the time the Interim Board is seated, Rich Carlson will turn over Assets of the ACA to the Interim Board, consisting of, at least, the following:

H1. By quitclaim deed, the name "American Canyoneering Association" and all rights thereto, legal and otherwise.
H2. As in H1, the ACA Logo.
H3. A list of members as of Oct 11, 2011, in a usable electronic format, as best can be determined.
H4. The website canyoneering.net intact, with all content in place as of Oct 10, 2011. "The website" means domain hosting information and website host information including passwords. Rich Carlson will continue current DNS and Hosting services through Jan 31st, 2012, for which he will be paid $100.00 by an anonymous donor. On Nov 1, 2011, Rich will send Website information to James Kip Marshall to hold in trust for the iBOD of the new ACA. Passwords will be changed upon receipt of the information. The Trustee will hold the information in Trust until election of a new Board of Directors (past the iBod) is complete.
H5. A Bill of Sale indicating the sale of these assets, and whatever other assets the iBod chooses to accept before Jan 1, 2012, for the price of $10.00 (to be provided by an anonymous donor).

I. Should the iBod not hold elections on or before April 1st, 2012, the iBod will immediately lose authority, and authority will relinquish to a Board of Directors drawn from the following list of individuals, who choose to serve: Sonny Lawrence, Charly Oliver, Hank Moon, James Kip Marshall, Bo Beck, Michael Dallin, Steve Ramras, Rich Rudow, Todd Martin, Scott Card and four ACA members selected by Sonny Lawrence (excluding Tom Jones and Rich Carlson). The second interim Board of Directors (iBOD2) will accept the same charge as the first, and seek to hold elections by July 1st 2012. Should they fail to do so, all assets of the ACA will revert to Rich Carlson.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom Jones
ACA Life Member

[jman]

Just a few essential/basic thoughts from my group of friends

1) Have one website (association), where announcements, alerts, closures, notices, etc. can be made for us USA canyoneers. Bogley's/Yahoo's purpose would be to discuss these things.
2) On the national website, perhaps having candition.com incorporated into it. There is tons of potential to the website and already have a good turnout, but more people updating would be very beneficial. Especially, where they could link their TR to Bogley, Yahoo, etc after updating the candition.
3) On the national website, list every (reputable) professional guide, training group/academy for the U.S.
4) If beta links where published on the national website, we foresee lots of problems with that. IE favoritism. So perhaps if a beta link was available it would tell a person on ways how to acquire the information, such as books available and how to type in a search engine "beta das boot zion" or something like that. Having specific links going to Tom's website, Shane, AJ, tanya's website would not be a good idea, in our opinion.
5) on the national website, maybe having how-to videos of knots, etc (of course with a disclaimer).

I'd like to elaborate on all of these but I'm pulling 12hrs at work today...:cry1:

[Iceaxe]

Awesome stuff! :2thumbs:

In one post Jman has eliminated many of the hurtles I could see.

I REALLY like all of these ideas. :nod:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Just a few essential/basic thoughts from my group of friends

1) Have one website (association), where announcements, alerts, closures, notices, etc. can be made for us USA canyoneers. Bogley's/Yahoo's purpose would be to discuss these things.
2) On the national website, perhaps having candition.com incorporated into it. There is tons of potential to the website and already have a good turnout, but more people updating would be very beneficial. Especially, where they could link their TR to Bogley, Yahoo, etc after updating the candition.
3) On the national website, list every (reputable) professional guide, training group/academy for the U.S.
4) If beta links where published on the national website, we foresee lots of problems with that. IE favoritism. So perhaps if a beta link was available it would tell a person on ways how to acquire the information, such as books available and how to type in a search engine "beta das boot zion" or something like that. Having specific links going to Tom's website, Shane, AJ, tanya's website would not be a good idea, in our opinion.
5) on the national website, maybe having how-to videos of knots, etc (of course with a disclaimer).

I'd like to elaborate on all of these but I'm pulling 12hrs at work today...:cry1:

i do like where some of this is headed... though i think some of the ideas are a few steps ahead of where we should be right now. however, i feel like the formation of a website, central area for discussion, and a system put in place to install an interim board should be the next step. thanks jman.

[jman]

Wow thanks Shane. OUR (my group) concern is uniformity/standardization.

Sure canyoneers are like cats as the adage goes. However, that doesn't mean we can't agree on the basics of the sport. The allure of canyoneering for us is the problem-solving along with the beauty. And we can still keep the problem-solving there.

Basically, what I'm getting at is letting the interested people (veterans, noobs) gain as much free information as possible. Videos on how to tie knots, how to equalize anchor points, how to change friction settings on the descender devices, etc. and the interim BOD can agree upon a willing expert canyoneer (Tom Jones for example) to do instructionals on the videos and they (or we) could reimburse him for the time. Heck, my group is already doing this for our personal website, and we would be willing to do it for free for the new association. It would be handy to have these things posted so people can easily reference it (and for free) and then Bogley & Yahoo can have discussions about if people ask.

