Name - American Canyoneers

[Iceaxe]

It would be nice if we had a name, even if it was only a working title so we have something to reference to.

I know there are some cleaver folks around here when it comes to things like names?

Suggestions?

[Scott Card]

USCA... United States Canyoneering Association

US Canyoneering Club

American Canyoneering Club

[trackrunner]

one I thought up in my head but I believe was also conceived & first publicly posted by tom was Canyon Access Coalition.

if we want to keep picking on canoeist with our acronym (American Canoe Association same as American Canyonering Association (now Academy)) could go with United States Canyoneering Association USCA which is the same as United States Canoe Association.

A question in helping deciding a name is what is the jurisdiction this organization should focus on, or where its interested & motivated forming members are from. Just the US, Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica or the rest of North America & Caribbean.

could unilaterally rename the sport something like gorging . . . yeah I still don't think that was a good idea

or maybe the Hike with Ropes Club of America

[denaliguide]

canyoneersRus

[ilipichicuma]

I vote for AAAC (Awesome Association of American Canyoneers).

[shagdeuce]

I would suggest that only names with a .com domain available should be considered. I know this limits the name availability considerably, but it sure makes things easier from a marketing standpoint.

[shagdeuce]

one I thought up in my head but I believe was also conceived & first publicly posted by tom was Canyon Access Coalition.

canyonaccess.com is available. I don't know if I love the acronym though.

[Felicia]

United Canyoneers Association

Association of Canyoneers

Association of United Canyoneers


I like the word coalition as well:

United Canyoneering Coalition

[jman]

US Canyoneering Coalition (USCC)
US Canyoneering Association (USCA)

personally, the name 'club' sounds too much like a grotto. It's connotation, to me, involves secrecy or withholding information. I don't like that at all.

Canyon Access Coalition, says to me that we only fight for "access' and that's it. Nothing more. Regardless of it's true or not. If that's what the group wants than I'll stand behind it.

I would suggest the national org be, for the time being, only concerned about the United States. It can evolve over time to include Mexico, and Europe, of course. That way, if expansion is necessary, then a international organization could be created (ambitious, of course) called the World or International Canyoneering Association, and under it would adapt the USCA chapter, then Mexico CA chapter, etc.

And perhaps, if this organization does exist, then it could create a template or pattern, so other countries who would like to have the "same" canyoneering association can adopt it as well. Which could include the template for certifying, education, workshops, rendezvous, etc.

That way, every country (if they want a canyoneering association) could all be standardized, and everyone teaching the exact same thing. Besides, and for emphasis, the number 1 goal I believe of the new organization should be #1 safety of the canyoneer which implies education and training.

And perhaps costs to help fund this association, can be similar to what PADI (scuba-diving) does. You don't have to pay PADI the dues to scuba-dive, however, if you would like to see PADI expand, then all they ask is $25/year. I don't think $25 is too much to ask for most people ($2/month). If you think about patterning off PADI - there are almost limitless ideas on how to grow and expand the new organization.

Anyways, I went way off track on that one and this thread - but those were more ideas we had.

[Iceaxe]

I'm against "club" in the name as that is a social organization, and I hope this does not become just anther social organization.

Outside of that I like several of the suggestions.

:2thumbs:

Food for thought… Alliance and Federation can be substituted for association or coalition.

[Felicia]

I'd like to avoid limiting ourselves geographically in the name.

[tanya]

I would suggest that only names with a .com domain available should be considered. I know this limits the name availability considerably, but it sure makes things easier from a marketing standpoint.

Excellent point!

Is there a reason that US, American or anything like that really needs to be in the name?

Canyoneering is popular but not universal. Perhaps Canyons is better.

Canyonsanything.org

[trackrunner]

my question about location was if any of the regular resident Canadian posters here who go canyoneering in Canada would be interested in one organization. Not sure if there is enough interest or the rest of North America & Caribbean. It should be determined by residents of those countries if they want to participate.

I'm against an organization outside those boundaries since there are organizations in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Nepal, etc.

Perhaps some of those names may help in forming a name choice. Italian Canyoning Association (http://www.canyoning.it/versinglese/indexi.htm), German canyoning association (http://www.deutschercanyoningverein.de/index.htm), Aqualemon Canyoning (regional? French) (http://aqualemon.free.fr/), Japan Canyoning Association (http://canyoning.jp/), Nepal Canyoning Association (http://www.nepalcanyoning.org.np/).

suggestion Federation of American Canyoneers or American Federation of Canyoneers

[trackrunner]

I would suggest that only names with a .com domain available should be considered. I know this limits the name availability considerably, but it sure makes things easier from a marketing standpoint.

why not .org? gives the impression of an organization rather than a commercial company.

[travis]

canyoneering dot org is for sale for $3500 if anyone wants to buy it for the new organization. Or, it could just be a variation of that for $10ish. That probably makes more sense.

