Originally Posted by
reflection
The "pot still simmers" in spite of the weekend lull (away from the internet). Interesting, a mini-drama that plays out on at least three stages. Bogley (filled with a myriad of plus or minus views); Yahoo Canyon's group (some (to some degree) agree with Phil, others really don't like Phil or 'piss ant' hate him), Ram soft critique, Shane a very "cogent" suggestion re operation of a new ACA and then much soft stroking, yea or nay re RC/ACA; and then the ACA site offering, similar to a passing eulogy (of sort), soft/strong encouragement, endorsement and then mild to very strong critique of any and all ACA/RC naysayers.
One commentator (on the ACA site) (more than others) caught my attention. His statement in part; "There are people who do things and people who criticize. Critics spend a lot of time wondering why the world isn't perfect. They will never understand because they never have had to face the real challenges that come along with creating and doing."
(And just how many political campaigns, corporations, organizations, associations and firms has the fellow/lady worked in?)
Let's see? Some of us have been (actively) involved in the political/civics and business arena for how many decades? (and some of us canyoneering for 15 years). So kind (and insightful?) to suggest that folk will "never understand...never face real challenges....re creating and doing."
Some (many) have had much/little experience with ACA/RC. And that experience (for most) runs a wide gamut and can't be simplified. There is the good, not so good, the complimentary and sometimes (yes) the questionable. And along the way, there is/has been, emotion, opinion, view, perspective, and of course memory. As a "public figure" though, can't one be both complimented and questioned? Or are some solemn sacred cows only to be bowed down to and never sullied?
RC is an organized and effective teacher in many realms of canyoneering, rescue, EMT, etc. And he can laugh, smile, critique and has poltical views too (even on public social sites). Countless have benefited from his effort (work, skill) in the past decade(s).
The framework and evoloution of ACA (as an organization and association) though? Maybe all tongues should be tied and stilled? And/or as so many (continue) to offer, it's nobody's business but RC? It's the ACA, (his group) and he can run it anyway he likes.
In spite of Shane's "specific, organized and credible" offer to re-tool and temporarily run ACA (and then follow that up with elections) it's still my view that ACA, if RC doesn't wish to lead it, should lapse.
Chiefly I say this as a compliment to RC. ACA's image (present and past tense) stands, bows or falls based on it's leader. Makes little sense to have another/others modify, bend or reshape a "castle, house or kingdom" that was mostly RC's from the inception. I've been involved with a number of organizations,(not corporations where name branding is important) where originators wished to scale down or retire. Often they anticipated passing the mantle to another and then on further reflection realized that "new people running the group" required/needed a new name and new organization and structure (if one at all).
And then that 'prickly" tinkering with the 'memory' and evolution of the Zion permit system? False memory (on my part, or others?) and the offerings (in private) by a number of Zion officials (long ago), when asked..."Well just who supports and endorses the system you are proposing?" Let's see, the two Utah Scout Councils didn't support it (they lodged concerns); Zion Canyoneering Coalition didn't support it (generally) (Subway needed some limits); and the groundswell of support the Zion officials claimed they were getting from the canyoneering community? (canyoneers at comedy central, I/we guess); and those offerings that commercial canyon guiding should (ACA trained guides) be allowed (canyoneers at xyz farmers market, I/we guess)? Zion officials, long ago, shared a name (group of names - NO) and organization (an association - YES) that they claimed was generally in line with what they proposed (in the proposed public permit area realm). Is someone suggesting/implying that someone other than RC was speaking on behalf of ACA? Maybe there were in fact further wrinkles to ACA involvement, (I was unaware of) but when the term "supporters" (of your permit plan alternative)was bandied about, there is NO loss of memory re what "so many" on the park side said.
The "drama"? Why blankety drama's (or questioning) in canyoneering, some/many ask. (so many naysayers; "just go do canyons"; life so simple?) RC claims he wishes to continue to teach (that's laudable), but then the belief/hope/anticipation that ACA will continue in like model or mantle? Try and compliment a fellow/organization and he/she seems not to care? Ask though about this or that re the 'organization - association" and the furror (hostility) and defensive volleys follow. And views, twisted and pummelled, if they don't match (the soft or hard opinions of) opponents. The game of life, caring about ourselves and others, giving others slack and moving on; or life as fight & flight, the good the bad (and constant tossing out of the 'dark' opponents).
And then synergy. Synergy in relationships, groups and associations (while at times challenging) can be an enormous boon and benefit (if one wishes or is willing to see it that way); and if one is willing to be flexible and adaptable.
And the night lights in the sky. So many stars in the skies (heavens) and some sparkle bright, some fade and others shoot from the sky. Some (seem) to view the universe through their own own lens and have and sense their own bright stars, that somehow, someway always sparkle? Getting along with others, talking about constellations and a sense of wonder. And then getting stung by a wasp/bee, and not thinking about stars or anything else, except, how that 'damn' "bee" hurt me. Oh stars & the buzzing that abounds, in some circles. The "terrible" "beauty" of it all. (borrowing from the Yates, the poet)