Another thing,
Have the national association endorse the two forums for canyoneering - Bogley a Yahoo for us USA canyoneers, for private and public discussions. We don't need necessarily 5 forums to confuse noobs. Besides, the #1 goal is to ensure the safety of the canyoneer. And we would want to give them as much information and resources as possible.

[Iceaxe]

For an interim BOD I say seek a list of those that would be willing to serve a 3 or 6 month initial term, with the understanding that a democratic election will be held in 6 months at the latest. See what the numbers are, if you have 10 to 20 apply your business is done. If more apply you will need to hold some type of election, with say any member of Yahoo, Bogley or ACA can vote for their 6 favorite choices. The top 12 or 15 are your interim BOD. If less than 10 apply the entire idea of a new organization should be buried under the heading, lack of support.

:cool2:

[tanya]

This is all sounding great guys!:hail2thechief:

[nelsonccc]

One area I think as a group we need to be stronger is volunteering. As a climber and off road enthusiast it seemed we were always setting up and doing volunteer work. I think it goes a long way to presenting a better image, a cohesive front, and a way for govt to get stuff done quicker and sometimes without the typical hurdles.

I think access is incredibly important. Establishing some form of a strong, unified front is imperative. I deal with Unions all day here in our firm and fabrication shop and while it drives me crazy sometimes the benefits can clearly be seen.

The canyoneering community needs something like that.

As far as tracking the discussion perhaps a dedicated forum? Something like the Big shots area? We could set up a sub-forum where these issues are isolated and even begin to track who and how many people we are talking about as 'members' of this new Canyoneering Front. People who are new or anti Bogley could easily click the 'ACA' forum (just a place holder) and check what BOD things are happening, volunteer or fest issues, etc.

[trackrunner]

Another thing,
Have the national association endorse the two forums for canyoneering - Bogley a Yahoo for us USA canyoneers, for private and public discussions. We don't need necessarily 5 forums to confuse noobs. Besides, the #1 goal is to ensure the safety of the canyoneer. And we would want to give them as much information and resources as possible.

would this violate #4 on favoritism from your earlier list. or is that just for no favoritism for good or bad beta?

[bshwakr]

Awesome stuff! :2thumbs:

In one post Jman has eliminated many of the hurtles I could see.

I REALLY like all of these ideas. :nod:

Really?

[jman]

would this violate #4 on favoritism from your earlier list. or is that just for no favoritism for good or bad beta?

Just applicable to beta. If the national org existed, why not have endorsed forums for discussion? Do you really want to be searching 4 different forums where the same questions are asked over and over? Btw, I have no financial stake in Bogley or any previously mentioned websites.

[jman]

Really?

I know. I was surprised too. I followed Shane's advice of doing the easy things first. Yup, it was easy enough.

[Iceaxe]

I don't believe any of JMAN's thoughts were too early......

If the new organization is going to hi-jack trip reports and beta from existing sources than I'm opposed to it.

If the new organization is going to teach classes to provide a revenue stream at the expense of existing schools than I'm opposed to it. When someone mentions education I assume that to mean teach proper etiquette and ethics. I would also not be opposed to some type a mentor program.

If the new organization is going to sale rope and gear to provide a revenue stream than I'm opposed to it.

If the new organization is going to start guiding to provide a revenue stream than I'm opposed to it.

If the organization is going to become just anther social forum than I'm opposed to it.

If a new organization wants to point to where the information, school and guiding are available I'm all for it.

[jman]

I don't believe any of JMAN's thoughts were too early......

If the new organization is going to hi-jack trip reports and beta from existing sources than I'm opposed to it.

If the new organization is going to teach classes to provide a revenue stream at the expense of existing schools than I'm opposed to it. When someone mentions education I assume that to mean teach proper etiquette and ethics. I would also not be opposed to some type a mentor program.

If the new organization is going to sale rope and gear to provide a revenue stream than I'm opposed to it.

If the new organization is going to start guiding to provide a revenue stream than I'm opposed to it.

If the organization is going to become just anther social forum than I'm opposed to it.

If a new organization wants to point to where the information, school and guiding are available I'm all for it.

Hey! those points are pretty much what we've discusse on a deeper level.

[restrac2000]

Areas where I think overlap with existing "organizations" would be unnecessary and possibly harmful:

1) Technical skills education
2) Commercial business: teaching hard skills, selling equipment, and guiding
3) Recreational rendezvous, unless they incorporate/require a rigorous form of service/outreach/education

I think if a new organization goes into those arenas then we are likely to:

1) Fracture the existing communities
2) Create tensions instead of building collaboration
3) Jeopardize the work regarding access

Phillip

[Felicia]

I don't believe any of JMAN's thoughts were too early......

If the new organization is going to hi-jack trip reports and beta from existing sources than I'm opposed to it.

