American Canyoneers - Mission Statement

[Iceaxe]

The [YOUR NAME HERE] is a national organization established to provide guidance to U.S. canyoneers. Providing leadership in safety, access, ethics, technique and low environmental impact is our purpose.

I'm terrible at writing mission statements, and maybe this is a bit early but I was bored. So feel free to red-line the above or write your own. If nothing else I figured it would get people thinking about what they really want and provide a launching point.

I figured we should stick to U.S. only to reduce the size of our elephant sandwich, but thats just my opinion.

:popcorn:

[Cirrus2000]

How about canyoneers visiting the US? :haha:


:popcorn:

[Iceaxe]

How about canyoneers visiting the US? :haha:

Isn't Canada just our quirky 51st state? :mrgreen:

[trackrunner]

Isn't Canada just our quirky 51st state? :mrgreen:

or hat

[Iceaxe]

or hat

Then what is Florida?

:haha:

[mdd]

The mission statement is probably the single most important item that we need to discuss. Everything else flows from it.

Here are mission statements from similar orgs that I copied off the 'net...

Access Fund: The Access Fund is the national advocacy organization that keeps U.S. climbing areas open and conserves the climbing environment. Founded in 1991, the Access Fund supports and represents over 2.3 million climbers nationwide in all forms of climbing: rock, ice, mountaineering, and bouldering. Five core programs support the mission on national and local levels: Climbing management policy, Local support & mobilization, Stewardship & conservation, Land acquisition & protection, Education

American Alpine Club: We provide knowledge and inspiration, conservation and advocacy, and logistical support for the climbing community.

Colorado Mountain Club: The Colorado Mountain Club is organized to: Unite the energy, interest, and knowledge of the students, explorers, and lovers of the mountains of Colorado; Collect and disseminate information regarding the Rocky Mountains on behalf of science, literature, art, and recreation; Stimulate public interest in our mountain area; Encourage the preservation of forests, flowers, fauna, and natural scenery; and Render readily accessible the alpine attractions of this region.

Wasatch Mountain Club: The Wasatch Mountain Club was incorporated in 1920 by an informally organized group that had been hiking together for several years. The original Club charter listed the purpose as to promote the physical and spiritual well being of its members and others by outdoor activities; to unite the energy, interests and knowledge of students, explorers and lovers of the mountains, deserts and rivers of Utah; to collect and disseminate information regarding the Rocky Mountains in behalf of science, literature and art; to explore and picture the scenic wonders of this and surrounding states; to foster awareness of scenic beauties; and to encourage preservation of our natural areas including their plant, animal and bird life.

[mdd]

The [YOUR NAME HERE] is a national organization established to provide guidance to U.S. canyoneers. Providing leadership in safety, access, ethics, technique and low environmental impact is our purpose.


My thoughts:

First, dump 'ethics' from the mission statement. Ethics are a very local thing and nobody wants the big bag national org to tell them how to do things. Instead, leave it up to the board (or membership vote) later to come up with position statements to reflect ethics. Examples from the AAC are at: http://www.americanalpineclub.org/p/policy-positions

In the end ethics really is just a way to control impact. But there are many ways to do that. I would propose that the mission reflect controlling impact instead of mentioning how it will be controlled. So instead say something along the lines of "conserve the canyon environment."

Safety and technique also go hand-in-hand. Is that a business we want to get in to? Down the road will we develop standards? If so will they compete with say the ACA or WCCM, or standards that the ACGA may be developing?

And finally, access - the Access Fund split off of the AAC way back when. If access is going to be a big focus, should we create two orgs, one for solely access, one for everything else (social aspects, technique standards etc)? It could be that the two factions in the org could mute each other if they are together.

So what I would do is tick off a bullet list of what we want the org to do, and write a statement based on that. Here is my list:

- Access
- Advocacy (public face of canyoneering)
- Outings/social/rendezvous
- Conservation
- Education (not just techniques, but conservation, involvement with science and research, public education to what we do, etc).

Anything else?

M

[restrac2000]

On the conservation theme....its a nuanced idea and kinda semantics but a better word may be "promote stewardship"

[mdd]

I had a thought this weekend on organization mission, and after thinking about it for a while, I think this may be a better direction. I think Shane and others may have mentioned something similar.

The idea is that you have small, local organizations, and then one "umbrella" national organization. The local orgs focus on their local issues and basically do their own thing. If something comes up that is beyond the resources of the local orgs, or if requested by the local org, the national org can step in for support. If an issue comes up in an area that does not have a local org, the national org steps in. If an issue comes up that is national in scope (like lobbying) the national org steps in. This is similar to how the Access Fund works, and they describe it at: http://tinyurl.com/3tg3sww

One of my concerns is that the new org will become too Utah-centric, since that is where the vast majority of US canyoneers ply their trade. It also concerns me that this discussion is taking place on Bogley, which is a very (almost entirely) Colorado Plateau/Utah-centric forum. I think the concerns and issues of a non-CP area would fall by the wayside in a CP-centric national org, hence I think local grassroots representation with a national support if needed is a better route to go.