[tanya]

How about canyons.org

[trackrunner]

@travis (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=18048) curious about what you or Darren think about some of these subjects on a new association

[ocanler]

Wet&WildCanyons.org. The traffic would get a lot of traffic:lol8::lol8:
Or the association formerly know as RC's club?:scared::scared:
Seriously: not a club
Canyoneering Coalition of America sounds good.
US Canyoneering coalition

[shagdeuce]

why not .org? gives the impression of an organization rather than a commercial company.

Agreed. .org would be acceptable; you are still going to lose a bit of traffic to the .com extension, but like you say .org might reinforce the non-profit status.

[shagdeuce]

CanyonFed.com, CanyonFederation.com, CanyonFed.org, and CanyonFederation.org are all available. Federation seems a little bit "star trek" formal to me, but may be a good name if there are sub-chapters within the organization.

[mdd]

Personally I dislike the term "coalition" because, to me, it implies that the group is fighting for something (like the "rebel coalition", "coalition of the willing", or more local for me, the "colorado environmental coalition"). I think it works for the Canyon Access Coalition, because, well, you are fighting for access.

Club sounds a little informal but is workable. Society sounds a little less informal but also old fashioned (Canyon Recreation Society? American Canyon Society?).

We could rip off the Mountaineers and call ourselves the Canyoneers...

Federation sounds too weird to me, like we're the government or something.

I hate to say it but I think "Association" is the best choice, though overused, and hopefully not confused with the ACA.

I'm sorta vaguely interested in not including "canyoneering" to reflect that we are both canyoneering and canyoning (Canyon Recreation Association? Is that acronym a little too close to "CRAP"?), though "canyoneering" probably sells more so I can concede this point.

Must we have a TLA? Will Canyoneering Association (CA) work?

I'm ok with including some geographical component to the name... Association of American Canyoneers (AAC) has a nice ring to it, as does North American Canyoneering Association (NACA). I don't like using US because there are some quality canyons just across the borders in both Mexico and Canada.

M

[trackrunner]

I don't like using US because there are some quality canyons just across the borders in both Mexico and Canada.


True but I don't want to have an all inclusive name if there is no interest from Mexican & Canadian canyoneers to join or help form this in their countries too. Seems a little xenophobic to force them under this umbrella if their community is:


happy with the current status
or not interested in joining forces
or would rather create a local national org

It should be their call IMO, that's all. If they do their own thing we can sponsor cross border rendezvous. You show us yours we'll show you ours. . .






Canyons of course, strictly canyons & culture :naughty::haha:

The term American could be vague enough to be US or other countries in the Americas. That could make it a better choice if the too geographic & national specific term US is wanted to be avoided, or if other countries in the Americas want to join/merge after the formation.

I also like acronyms that ares easy to speak as a word. So far CAC is one that works.

[ratagonia]

I would suggest that only names with a .com domain available should be considered. I know this limits the name availability considerably, but it sure makes things easier from a marketing standpoint.

As a non-profit, it should be a .org. Yes, taking the same .com domain is a really good idea.

Some guy used the .net domain for his quasi-organization - seemed kind of odd.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Seems a little xenophobic to force them under this umbrella if their community is:

...

The term American could be vague enough to be US or other countries in the Americas. That could make it a better choice if the too geographic & national specific term US is wanted to be avoided, or if other countries in the Americas want to join/merge after the formation.

I also like acronyms that ares easy to speak as a word. So far CAC is one that works.

How are we forcing them under this umbrella? Holding their head under a waterfall or something?

I like using "American", because it does have a certain ambiguity to it. The Canadians or Mexicans might find us useful to them sometime in the future.

Tom

[canyoncaver]

More food for thought:

Maybe instead of a coalition or a federation it could be a "society" or a "union." "Alliance" is a word that suggests that highly individualistic components are coming together for a common cause while still maintaining their own identities.

American Canyoneering Society
Society of American Canyoneers
Canyoneering Society of America
Union of American Canyoneers
American Canyoneering Union
Alliance of American Canyoneers
Canyoneering Alliance of America

I even like American Canyoneering Alliance, although it has regrettable acronym problems.

[shagdeuce]

CanyonAlliance.com/.org is available. A little outside the box here...taking a page out of the candition name: canyation.com/.org (canyon+nation) is also available.

[BLUEberryBOB]

GCCA.com

Giant Crack Canyoning Association. :lol8:
A bit of a light hearted name.

[reflection]

National or Continent Organization?
Regional or more local Organization?

What are the planned and hoped for interests and activities of such a group?
Should, could, more than one group exist? An additional National one, and an Additional Regional one?

Folk in the NW and California already have their canyon organizations.
Canyoneering (other than in mountains) is primarily a West, SW and Intermountain West activity.
I had earlier tossed out Colorado Plateau Canyoneering Coalition or Assoc. CPCC or CPCA.
I agree that having both a dot. org and dot. com would assist the effort.

When it comes to dealing with issues in Arches, N Wash, the Roost, San Raphael, Canyonlands, Zion....I much prefer a regional name when it comes to advocacy. ACA was always way to broad and ambiguous (in my mind) when it came to that group or party, advocating or involving in matters continent or nation wide. Did work for organizing rondy's or training though.