If the new organization is going to teach classes to provide a revenue stream at the expense of existing schools than I'm opposed to it. When someone mentions education I assume that to mean teach proper etiquette and ethics. I would also not be opposed to some type a mentor program.

If the new organization is going to sale rope and gear to provide a revenue stream than I'm opposed to it.

If the new organization is going to start guiding to provide a revenue stream than I'm opposed to it.

If the organization is going to become just anther social forum than I'm opposed to it.

If a new organization wants to point to where the information, school and guiding are available I'm all for it.

I agree with each of these statements.

Step 1: Create a list for an interim BOD. Pull people from each of the sub-communities for the BOD. Some of these will serve to spring, and the other half will serve to next fall. Plan to have elections before the next canyoneering season swings into high gear as was suggested earlier. Run the election for half the BOD in the spring and the other half in the late fall.

Create a thread for nominations/volunteers that would like to be on the first BOD and post an invite to the other communities? Or, allow the BOD to form behind the scene and be announced?

I'm actually OK with both options as long as there are nominations/volunteers/elections in the near future.


Felicia

[Felicia]

Step 2: BOD, sourcing the communities, creates a Mission Statement and implement such statement.

Step 3: Let the organization grow in the direction that the communities take it within the guidelines of the Mission Statement.

Felicia

[trackrunner]

I don't believe any of JMAN's thoughts were too early......

If the new organization is going to hi-jack trip reports and beta from existing sources than I'm opposed to it.

If the new organization is going to teach classes to provide a revenue stream at the expense of existing schools than I'm opposed to it. When someone mentions education I assume that to mean teach proper etiquette and ethics. I would also not be opposed to some type a mentor program.

If the new organization is going to sale rope and gear to provide a revenue stream than I'm opposed to it.

If the new organization is going to start guiding to provide a revenue stream than I'm opposed to it.

If the organization is going to become just anther social forum than I'm opposed to it.

If a new organization wants to point to where the information, school and guiding are available I'm all for it.

this I agree with


why not have endorsed forums for discussion? Do you really want to be searching 4 different forums where the same questions are asked over and over?

while I agree bogley & canyons group handle most of the community I'm apposed to endorsing forums just as with endorsing guides over another like ZAC, canyon country guides, ZRMG, desert outfitters, excursions of escalante, etc. if it must, point them where they can find information. People will gravitate to were they fill suited the best.

[tjwetherell]

Hey Phillip,

My only comment would be that currently the ACA and ATS (I think) do certification, and it would be nice for the Neu Assoc. to either review and endorse whole-hog their curricula, or establish their own. This could be as simple as the minimum common denominator of the skillset that can be agreed upon, or specifically created by the Neu Assoc. i don't believe that any individual company should define what the proper skills for guides are, it should be determined by the community, or a subset of subject matter experts. Now the whole profit part I agree with.

-tom(w)

[jman]

while I agree bogley & canyons group handle most of the community I'm apposed to endorsing forums just as with endorsing guides over another like ZAC, canyon country guides, ZRMG, desert outfitters, excursions of escalante, etc. if it must, point them where they can find information. People will gravitate to were they fill suited the best.

but herein lies the difference, the forums are not-for-profit. They are completely free. Sure you have to "join" and register to use the site, but even with Bogley, you can read 99% of the site as a visitor. Yahoo Groups, you have to be signed in, to read the messages.

Anywho, the guides/services are for profit. Big difference there. At least in my mind, there is.

Remember, we are just brainstorming here. It's just opinions and ideas at this stage. No reason to shoot anything or anyone down, just yet.

[restrac2000]

Hey Phillip,

My only comment would be that currently the ACA and ATS (I think) do certification, and it would be nice for the Neu Assoc. to either review and endorse whole-hog their curricula, or establish their own. This could be as simple as the minimum common denominator of the skillset that can be agreed upon, or specifically created by the Neu Assoc. i don't believe that any individual company should define what the proper skills for guides are, it should be determined by the community, or a subset of subject matter experts. Now the whole profit part I agree with.

-tom(w)

I could eventually see an organization getting involved with some type of "consumer review" relating to canyoneering. Not sure if there is enough interest or capability to do so right now? From what it sounds like all the former ACA credentials will be handed off to the ACGA professional side. Sounds like there may be a "recommended curriculum" but that all seems highly tentative. Not sure how ATS specifically handles such situations. On that note, hopefully we will have some outreach before this new organization is created to initially involve them.

Like I said though, some organization could eventually create and manage an "objective", democratically created rubric for analyzing existing training programs for recreationist or could create their own. Will be interesting to see if that is a priority within the community. Pursuing that outcome would require a democratically elected BOD, broad input, significant transparency (regular outside auditing?), etc; this would all be needed to dilute personal bias and subjective interaction. I actually think such a product could be extremely helpful for newbie canyoneers who are potential clients.