In this model I see the national org being stripped down in what they do (probably not so much social stuff, that would be done at the local level though coordinated and advertised nationally). With this model the mission would change to something like:

Support local organizations with access, conservation, etc etc etc.


M

[ratagonia]

The idea is that you have small, local organizations, and then one "umbrella" national organization. The local orgs focus on their local issues and basically do their own thing. If something comes up that is beyond the resources of the local orgs, or if requested by the local org, the national org can step in for support. If an issue comes up in an area that does not have a local org, the national org steps in. If an issue comes up that is national in scope (like lobbying) the national org steps in. This is similar to how the Access Fund works, and they describe it at: http://tinyurl.com/3tg3sww

M

Uh, well. Maybe it does now, but when it was smaller...

The Access fund was largely run through Regional Coordinators, who were people with a specific regional interest, who attended a training camp and had people at the home office to support them. Coordinators step forward for 2-3 years then pass the baton to someone else.

IF the sport was big enough, there COULD be local organizations, but it would be better, I think, to support a local person who takes the lead, knows the details and shakes the hands.

To me, one of the important things of the organization is to provide political pull in the form of a flood of letters supporting a position when requested. In order to get this, we need MEMBERS, and how we get members is by offering benefits, such as rendezvous.

Oh, and we must educate canyoneers about the invasion of Drop Bears from Australia!

T

[ratagonia]

Support local organizations with access, conservation, etc etc etc.


M

What local organization are you talking about? Name one.

There isn't.

Or you are suggesting starting 5 organizations, a national, A SW Colorado, A Zion, A Moab-Area, A Grand Canyon, A Death Valley???????

So, I would suggest this model does not work. Yes, the MEMBERS would be Utah-centric. The staff need not be.

Tom

[mdd]

What local organization are you talking about? Name one.

There isn't.

Or you are suggesting starting 5 organizations, a national, A SW Colorado, A Zion, A Moab-Area, A Grand Canyon, A Death Valley???????

So, I would suggest this model does not work. Yes, the MEMBERS would be Utah-centric. The staff need not be.

Tom

Of course there aren't any. The ACA was supposed to be all things so nobody bothered to create any. It didn't work. Now we are where we are. Though you can say the ZCC is an independent group. And I believe CA canyoneers have banded together to an extent.

On the other hand, look at the Access Fund's affiliates list:

http://www.accessfund.org/site/c.tmL5KhNWLrH/b.5000683/k.CE6C/Local_climbing_organizations.htm

Some of these groups were created by the Access Fund (like the Flatirons group), others are long-standing independent groups with their own leadership and bylaws that are affiliated with the national group (banding together for strength). That's the model I'm suggesting. If a local group doesn't have the resources the national group can help out. If a local group needs letters written the national group can call on the other groups to help out. That sort of thing.

My thought with a "one group does all" model is that the one group will be Utah centric. Canyoning in Colorado or the PNW is very different than Utah. Will their voices be heard? Will those Utah-centric canyoneers tell us in the alpine canyon world how we should do things? Most alpine canyons in CO are on Forest Service administered lands. In Utah they seem to mostly be NPS or BLM. Will a national org even focus with the Forest Service much?

Not to mention that the ACA tried that model and it failed (they also tried the "local chapters model" and it failed too, I suspect because the local chapters didn't have enough autonomy). So why would it work now? Because Rich isn't doing it?

What model do you think will work?


M

[ghawk]

Oh, and we must educate canyoneers about the invasion of Drop Bears from Australia!

T

First of all... gross. Second of all, I like it that it's created by the department of dangerous fauna management.

[ratagonia]

Of course there aren't any. The ACA was supposed to be all things so nobody bothered to create any. It didn't work. Now we are where we are. Though you can say the ZCC is an independent group. And I believe CA canyoneers have banded together to an extent.

On the other hand, look at the Access Fund's affiliates list:

http://www.accessfund.org/site/c.tmL5KhNWLrH/b.5000683/k.CE6C/Local_climbing_organizations.htm

Some of these groups were created by the Access Fund (like the Flatirons group), others are long-standing independent groups with their own leadership and bylaws that are affiliated with the national group (banding together for strength). That's the model I'm suggesting. If a local group doesn't have the resources the national group can help out. If a local group needs letters written the national group can call on the other groups to help out. That sort of thing.

My thought with a "one group does all" model is that the one group will be Utah centric. Canyoning in Colorado or the PNW is very different than Utah. Will their voices be heard? Will those Utah-centric canyoneers tell us in the alpine canyon world how we should do things? Most alpine canyons in CO are on Forest Service administered lands. In Utah they seem to mostly be NPS or BLM. Will a national org even focus with the Forest Service much?

Not to mention that the ACA tried that model and it failed (they also tried the "local chapters model" and it failed too, I suspect because the local chapters didn't have enough autonomy). So why would it work now? Because Rich isn't doing it?

What model do you think will work?