Parties will come at this with different experience, ideas and angles. Having a name that is available as a .org or .com is important. Those that wish to lead on this will have the final call as to whether they want to have a national or regional moniker, or maybe both? I've been involved with many groups and I still have a bias toward a regional name, but accept that if someone wants to, they could also run with a national group name.

Another regional grouping would be Utah Canyoneering.org or .com; Arizona Canyoneering.org or .com, or Colorado Canyoneering.org.or com. Utah Canyoneering suits me, or Colorado Plateau...

I know some of the players on this board. Most are from Utah, and most spend most of their hours canyoneering in Utah. Others, there is a blending, merging with other states and zones, or with/in their state of interest.

In my view, on regional matters there is a necessity of one voice vs. multiple when it comes to canyoneering. ZCC and ACA, at times, had different agendas and styles. (arguably made no difference) Still it would have been nice to sit with land managers and let them know you/other players speak for the ONE main canyon organization in your region. (and it's important that a diversity of views go into shaping that one voice).

I can see it now, some of us, or some of you, meet with land managers in Price or Hanksville. Folk speak up as reps of the American/United States Canyoneering org/coalition...and then folk from Colorado show up with a different view and maybe others show up from Moab or Blanding with still different views. Is this abstract? Well, private guide services from all over the map, have been showing up in land managers offices reportedly speaking on behalf of a large contingencies of canyoneers (except that much or most of the time, public canyoneers are never engaged with prior to the meetings).

Dear, how to be consise? Excuse me. Personally I have time and interest in dealing with Utah (and some degree AZ) canyon matters. I have NO time and little interest in dealing with collective national canyoneering matters; totally unwieldy and not practical as regional players already stake an interest in their territory. We have seen and experienced ACA for the past decade. As a teaching, training or rondy moniker it kinda worked, but there was no organization behind the driver.

If someone is retired, wishes to drive a big bus and build a big (in their mind) empire then I guess a national group is in the offing. Most of us though still work, and the need and benefit, to meet as a group, and then to at times, meet with regional land people argues for what? The Global Canyoneering Canyoneering, Planet Earth, Milky Way Canyon Group?
I can see the young team member on the Arches Management Planning staff now. You/your group, represents just who? And how many other canyon groups are out there?

ZCC was created to deal with Zion matters; I suppose, possibly? it could be merged with another regional group, but I would not merge it, (if it were my decision) with a national one. And the organization? A board, officers, a rotating president or someone that wishes to be president for a long time? If folk are adaptable and flexible it could work. If leaders though were martinets and chieftans, then it still might work, or may not (in the long run).

[Iceaxe]

A Colorado Plateau based advisory group. :2thumbs:

My interest, experience and knowledge is with the Colorado Plateau, I'd prefer to see the organization deal with that area only. If Canada, Mexico and California want there own organization let them build one.

:bert:

One of the ACA's downfalls was they were always building a bigger elephant sandwich, even when they couldn't eat what was already on their plate. :crazycobasa: Lets not fall into the same trap.

:stud:

[Sandstone Addiction]

Intermountain Canyoneering Enthusiasts and Alliance of Xtreme Engineers or ICEAXE :nod::haha::nod::haha:

[ratagonia]

The ZCC was focused on Zion matters, but then, other issues came up we were all interested in, how do comments from the Zion CC get taken by a land manager? Even if our focus NOW is specific, in the future it may not be. The name should reflect a big-tent view. Offering support for Rich's efforts with the Grand Canyon, for instance, is something we all in Utah SHOULD be doing, as it is really supporting canyoneers. If issues come up in the Northwest or Death Valley, the national should be involved to represent ALL canyoneers, because the 6 people who canyoneer in the Northwest are not gonna have much pull.

Intergalactic Canyoneering Association might be a little over-broad. How about keeping it local: Galactic Canyoneering Association

Tom

[trackrunner]

The ZCC was focused on Zion matters, but then, other issues came up we were all interested in, how do comments from the Zion CC get taken by a land manager? Even if our focus NOW is specific, in the future it may not be. The name should reflect a big-tent view. Offering support for Rich's efforts with the Grand Canyon, for instance, is something we all in Utah SHOULD be doing, as it is really supporting canyoneers. If issues come up in the Northwest or Death Valley, the national should be involved to represent ALL canyoneers, because the 6 people who canyoneer in the Northwest are not gonna have much pull.
Tom

+1 ^^^ QFE

[reflection]

A National canyon group sounds fine and equitable; but then the devil in the detail drama in organizing, staffing and following up on matters? Why should someone in the Intermountain West be the leading oar on AZ Grand Canyon matters when there are many finely qualified folk from that state that could have their own sub-group? And how easy is it for Intermountain folk to fly to and meet, when needed, with FS officials in the NW that may have questions or concerns re canyon activity? If NW canyoneering is important to folk, and they want a voice, nothing stops them from banding together in a group, regardless of size. If there was a National group, they (anyone really) could have their own chapter. But then of course who has the interest or inclination to go National? Some I suppose, and maybe they can speak to how such an organization might work. (we've seen for the past decade how one national group, in some ways, didn't work)

A National Group, if someone wants to lead out - OK; Personally I support a regional group, Utah/AZ/Colorado, or simply Colorado Plateau.