Another, simpler approach would be for this new organization to create a series of guidelines for interviewing guides and training organizations. It could include things like: insurance, land use permits, relevant experience, "philosophy" (most organizations have very different approaches), minimal impact practices, etc. Such metrics and recommendations could be hashed out by a elected committee with specific guidelines (i.e. no conflict of interest, etc). This could benefit the "access issue" by detailing behavior that benefits canyoneering access with certain areas. That might be easier and less messy than analyzing the commercial outfits in the industry, which requires travel expense, training, and oversight/redundancy.

Just some thoughts. Sounds like we might have some similar ideas/concerns. Curious to see other peoples input.

Phillip

[tylerhirshfeld]

I think an ORGANIZED organization would be very useful. I have not read all of the posts in this forum so I dont know the points already outlined. I do think however that there should be an organization specifically designed to provide education/certifications with a word in access management, advocacy, and maybe a small program in environmental education (leave most to "Leave no trace"). I dont think that an organization of such should be hosting a forum. They just dont mix. This is a forum, it ought to be that way. The organization ought to be about certifying and educating. I think that a good organization with a BOD would be good, I think this will definitely help for a smoother ride instead of one person basing a whole organization off of week to week feelings!

[tanya]

At first I thought, no way ... all these old guys (and some younger ones as well) are going to do is keep arguing... but I am seeing progress and I like the way this is going. I have some hope.

[ratagonia]

Hey Phillip,

My only comment would be that currently the ACA and ATS (I think) do certification,...

-tom(w)

That would be faux-certification, window-dressing, not real certification.

Anyone who would like a certificate for anything, shoot me an email, I will certify you. Got a computer, some nice graphics, some card stock, can certify whatever...

While my own offer is clearly ludicrous, I think the ACA and ATS "certifications" are not much better. Yes, they certify that they took some course. In most places, that would be called a "receipt", not a certification.

Tom

[travis]

A professional certification in modern terms certifies a person as being able to competently complete a job or task (taken from the all-knowing Wikipedia). The professional certification offered by ATS (I won't speak for Rich, but I imagine he would say something similar for himself) certifies that the person acknowledged has completed the hours needed and passed the exam required to be a Canyoneering Guide.

This certification is based on industry wide techniques as well as nuances preferred by the certifying body.

For the most part, we really only offer our certification to working professionals in the industry. The individuals who have achieved a certification through us (which is really not that many) do so for several reasons - 1)To show a level of knowledge and proficiency to potential/eventual employers 2) To work their way up in the ATS ranks which gives personal accomplishment and pay bumps.

Our certification is both education and exam based. Individuals must take the course and then take an exam to pass the course. The certification is backed up with the course curriculum, the exam sheet, a checklist, hours worked, etc...

We have had others weigh in across multiple industries with their opinions on curricular elements. Individual's opinions from Rescue 3 International, the AMGA, LNT, PCIA, Peak Rescue Institute, San Bernardino SAR, Sterling Rope Co., recreational canyoneers and the San Diego Cliff/River Rescue Team have all contributed to the curriculum we provide.

Yes, our certification doesn't have an association behind it or a governing body administering it, but it does have a lot of hours dedicated to its creation and upkeep. The theory is sound.

That's my defense. I guess my question for my fellow canyoneering associate Tom Jones would be what he would constitute as a real certification and how we can create that in our industry. Because, really, at the end of the day, that's the goal and that would be awesome.

And, is the ACGA the answer?

Peace.:afro:

[ratagonia]

Just applicable to beta. If the national org existed, why not have endorsed forums for discussion? Do you really want to be searching 4 different forums where the same questions are asked over and over? Btw, I have no financial stake in Bogley or any previously mentioned websites.

Hmm. Part of why Rich had his own ACA technical forum, so Rich could be the only guy answering. Answers that Rich did not agree with (ie, discussion) tended to be deleted.

Uh, Carts, Horses, the order of things. All these "things" suggested are fine suggestions, however, they are already available to a large extent in the wwcw - World Wide Canyoneering Web. I don't think it works to shift these things to some National Organization, unless the people running them want to do so. I think the ACA2 needs to focus on things not produced in the community already, such as leading on access issues, setting up service projects, and holding social rendezvous. I don't think we need a collecting house for canyon Beta - that is what Google is for. I think we need a social forum for ACA2 activities and communication, but not for every little thing, which is what Bogley and Canyons are for.

Tom

[ratagonia]

A professional certification in modern terms certifies a person as being able to competently complete a job or task (taken from the all-knowing Wikipedia). The professional certification offered by ATS (I won't speak for Rich, but I imagine he would say something similar for himself) certifies that the person acknowledged has completed the hours needed and passed the exam required to be a Canyoneering Guide.

This certification is based on industry wide techniques as well as nuances preferred by the certifying body.

For the most part, we really only offer our certification to working professionals in the industry. The individuals who have achieved a certification through us (which is really not that many) do so for several reasons - 1)To show a level of knowledge and proficiency to potential/eventual employers 2) To work their way up in the ATS ranks which gives personal accomplishment and pay bumps.

