American Canyon Guides Association ACGA

[rcwild]

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

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

[Iceaxe]

Am I missing something here? What am I missing?

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

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

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

[Felicia]

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

That's my point!



Felicia

[restrac2000]

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

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

Phillip

[mdd]

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

See you in the canyons! (maybe)

M

[restrac2000]

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

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

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

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

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

Phillip

[rcwild]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Iceaxe]

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

A little history lesson for those interested....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[restrac2000]

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

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

Phillip

[restrac2000]

Thats an unusual response for you, Mike.

[rcwild]

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get it.

[restrac2000]

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

I don't get it.

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

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

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

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

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

Phillip

[Scott Card]

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

OK, I'll play along. Besides the word "Association" being considered by some/many to be misleading, and if assuming the ACA is a sole proprietorship run by King Rich, what interests of the canyoneering community have been misrepresented or poorly represented that the majority of the canyoneers would do or say differently? Are you, Shane, Phillip, or anyone else speaking for the majority? Who is that person who does so? Seems to me that if there were many unsatisfied customers, the ACA would have folded years ago. Seems the classes would not be successful, seems like the ACA gatherings would fall apart. Seems the ACA forum would have died. Seems the majority of the canyoneers would have said all kinds of bad things about the ACA and it would have a crappy reputation. As an outsider looking in, it seems like the ACA is the majority view point on technique and skill set, is the source of credible training, is the only place where there is a gold standard. Bogley has no standards. Climb-utah has no trainging/ guiding standards and doesn't speak for the community. Imlay Canyon Gear and Canyoneering USA.com don't speak for the community and don't train or have "standards". The Yahoo group is SUWA influenced and doesn't have any real direction and certainly no training or guiding standards. (Didn't the Yahoo group get its start by Rich????) And btw, I enjoy the Yahoo group, a lot. So who is it that sets standards and speaks for the community about canyoneering? What is the majority standard that is not being represented or misrepresented by the ACA? Seems that the ACA actually is the only entity that sets any protocol and/or standards for the community. It may be by default because they are the only organized game in town and it appears that they have the most members. The rest of us are unorganized and unaffiliated. And there is a vocal minority that is unsatisfied. But so far, it seems like it is unsatisfied by Rich. Is the ACA perfect? Nope, far from it. Should the ACA deal with access issues or land management issues? Well that is up the the ACA and if we don't like it, well quit the ACA, write a letter and state your opinion to the BLM, the Park Service or whoever it is that you want to hear your opinion. Rich speaks for Rich and the ACA. My responsibility is to speak for me if I disagree. If Rich doesn't agree with me? Well, big whoop.

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

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

[Scott Card]

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

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

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

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

[ratagonia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

[ratagonia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

[restrac2000]

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

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

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

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

Substantive Issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rcwild]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo pre-ACA courses ...

[rcwild]

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

If anyone is interested: The ACA - An Unabashed History

[Felicia]

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

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

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

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

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

Felicia

...off to get some much needed coffee.