The trajectory of canyoneering in the future? Guided commerical operations having an interest in engaging with land managers, and acting as if they are the mavens of the canyon community? They now reportedly have their own organization. Non commercial canyon visitors though, who often share similar interests, what organization do they have if and when other competing interests arrive? And shouldn't they too be able to engage with land managers?

Commerical private groups certainly could be players in most any organization, but in a prospective new regional group, I'd want the officers and board free of any commercial guiding interests. Otherwise built in conflicts exist when meeting with FS, BLM or Park people.

Don't wish to get off track. If folk want a national group, then a national name. If folk want a regional group then a regional name. Both could arguably exist, but if only one did, in the short run, I'd go for the regional offering.

And then of course, how long does this linger in the talk about stage, before someone says OK, let's go with a name, pay the web domain fee (or skip that); get a bank acct (easy, do it under one officers name); come up with a logo and then have a meeting? Or, maybe interests of the community are so diverse that's it's best if a new group is just talked about?

The driver in most public land use groups is issues/advocacy/decisions/SAR/education. A regional group could have monthly training sessions (and not have to be tethered to the ACA canyon leader system?); it could have presentations in various municipal areas (slide shows, skill, technique - show and tells) and it could have a presence with individual land managers. Or it could/would take any direction it's leader(s) wished or wanted.

[ratagonia]

Let me express my vision as I did on the other related thread:

There are millions of climbers. There are tens of thousands of canyoneers.

There might be more climbers living in Boulder Colorado than there are canyoneers in the entire United States.

So I don't see what you think is going to happen. A thousand California canyoneers are going to get together to work with Death Valley National Park on access and rescue issues? I don't think so.

The scenario I see is Mike S. steps forward as the Death Valley guy, and WE assist him with:

1. coaching about what he should do
2. connections with other canyoneers and people in the Park we know
3. stand behind him so when he talks with the Park Service, they consider him a representative of canyoneers. When needed, Steve Mallory, business owner from Las Vegas and Tom Jones from Mt Carmel join Mike S. in meeting with the Park Service.
4. when the Park asks for comments on a Plan, we alert our membership, and they get 400 letters supporting the program that we and Mike S. think is the best reasonable plan for canyoneers;

Etc.

Sure, Colo Plateau issues will generate more letters. But one of the way the Access Fund works is that for someone's home crag, that the land manager thinks no one cares about, the Access Fund can generate letters from climbers across the country that tell that land manager yes, people care, climbers are respectable members of society, and you should consider our opinion in making your choices.

The Access Fund is a TEAM, a supportive team. Where a local organization is the effective vehicle, they support a local organization. Canyoneering could maybe come up with a local organization for Zion, but that is about it.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Don't wish to get off track. If folk want a national group, then a national name. If folk want a regional group then a regional name. Both could arguably exist, but if only one did, in the short run, I'd go for the regional offering.

A local or regional name is self-limiting. A National Name, if applied to a local or regional organization, does not get in the way. Even if we only see a regional organization (and I don't), why not have a National Name that allows us to support whomever, as the situation applies.

Again, the 12 canyoneers in the Pacific Northwest, which some think already have an organization (do you mean the PNW Yahoo group? or Ken Liebert's website?), are going to be perceived as a group of 12 individuals by the Park Service, when Ken goes up to talk with Rainier National Park. As the PNW Representative of the Inter-Galactic Canyoneering Association, he might be taken a little more seriously, especially with a few kanyoneering Klingons in their contingent.

Tom :cool2:

[ratagonia]

The trajectory of canyoneering in the future? Guided commerical operations having an interest in engaging with land managers, and acting as if they are the mavens of the canyon community? They now reportedly have their own organization.

Really, what? You mean the ACGA? very nascent. It is a little early to call it an organization.

Tom

[restrac2000]

I support a national name or at least Inter-Mountain West regional direction. Thus far it seems we need to include these states in the mix:

Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Washington.

Hawaii seems to have its problems, only heard rumors, but that seems intangible for us mainland folks. Could be wrong.

Am I missing any states or regions? I know a few folks have mentioned Idaho and Montana in the past but I haven't heard much noise up there is a while.

I agree with Tom on this one. A big tent doesn't come with many problems, at least early on. A small tent excludes folks from the onset. Our focus may be on CP issues at first but I don't see that as a problem. We start with problems that are the most immediate and build up success (and failures, its gonna happen). As we gain respect we can expand our efforts.

Another benefit of a broader org is we can incorporate and educate folks about the regional options that exist. The ACA was visionary early on it this way....it only helps us to diffuse use across many areas. A few thoughts. Still digesting some of the comments.