Our certification is both education and exam based. Individuals must take the course and then take an exam to pass the course. The certification is backed up with the course curriculum, the exam sheet, a checklist, hours worked, etc...

We have had others weigh in across multiple industries with their opinions on curricular elements. Individual's opinions from Rescue 3 International, the AMGA, LNT, PCIA, Peak Rescue Institute, San Bernardino SAR, Sterling Rope Co., recreational canyoneers and the San Diego Cliff/River Rescue Team have all contributed to the curriculum we provide.

Yes, our certification doesn't have an association behind it or a governing body administering it, but it does have a lot of hours dedicated to its creation and upkeep. The theory is sound.

That's my defense. I guess my question for my fellow canyoneering associate Tom Jones would be what he would constitute as a real certification and how we can create that in our industry. Because, really, at the end of the day, that's the goal and that would be awesome.

And, is the ACGA the answer?

Peace.:afro:

I suspect, Travis, that you guys do a really good job, so let me not be seen as disparaging your program.

"I guess my question for my fellow canyoneering associate Tom Jones would be what he would constitute as a real certification and how we can create that in our industry. Because, really, at the end of the day, that's the goal and that would be awesome."

I think of a Certification as being produced under the auspices of an Association, a member-run, community-based organization that would set requirements and standards through a quasi-democratic process.

Perhaps a good model would be the Wilderness First Responder program (WFRs), something all of us professionals probably have. Some association (a quick wiki search does not reveal who) provides a curriculum, certification requirements, instructor requirements and presumeably some kind of QA to make sure no one cheats. Companies such as WMA, The Red Cross, the ACA, etc. present the classes and certify students.

So I consider it a Faux-Certification when a commercial company writes the standards and provides the certification.

OK, I can see how that is not exactly followed in the real world. For instance, if I am Ford Motor Company and I make brakes for cars, I want the people installing those brakes to be certified by ME, so that they install them correctly. But, actually, maybe Ford does not actually run the courses for that, but has a curriculum and standards and Joe's Auto Repair University runs the courses and provides the certification.

In the Rescue trade, I bet the company Ropes for Rescue writes the curriculum, sets the standards, provides the courses and certifies the students. OK, but that is clear to all involved that it is the Ropes for Rescue certification to their program, and not something else.

So I see a difference here (thinking out load) between the ACA Canyon Guide Certification and the ATS Canyon Guide Certification. Because I suspect that people certified by ATS say they are certified by ATS, and even the tiniest bit of further inquiry makes it clear that ATS is a commercial company, and thus the certification is LIKE the Ropes for Rescue certification. Whereas it takes quite a bit of prodding to reveal that the American Canyoneering Association certification, which sounds like it is issued by a National non-profit member-driven Association, is actually issued by one guy with a big red truck.

My conclusion, as a working professional Canyoneering Guide, is that there is little to no purpose to a National Organization, or a National Certification. At Zion Adventure Company, we don't care about that stuff, on the canyoneering side, because we have not found it meaningful. Yes, some of us got certed by Rich, and afterwards we wondered why. We train people when they come in to be guides. Prior training in technical ropework like Rich teaches is helpful, and speeds up the process, but the curriculum to be an ACA certified Guide covers perhaps 20% of our training curriculum, so it is not REAL useful.

Added a little later: At ZAC, we do, however, make use of the PCGI program:

http://www.climbingguidesinstitute.org/site/

to train people to be climbing guides. Generally, after they are trained with us, guides are encouraged to improve their professionalism by taking PCGI programs and getting certified. The programs are RIGOROUS, and the organization is part business, but part collective. Thus I consider this kind of Certification to be REAL, rather than FAUX.

Tom :moses:

[tjwetherell]

So, I ask: what would be of the most benefit to canyoneers?
Certification by a respected body allows you to at least have some reassurance that a guide you hire knows something about canyoneering and guiding.
For the self educated, it is nice to have guidelines to help evaluate your skill level, and give you idea of what you need to know to progress.

Scenario: How would a land-manager know who to allow to operate as a guide? They let any nitwit guide, said nitwit kills some of his clients, and access gets shut off for all.
(pardon me if this is overly simplified - I would hope that this could not happen)

-tom(w)

[moab mark]

Grand Canyon Management Plan (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?56499)

Arches NP Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?39928)

I'd say those two topic's should be at the top of the list.

A review of the Zion Permit system with possible suggested changes (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?58975) should also be on the list, but not at the top.

FYI: I spoke with the Arches rangers this summer. They say their plan is currently one or two years out. They are still in the process of gathering information, which to me means they are still open to possible suggestions and input.

I was in Arches this weekend and talked to one of the Rangers about the management plan. He also said a few years out. Somehow we got talking about Bogley and he was interested in what the Back of Beyond guy had learned from the SUU conference in regards to what is really going on at Arches? As far as he knew no one was there from Arches? I am going to create a new thread on the abuse in the furnace I saw this weekend. If a new association is started we need to be all over the Arches Management Plan.