M

I think we are talking past each other, Mike.

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 out 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.

So I am not disagreeing with you. But I am talking now; you are talking 20 years in the future.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

Utah-centric canyoneers

The majority of popular canyons and the majority of canyoneers are in Utah. That is just a fact. I don't see any reasonable way to separate that element. Those outside Utah will need the Utah numbers to have any muscle behind them. It would be in the Utah canyoneers best interest to understand when they are outside of their area of expertise and except the guidance of those familiar with the area..... And I really don't see any of that being a big problem. YMMV.



Will those Utah-centric canyoneers tell us in the alpine canyon world how we should do things?

In my vision a new organization will NOT be telling anyone what to do. The organization will identify a problem, provide the membership with information and a suggested course of action. Similar to the way the different forums have already handled the Arches NP and Grand Canyon management plans. If a member decides to support the course of action or take anther is up to the individual.

I would expect the folks in the area effected to be the ones that furnish the information and provide a suggested course of action.



Not to mention that the ACA tried that model and it failed (they also tried the "local chapters model" and it failed too, I suspect because the local chapters didn't have enough autonomy).

I won't draw too many conclusions based on what failed inside the ACA. I believe popular consciences, backed up by several hundred posts in the various forums, detail poor leadership as the root cause of most ACA failures. Perhaps the one thing we can take away from the ACA model is that you can't tell canyoneers what to do or how they should think.

[ratagonia]

I won't draw too many conclusions based on what failed inside the ACA. I believe popular consciences, backed up by several hundred posts in the various forums, detail poor leadership as the root cause of most ACA failures. Perhaps the one thing we can take away from the ACA model is that you can't tell canyoneers what to do or how they should think.

:2thumbs:

[mdd]

Alrighty then, Utah Canyoneering Association it is! We'll see how well your model works for Arches access I guess.

[Iceaxe]

Alrighty then, Utah Canyoneering Association it is! We'll see how well your model works for Arches access I guess.

We have already seen how the model works as it is the same model the ZCC used in Zion. The ZCC was Utah-centric for the same reasons, that is where the canyons and canyoneers are.

The ZCC didn't get everything they wanted (not even close). But they did get a few things like an increased quota for some of the routes. I would hope we would do a little better in the future as we gain experience and we don't have the ACA opposing our objectives.

[ratagonia]

Alrighty then, Utah Canyoneering Association it is! We'll see how well your model works for Arches access I guess.

Uh, If you are conceding the point, the name would be the American Canyoneering Association (though that particular name is verbotten).

Before "conceding the point", perhaps some other people would pipe in with their views.

And Mike - did I overwhelm you with logic?; or did I overwhelm you with Overwhelmingness?

T

[tjwetherell]

Personally I like: Canyoneering Coalition (of the) Colorado Plateau or CCCP. Wait a second!

-tom(w)

[SRG]

Maybe the two ideas need not be mutually exclusive.

I think Tom is right that the numbers of canyoneers and independent groups just aren't there, so out of necessity (for the mean time at least) the new organization needs to be nationally/possibly Utah focused(if representative).

I don't think this is necessarily at odds with an approach of local organizations backed by a national one. As local organizations pop up naturally they can affiliate/ work with the national organization if they'd like, if not thats fine too.

I personally think that if both national and local groups stick to a policy of "education, not legislation", meaning they don't set lots of rules (preferably no rules) for their members and they don't try and influence legislation (with the possible exception of truly local/canyoneering specific issues), that the relationship between the national and local groups will be naturally cooperative and mutually beneficial.
I support Shane's vision of a new org that "will NOT be telling anyone what to do."

-Sam

[Scopulus]

...maybe this is a bit early but I was bored...
Not early at all. I think this should actually be first and foremost. The purpose -- expressed in a mission statement -- is the first thing to be determined. Everything else flows from it. There's a lot of talk about what a new org might do or how it might do it (perfectly natural). The "what" and "how" should flow from the why - or the purpose (expressed as a mission statement). With out a clearly defined purpose, questions like certification vs no certification, social events or not, local chapters vs national only, etc, etc, are impossible to answer -- except they be answered incorrectly. Clearly understanding the purpose first, the question simply becomes "does support the purpose?" If not, it gets crossed off the list. Those "whats" or "hows" left on the list then advance to the next round of scrutiny to determine which best support the purpose.

Crash and burn of an organization is most commonly attributed to either not understanding or not following a purpose. Purpose is the "why" of what we do and how we do it. (btw, a good book on the topic is "[I]Start with Why" by Simon Sinek -- no, I don't get a kickback).

OK, I'll admit it sounds like some mantra you might hear at the company retreat (maybe we could sing kumbaya now), but the gutter is littered with orgs that skipped that first step.

Steve L.

[hank moon]

From the NSS website (www.caves.org)

Mission Statement:
The National Speleological Society (NSS) is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to the scientific study of caves and karst; protecting caves and their natural contents through conservation, ownership, stewardship, and public education; and promoting responsible cave exploration and fellowship among those interested in caves.