Phillip

[ratagonia]

Occidental Canyon Association OCA!

or, for Hank: Occidental Kanyon Recreation Association

:moses:

[trackrunner]

Am I missing any states or regions? I know a few folks have mentioned Idaho and Montana in the past but I haven't heard much noise up there is a while.
Phillip

North Carolina. I know of at least one person (ACA guide) finding, exploring, & guiding there.

[oldno7]

North Carolina. I know of at least one person (ACA guide) finding, exploring, & guiding there.

The "academy" has a guide??

[trackrunner]

The "academy" has a guide??
i'm detecting a little bit of sarcasm

for those interested in who it is

"Joe Moerschbaecher, American Canyoneering Association certified guide"
http://www.pvadventures.com/Canyoneering/index.html

[ratagonia]

"Joe Moerschbaecher, American Canyoneering Association certified guide"
http://www.pvadventures.com/Canyoneering/index.html

Now a formerly American Canyoneering Association certified guide, just like Kurty and I.

T

[hank moon]

Occidental Canyon Association OCA!

or, for Hank: Occidental Kanyon Recreation Association

:moses:

Just add, garlic, onions, tomatoes, turmeric, ginger, cumin, and lime juice - Yum!

[Bo_Beck]

Oops...meant to post this here rather than Mission Statement
S.U.C.K. (Syndicate of Ubiquitous Canyoneers that Klean)

Or maybe "Syndicate of Ubiquitous Clean Kanyoneers"

[tanya]

:lol8:

[restrac2000]

How about taking the lead from the Mountaineers (as mentioned by Mike D.) and American Whitewater and calling ourselves:

American Canyoneers?

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

:2thumbs:

I like, leaves lots of wiggle room for the future.

[trackrunner]

I like it :2thumbs:
another one I thought of Canyoneering Association of America. but I like American Canyoneers better.

[nat]

I like it too. Simple, direct and means exactly what it should.

Nat

[oldno7]

I like it, and in a search, I think it would come up before some other clubs:mrgreen:

[reflection]

American Canyoneers? Simple and concise. But is it tainted or benefited by the past ACA moniker? A cross country vison (American) but also a needed perspective on the local front (Regional). Those of you who are so adamant on a national name, what do you potentially see happening (name wise) on a local front in Utah, Colorado, AZ, Nev, Cal or Washington? These are all potentialy seeded local chapters of the big group? Or they sprout on their own when parties tire of directive from a national group that doesn't match their interests? And already, some, staking out positions or territory where they would be the active player. Interesting. And if not a board member, how could/would one tether to the national group if meeting with land managers?

Use Arches as an example. Six people band together to meet with managment, before the final plan is announced. They have to get a blessing from above, the national group, before they show up as the American Canyoneers group? And what if the National Group says no, we are going to send our own people to the meeting, that the others just set up?

It's nice to have groups; but of necessity groups ride the backs of bodies that carry the group moniker in one hand and their own energy and drive in the other.

Flow charts are nice, real nice, conceptionally beneficial. (thank you, seriously!) But behind the curtain are those that will step forward and either grab many of these themes, or, quickly toss them away and announce their own vision and directive.

And the organization. I'd go with a board and NOT officers and let board members gravitate into areas of their interest. Access, stewardship, activism, education, partnering with public land managers. And just how to deal with the commercial guides that are now such a ubiquitous force in the canyoneering community? They become a majority, a minority or NOT members of the board? Maybe folk don't care? I do know though that's it's a bit of a back door dilemma for land managers when citizens come in & speak to their interests as a recreational canyoneer and then in the next breath announce they are a guide for an organization that has maybe some different interests. Or maybe folk don't care about this issue, merging commercial guiding (which just started their own group) with a new national canyon association, that has just what mission statement and looks out for just what national or regional interests?

Some in some groups wish to assist, serve and lead out. Others wish to control, direct and demand. Various leadership styles and a big guess as to who gets invited to the party (board of the new group). Bogely, Canyons Group, AC Academy site, a public plea to the masses? And how and where for meetings if folk are splintered here and there? Maybe internet connection and engagement? Maybe four board members each, from Utah, AZ and Colorado (that's 12) and then maybe four or six others - At Large - from other states, or from within those 3 states if no others step forward?

And who gets to be the king, to sit in the kings chair and voice the commands? Personally to start out with, I'd have a king-free organization. Control need not be the energy driver, initially, in this group, in my view. And I'd have a three prong thrust: Service to the Canyon Community, Stewards to the Public Lands and Partners with Public Land Managers. (Service, Stewards, Partners). And one vote forward - a board member: Bo Beck! he's bright, knows the industry, the environment, SAR, land managers, is polite, civil, AND, he has a sense of humor!

The card game plays out. ACA pulled out from the table weeks back. Who are the remaining players and what cards do they have in the game? I held a hand last week, so small and sweet, my heart did surely sing. That hand I held that brought such joy? Four aces and a king. (apologies to a long ago English poet, that was slapped by his wife).