[Iceaxe]

If a new association is started we need to be all over the Arches Management Plan.

With or without a new association we should be all over the Arches Management Plan. We can do it working through the forums until a better option exists.

:cool2:

[Randi]

:nod:2thumbs:X10

[restrac2000]

So, I ask: what would be of the most benefit to canyoneers?
Certification by a respected body allows you to at least have some reassurance that a guide you hire knows something about canyoneering and guiding.
For the self educated, it is nice to have guidelines to help evaluate your skill level, and give you idea of what you need to know to progress.

Scenario: How would a land-manager know who to allow to operate as a guide? They let any nitwit guide, said nitwit kills some of his clients, and access gets shut off for all.
(pardon me if this is overly simplified - I would hope that this could not happen)

-tom(w)

Some of the certification hurdles:

1) Legitimacy of authority: How does one create a certification that is fair, unbiased and recognized across the states and even internationally?
2) Land Management recognition: Most of the guide services I talk to do not want increased regulation.
3) Cost: Accred. and certs cost money: travel expenses, admin, development, training the observers, etc
4) Pool of Qualified Certifiers
5) Competition with ATS and ACGA: Not sure if we want to create further competition in already fractured arena.

I for one think it would benefit us to let the dust settle at the ACGA and see if they heal the wounds with ATS. If they haven't in a year or two than I think those in the community invested in better outcomes could act as intermediaries. Really not sure how this will pan out but I don't see a tangible benefit anytime soon to involving ourselves yet. Could be wrong.

Phillip

[ratagonia]

So, I ask: what would be of the most benefit to canyoneers?
Certification by a respected body allows you to at least have some reassurance that a guide you hire knows something about canyoneering and guiding.
For the self educated, it is nice to have guidelines to help evaluate your skill level, and give you idea of what you need to know to progress.

Scenario: How would a land-manager know who to allow to operate as a guide? They let any nitwit guide, said nitwit kills some of his clients, and access gets shut off for all.
(pardon me if this is overly simplified - I would hope that this could not happen)

-tom(w)

Most people who hire a guide are not part of the canyoneering community and would be perplexed by talk of certification. It rarely comes up.

People who hire a guide who ARE part of the canyon community, go on the reputation of the company or individual, I think, so certification is unimportant.

I see no purpose to certification, but maybe others do.

My feeling is that those who signed on to the ACA Certification program did so as an inexpensive marketing effort, that perhaps would point customers in their direction who started their search by finding the ACA website. Might also give the guide services a little extra pull with the Land Managers.

Land Managers

Land managers have to build clear, written guidelines about how to apply for a permit. Competence is not a part of that. Insurance is. Just like in Zion, they cannot refuse you a permit because you are taking 11 4-year-olds through the Subway (but they might call the Department of Child Services, and send SAR out for a "training event").

In Europe, your Guide Certificate generally allows you to guide anywhere. In the USA, the system is completely different.

Putting together a WRITTEN curriculum would be a fun project in negotiation, perhaps worthy of an ACA2 committee for those interested, but I hardly see it as a MAIN THRUST.

Tom :moses:

[tjwetherell]

Allright! Questions answered. If it doesn't actually help the community to have the "ACA2" provide accreditation or curriculum, then that is one less issue to deal with. Those wishing to check the box or have a certification for whatever reason can go to ATS, or ACGA.

Moving over to the skills for individual canyoneers, I still would like to see some basic guidelines for required skills - even if it is only "a place to start".

-tom(w)

[travis]

I know that ATS would much rather bury the hatchet and be grandfathered into the ACGA program. Currently in the U.S, the main (only?) reason for a certifying body should really be for working guides in the industry who want to show a work history and competence level with their next employer and/or benefit financially with their current employer.

e.g. ZAC prefers ACA certified guides for lead guides (http://www.zionadventures.com/about/career-opportunities/job-descriptions/lead-guide.html).
e.g. UCSB and ATS offer additional pay for those guides who maintain an ATS cert.

As the sport continues to grow and guide companies sprout up, the owner of said companies can be assured they are hiring a competent guide if they have the ATS or ACA (formally) certification and eventually the ACGA certification (once the dust settles as Phillip suggested). When we renew our permits, many of the land managers do notice that we have certified guides - but they don't look much further than that. So, really, Tom J. is correct in certain respects. Until a land manager requires a certification in order to guide on their property - there's really not much of an external need. Beyond that, it's just good marketing.

Additionally, on the trade secret side of the fence - insurance companies offer policy discounts if your guides possess additional certifications. Hence, an incentive for guide companies to pursue a certification process for individual guides.

It would be very cool if we saw a new "collective" made up of a diverse and elected BOD dedicated to:
-advertising badass canyoneering social events
-referring customers to respected guide and instructional companies in the differing regions
-linking to beta sites with an embedded candition
-organizing cleanups in regions
-organizing write-ins for management plans

peace. :afro:

[trackrunner]

I started an egroup to discuss this at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyonorgdiscussion/

The group is open to anyone interested in participating, or just watching to see what happens.

I envision the egroup more for people who want to actively participate in starting a new org, and this thread to be a place where people who aren't interested in actively setting up an org can contribute and discuss ideas too. I'll crosspost interesting tidbits between them if need be so those who don't read bogley can still get a feel what people are saying. If the conversation ends up being entirely through bogley, I'm ok with that too.

M

couldn't find the egroup. all I got was this message:
"There is no group called canyonorgdiscussion. Please make sure you typed the web address correctly. If you have done so, the group may no longer exis"

[ratagonia]

I know that ATS would much rather bury the hatchet and be grandfathered into the ACGA program. Currently in the U.S, the main (only?) reason for a certifying body should really be for working guides in the industry who want to show a work history and competence level with their next employer and/or benefit financially with their current employer.

e.g. ZAC prefers ACA certified guides for lead guides (http://www.zionadventures.com/about/career-opportunities/job-descriptions/lead-guide.html).
e.g. UCSB and ATS offer additional pay for those guides who maintain an ATS cert.

As the sport continues to grow and guide companies sprout up, the owner of said companies can be assured they are hiring a competent guide if they have the ATS or ACA (formerly) certification and eventually the ACGA certification (once the dust settles as Phillip suggested). When we renew our permits, many of the land managers do notice that we have certified guides - but they don't look much further than that. So, really, Tom J. is correct in certain respects. Until a land manager requires a certification in order to guide on their property - there's really not much of an external need. Beyond that, it's just good marketing.

Additionally, on the trade secret side of the fence - insurance companies offer policy discounts if your guides possess additional certifications. Hence, an incentive for guide companies to pursue a certification process for individual guides.

It would be very cool if we saw a new "collective" made up of a diverse and elected BOD dedicated to:
-advertising badass canyoneering social events
-referring customers to respected guide and instructional companies in the differing regions
-linking to beta sites with an embedded candition
-organizing cleanups in regions
-organizing write-ins for management plans

peace. :afro:

Thank you Travis.

To clarify, ZAC prefers ACA guide or canyon leader certification in applicants for a guide position. Since JZ, Nick and I all participated in ACA courses, we had an understanding of the lack of rigor in the ACA guide certification program, but JZ and Nick indulged me in supporting the ACA-PRO for it's potential, until Rich and I had a final falling out.

I do not know about the ATS program, but the ACA program was not rigorous enough, in my opinion, to provide an assurance that "they are hiring a competent guide", even in the skill sets included in the ACA curriculum, you know, if it was ever published. It seems like one of the things that makes a certification "true" rather than "faux" is publication of the curriculum and standards for certification. Lacking at the ACA. Although, usually copyright and only offered for a substantial fee, perhaps.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

couldn't find the egroup. all I got was this message:
"There is no group called canyonorgdiscussion. Please make sure you typed the web address correctly. If you have done so, the group may no longer exis"

Old News. That Yahoo Group was replaced by THIS Bogley sub-group.

Tom

[rcwild]

To clarify, ZAC prefers ACA guide or canyon leader certification in applicants for a guide position. Since JZ, Nick and I all participated in ACA courses, we had an understanding of the lack of rigor in the ACA guide certification program, but JZ and Nick indulged me in supporting the ACA-PRO for it's potential, until Rich and I had a final falling out.

I do not know about the ATS program, but the ACA program was not rigorous enough, in my opinion, to provide an assurance that "they are hiring a competent guide", even in the skill sets included in the ACA curriculum, you know, if it was ever published. It seems like one of the things that makes a certification "true" rather than "faux" is publication of the curriculum and standards for certification. Lacking at the ACA. Although, usually copyright and only offered for a substantial fee, perhaps.

Over the past 12 years, the ACA has conducted dozens of professional guide courses and exams. Average passing rate is around 75%. During the most recent exam, the passing rate was only 25% (2 out of 8 passed).

One exam conducted in Arizona a few years back did lack sufficient rigor. It was conducted during a rendezvous at which Charly Oliver, Dave Black and I were all scheduled to teach and evaluate. Unfortunately, Dave was unable to attend, which left Charly and I scrambling to accommodate two courses and a guides exam at the same time. We could have sent the guide candidates home and apologized to them for the inconvenience, but because the group included Tom Jones, Jonathan Zambella, Nick Wilkes, Jared Hillhouse and two park rangers from Jasper Canada, we decided we could get creative to accommodate them. Charly and I had the candidates teach blocks of our courses as part of their evaluations. We also pulled in Sonny Lawrence to help evaluate.

This one group was not evaluated with the usual rigor of an ACA guides exam. We gave them the benefit of the doubt because of their previous guiding experience and passed all but one of the candidates. A decision we have since come to regret.