[ratagonia]

American Canyoneers? Simple and concise. But is it tainted or benefited by the past ACA moniker? A cross country vison (American) but also a needed perspective on the local front (Regional). Those of you who are so adamant on a national name, what do you potentially see happening (name wise) on a local front in Utah, Colorado, AZ, Nev, Cal or Washington? These are all potentialy seeded local chapters of the big group? Or they sprout on their own when parties tire of directive from a national group that doesn't match their interests? And already, some, staking out positions or territory where they would be the active player. Interesting. And if not a board member, how could/would one tether to the national group if meeting with land managers?

Use Arches as an example. Six people band together to meet with managment, before the final plan is announced. They have to get a blessing from above, the national group, before they show up as the American Canyoneers group? And what if the National Group says no, we are going to send our own people to the meeting, that the others just set up?

It's nice to have groups; but of necessity groups ride the backs of bodies that carry the group moniker in one hand and their own energy and drive in the other.

Flow charts are nice, real nice, conceptionally beneficial. (thank you, seriously!) But behind the curtain are those that will step forward and either grab many of these themes, or, quickly toss them away and announce their own vision and directive.

And the organization. I'd go with a board and NOT officers and let board members gravitate into areas of their interest. Access, stewardship, activism, education, partnering with public land managers. And just how to deal with the commercial guides that are now such a ubiquitous force in the canyoneering community? They become a majority, a minority or NOT members of the board? Maybe folk don't care? I do know though that's it's a bit of a back door dilemma for land managers when citizens come in & speak to their interests as a recreational canyoneer and then in the next breath announce they are a guide for an organization that has maybe some different interests. Or maybe folk don't care about this issue, merging commercial guiding (which just started their own group) with a new national canyon association, that has just what mission statement and looks out for just what national or regional interests?

Some in some groups wish to assist, serve and lead out. Others wish to control, direct and demand. Various leadership styles and a big guess as to who gets invited to the party (board of the new group). Bogely, Canyons Group, AC Academy site, a public plea to the masses? And how and where for meetings if folk are splintered here and there? Maybe internet connection and engagement? Maybe four board members each, from Utah, AZ and Colorado (that's 12) and then maybe four or six others - At Large - from other states, or from within those 3 states if no others step forward?

And who gets to be the king, to sit in the kings chair and voice the commands? Personally to start out with, I'd have a king-free organization. Control need not be the energy driver, initially, in this group, in my view. And I'd have a three prong thrust: Service to the Canyon Community, Stewards to the Public Lands and Partners with Public Land Managers. (Service, Stewards, Partners). And one vote forward - a board member: Bo Beck! he's bright, knows the industry, the environment, SAR, land managers, is polite, civil, AND, he has a sense of humor!

The card game plays out. ACA pulled out from the table weeks back. Who are the remaining players and what cards do they have in the game? I held a hand last week, so small and sweet, my heart did surely sing. That hand I held that brought such joy? Four aces and a king. (apologies to a long ago English poet, that was slapped by his wife).

I recognize your concerns, Steve, but I also think you have a gift for making things difficult.

I think this can be synopsized to: how do we keep the place from being seized by a control-freak, again. :facepalm1:

Easy: involve many people right from the git-go, in a way that allows a big handful of people to all have equal control.

Tom

[neumannbruce]

American West Canyoneering Association
AWCA

[reflection]

" A gift for making things difficult". My oh my? Already on the canyons group, folk commenting that it's a Bogley Canyoneering group and not one with a collective fold? And that some don't wish to look at or participate in Bogley - where the bulk of discussion has occured. Are these commentators likewise being difficult? And, is there anything wrong with voicing options along with concerns? I'll say it again, any viable national group should consist of members from at least 3 or four states. UT, Colo, AZ, Calif. Control? Originally there was discussion re a Colorado Plateau group, that would be regional and would focus on the Intermountain West and Southwest. But then, a strong voice or two wanted his/their their way & kept pounding for a national group - but never backed up their plea re how the organization would collectively represent national or regional interests, unless the board was actually diverse and in place.

Names ?
Utah
AZ
Colorado
California

Not just Bogley particpants, Heavens Sakes! Who are parties that would want to particpate? And was asked earlier, does the group want professional guides (who already have an organization) as members of the board? For Utah, I'd have two from the Wasatch Front, one from the Zion/St. George area and one from Moab/Monticello/Blanding. Bo Beck would fit from St. George and who from these other areas. Would Shane wish to be on the board - I would imagine?; and I assume Tom, in spite of his hesitation would need/want a seat on the board. And if one goes with guides, Matt in Moab and/or Jared in San Juan. Folk that don't wish to associate with Bogley, could be contacted by interim board members, possibly.

Finally, if there are NOT folk that wish to step forward from other states or jurisdictions, then I'd say, pull back, take another look and set up a regional or UT group and take any credible board member that would like to join.