[ratagonia]

Over the past 12 years, the ACA has conducted dozens of professional guide courses and exams. Average passing rate is around 75%. During the most recent exam, the passing rate was only 25% (2 out of 8 passed).

One exam conducted in Arizona a few years back did lack sufficient rigor. It was conducted during a rendezvous at which Charly Oliver, Dave Black and I were all scheduled to teach and evaluate. Unfortunately, Dave was unable to attend, which left Charly and I scrambling to accommodate two courses and a guides exam at the same time. We could have sent the guide candidates home and apologized to them for the inconvenience, but because the group included Tom Jones, Jonathan Zambella, Nick Wilkes, Jared Hillhouse and two park rangers from Jasper Canada, we decided we could get creative to accommodate them. Charly and I had the candidates teach blocks of our courses as part of their evaluations. We also pulled in Sonny Lawrence to help evaluate.

This one group was not evaluated with the usual rigor of an ACA guides exam. We gave them the benefit of the doubt because of their previous guiding experience and passed all but one of the candidates. A decision we have since come to regret.

At that same event, I believe we talked about what it would take to provide a truly rigorous guide exam/evaluation. You indicated that in Europe, the guide exam is made by an examiner with no prior relationship with the aspirant. Something very difficult in the USA, and specifically via the ACA.

I think you also reinforce my point, perhaps not previously explicitly made, that the Exam and Standard are "written", so that the process is as Objective as possible, rather than being Subjective. Thus, in a European organization, the result of that engagement would have been "I am sorry, we cannot run the exam due to unfortunate circumstances" rather than "I know you guys are all good, so I will waive the requirement for an actual Exam". In this case, while we were all in a position to do well on a rigorous exam, my subjective evaluation is that your desire (and out desire) to contribute to the ACA-Pro division may have contributed to the decision to "bring us into the fold".

My belief is that the primary requirement to produce a rigorous result consistently is that the certifying body be an Association, rather than an individual. As an individual who is operating as a certifying body, Rich, perhaps you allow aspects of your relationships with people, good or bad, to get in the way of the Objective part of the process. And I certainly allow it to get in the way of any desire I have to maintain an ACA Certification.

Tom :moses:

[Bo_Beck]

My Thoughts:

Having created a non-profit organization, S.U.C.C. "Southern Utah Climbers Coalition", several years ago provided us with a platform to gain, disseminate, and react on members opinions. That platform stands as a voice represented by interested climbers. It has successfully gained pieces and bits of threatened access on both public and private lands. It has created a community of climbers and non-climbers alike. The only instruction given by the organization is the correct behavior needed (as agreed upon with land management) to retain access to determined areas.

As for certification?.....Why does an organization need to hand out certifications?....Does that mean soon I will not be able to hike a particular canyon because I don't have a certification? I've personally been involved for almost 16 years on a SAR Team. Hundreds and hundreds of hours of training. I don't have a certification, but I do have certificates of completion of courses, Rigging for Rescue", "Ropes that Rescue", "Search Management" Coconino County SAR Compass, Map and GPS", "ITRS" , "Grand Canyon Swiftwater Rescue", etc...etc. These certificates may give me a better chance to gain employment with another SAR Team, but certainly are not requirements. My personal belief is that if a "Business" wants to create a syllabus for "Certification" of their course, that would be awesome! Also my belief is that an "Organization" ought to focus on issues that relate to access and the behaviors that relate to continued access.

[restrac2000]

My Thoughts:

Having created a non-profit organization, S.U.C.C. "Southern Utah Climbers Coalition", several years ago provided us with a platform to gain, disseminate, and react on members opinions. That platform stands as a voice represented by interested climbers. It has successfully gained pieces and bits of threatened access on both public and private lands. It has created a community of climbers and non-climbers alike. The only instruction given by the organization is the correct behavior needed (as agreed upon with land management) to retain access to determined areas.

As for certification?.....Why does an organization need to hand out certifications?....Does that mean soon I will not be able to hike a particular canyon because I don't have a certification? I've personally been involved for almost 16 years on a SAR Team. Hundreds and hundreds of hours of training. I don't have a certification, but I do have certificates of completion of courses, Rigging for Rescue", "Ropes that Rescue", "Search Management" Coconino County SAR Compass, Map and GPS", "ITRS" , "Grand Canyon Swiftwater Rescue", etc...etc. These certificates may give me a better chance to gain employment with another SAR Team, but certainly are not requirements. My personal belief is that if a "Business" wants to create a syllabus for "Certification" of their course, that would be awesome! Also my belief is that an "Organization" ought to focus on issues that relate to access and the behaviors that relate to continued access.

Would you be willing to share of SUCC's files and history, Bo? I think they could benefit the canyoneering community. I have done a superficial google search and only came up with the Crawdad release form. Maybe a write up and sharing the bylaws?

Phillip

[Brewha]

I could see it as a good thing for guides, instructors and such.