Amazing, discouraging really, to see the lament on the canyons group as folk frowned on Bogley. To some of those folk I would say, yes, there are some strong voices and personality, and there is a culture too - but in spite of this, it's a viable forum where folk can easily, with organization, offer views. Surprising that some, many, don't wish to participate. Sounds like anothe uprising. ABC against the castle of ACA and now XYZ battling with Bogley. There must be something behind it all, why so many (?) don't wish to engage, on this party line? Personalities at play? Myself, I wish there were a forum where aerobic activity only, would be displayed, and others (who have respectable interests) could have their hook, bullet and machine forums on another site. I trust I'm not being difficult - is having an alternative point of view so troubling? Apparently though, there are some/many? that don't wish to participate and talk on this site - and if that's the case, how and where does a collective forum arrive where interested parties, from different locales will step forward and engage? If the interest level lags, I'd vote to pull back to a CP group, and if the interest level lags further, then a Utah group. Made up of Bogleyites? No made up of humans that care about canyoneering and it's future. Hopefully that's a peaceful, easy and not a difficult offering?

[ratagonia]

" A gift for making things difficult". My oh my? Already on the canyons group, folk commenting that it's a Bogley Canyoneering group and not one with a collective fold? And that some don't wish to look at or participate in Bogley - where the bulk of discussion has occured. Are these commentators likewise being difficult? And, is there anything wrong with voicing options along with concerns? I'll say it again, any viable national group should consist of members from at least 3 or four states. UT, Colo, AZ, Calif. Control? Originally there was discussion re a Colorado Plateau group, that would be regional and would focus on the Intermountain West and Southwest. But then, a strong voice or two wanted his/their their way & kept pounding for a national group - but never backed up their plea re how the organization would collectively represent national or regional interests, unless the board was actually diverse and in place.

Names ?
Utah
AZ
Colorado
California

Not just Bogley particpants, Heavens Sakes! Who are parties that would want to particpate? And was asked earlier, does the group want professional guides (who already have an organization) as members of the board? For Utah, I'd have two from the Wasatch Front, one from the Zion/St. George area and one from Moab/Monticello/Blanding. Bo Beck would fit from St. George and who from these other areas. Would Shane wish to be on the board - I would imagine?; and I assume Tom, in spite of his hesitation would need/want a seat on the board. And if one goes with guides, Matt in Moab and/or Jared in San Juan. Folk that don't wish to associate with Bogley, could be contacted by interim board members, possibly.

Finally, if there are NOT folk that wish to step forward from other states or jurisdictions, then I'd say, pull back, take another look and set up a regional or UT group and take any credible board member that would like to join.

Amazing, discouraging really, to see the lament on the canyons group as folk frowned on Bogley. To some of those folk I would say, yes, there are some strong voices and personality, and there is a culture too - but in spite of this, it's a viable forum where folk can easily, with organization, offer views. Surprising that some, many, don't wish to participate. Sounds like anothe uprising. ABC against the castle of ACA and now XYZ battling with Bogley. There must be something behind it all, why so many (?) don't wish to engage, on this party line? Personalities at play? Myself, I wish there were a forum where aerobic activity only, would be displayed, and others (who have respectable interests) could have their hook, bullet and machine forums on another site. I trust I'm not being difficult - is having an alternative point of view so troubling? Apparently though, there are some/many? that don't wish to participate and talk on this site - and if that's the case, how and where does a collective forum arrive where interested parties, from different locales will step forward and engage? If the interest level lags, I'd vote to pull back to a CP group, and if the interest level lags further, then a Utah group. Made up of Bogleyites? No made up of humans that care about canyoneering and it's future. Hopefully that's a peaceful, easy and not a difficult offering?

I support the idea of attempting to include as many people from as many areas as possible in the new organization.

It seems, however, a mistake to create regional quotas for the BOD. Was that the suggestion? Are there three canyoneers in Minnesota who would like to participate on the board? Florida? (Jim Bodoh would be a good choice). Maybe Wyoming Dave would represent his homeland- Rhode Island.

My mistake - perhaps you are suggesting to reach for geographic diversity in the interim BOD. Sure. Here's the process: nominate people, encourage them to accept. There is a separate thread for that.

I am confused. I don't think WE determine what the ACA2 IS, I think we create it, create a structure, then it becomes what it becomes. I hope it becomes what its members desire and are willing to create. While I have a vision of what and how it could work, I have little attachment to a specific vision, or to imposing MY vision on the ACA2.

I believe the desire to move the discussion to a neutral forum has been expressed by a least a few voices, and is considered a high priority.

Tom :moses:

[hank moon]

I believe the desire to move the discussion to a neutral forum has been expressed by a least a few voices, and is considered a high priority.

- This is just a discussion, not a decision-making body. As long as discussion remains free and open to all, there is no reason to strive for "neutrality"

- The "neutral forum" does not exist. Add known personalities /relationships to any "neutral forum" and any illusion of neutrality quickly vanishes.

- The obvious "maybe a bit more neutral" forum would be the org's own discussion room and/or website.

So, someone (some ONE person, that is) needs to step up and take more action. Announce that the org has been created, here's the discussion group, here's the iBOD, etc. If that one person acts wisely, something might take off. I suggest rather than nominating other people, folks who are genuinely interested in doing something nominate themselves. That might spark enough interest in the ONE person to say, "hey, I like the look of that iBOD, I'll run with that"

What's needed on the iBOD is people who are:

a) motivated to do the startup gruntwork
b) have the skills, initiative, etc. to actually do it in a reasonable time frame
c) are willing to give it all up in a reasonable time frame when the first elections are held for the eBOD

Cross-posting this to the iBOD thread.

p.s. I have no interest in being on the iBOD

[accadacca]

- The "neutral forum" does not exist. Add known personalities /relationships to any "neutral forum" and any illusion of neutrality quickly vanishes.
Well put. A "neutral forum" will NEVER exist. The cause and movement of the org will be discussed on several (Bogley, Canyons, ACA, Facebook, etc) online communities. The roll of the org is to monitor the community as a whole and take action based on the needs of the entire Canyoneering community. The online communities are simply a mechanism or vehicle for spreading and discussing the objectives of the org. If the org hopes to influence the entire community, they need to touch and participate in ALL online Canyoneering communities.

[taatmk]

CUC
Coalition of United Canyoneers

[reflection]

A mistake? American Canyoneers? And you want someone from Florida, Minn. or back East on the board? NO PROBLEM; at large members come from anywhere. I said it before; I guess you missed it? Ask though, where is the epicenter of American Canyoneering? If a viable new group is to exist, is there something wrong with offering the option that maybe some should come from 3-4 states, and that others could be at large members (from ANY state)? Wish to have an AC group made up of 5-6 ibod members from ONE state and made up of 3-4 that have a professional handle already in the game? That's quite representative? D Black already went on record stating real reservation re a new group, particularly when those with the energy have a financial stake in the process. Maybe he made a mistake saying that, and he was being difficult? Why don't you, point blank, tell him so on the canyons site?

Ideas and the free flow of views is one thing. Folk having to have their own way and mocking others when their views differ is another. A bias of outside info to match pre-existing views or disregarding that which conflict with them? Some always, seem to have a full command of the facts?

What's the link to American Canyoneers? Who intends to control it, who are/is the moderator and who channels to volume and tenor of issues to be discussed? There are already how many control centers in the canyoneering community and just how many views when it comes to parceling out needed service to the land agencies, working with them on access and managing use patterns that balance safety and resource protection? Or maybe access is the sole rider in this whole game?

Is it naive or realistic to image that if so many canyoneers, that don't particpate on yahoo, on ACA or Bogley, are now going to share opinions on an American Canyoneers site? If so great. Those that do participate - if they offer cogent and relevant ideas, then fine. I have NO strong allegiance to any of the three sites; I do recognize though the time, effort and energy that some offer to support their alliance and I hope folk are generally complimentary of their effort, this regardless of political or personal opinion on x,y or z matter. From a distance, much of the commentary and rhetoric relating to this is historically interesting, somewhat entertaining and sometimes so surely and serious.

More interesting to me; the near future of land managers decisions re Arches, Glen Canyon, Zion and Grand Canyon. Something positive may come of a new group or something otherwise? Worth an effort though? Yea, Nay? All the Kings Horses and All the Kings Men...should they put the intended ACA (or the new AC's) back together again? Ideas, energy, (control) & seemingly endless puzzles. Hopefully some have a clear vision into the future. So confusing really, all the voices, strong opinions and seemingly endless rifts.

[CarpeyBiggs]

What's the link to American Canyoneers? Who intends to control it, who are/is the moderator and who channels to volume and tenor of issues to be discussed? There are already how many control centers in the canyoneering community and just how many views when it comes to parceling out needed service to the land agencies, working with them on access and managing use patterns that balance safety and resource protection? Or maybe access is the sole rider in this whole game?
the domains of americancanyoneers.org/com/info have been purchased by wolfgang schuster. i (dan ransom) developed a wordpress frontpage for it, and installed the phpBB3 forum. currently, wolfgang and i have access, and moderation abilities. however, the website and forum are being created with the intent of having a central location to discuss the formation of an interim board, which will then be granted control of the site. wolf and i have donated the necessary resources to get it started, with the hope that a board will form to carry on the project.


Is it naive or realistic to image that if so many canyoneers, that don't particpate on yahoo, on ACA or Bogley, are now going to share opinions on an American Canyoneers site? If so great.
i'm skeptical as to who will participate, certainly. i'm just hoping that MANY people will take interest, that a diverse iBOD will be formed, and a transparent, member run organization will be a result. my hope is that resource protection and access are the focus of the organization, eventually resulting in an association that has enough members to carry significant weight when interacting with land managers.

[restrac2000]

Thanks for the effort thus far Dan and Wolf. Just checked out the site. Look forward to reading the community's input.

[Bshelton]

Wolfe, Dan,

Thanks for the extra work put into this. Just checked out the site. A great start.