A Bashed/Unabashed History of the ACA (American Canyoneering Association)

[ratagonia]

Scott asked what the history was, why all this vitriol?

Let me review Rich's "Unabashed History of the ACA". His version is here on the ACA site: http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/s...bashed-History

I think it makes a good read, and except for a few details presents the story truthfully and well, a story that some will find interesting. I also think it shows Rich in a good light, a light he deserves.

I have not attempted a rebuttal previously because I consider the story mostly true. But he does make me out as the villain, and I think it good for the record for me to present my viewpoint on a few events side by side.

Chapter One

The ACA - An Unabashed History
Anyone who is following some of the recent threads here knows that the ACA is going through some growing pains. Same holds true for the canyoneering community at large.

I want everyone to understand what the ACA is going through, but it is very complex with quite a few people involved. It occurred to me that I too often assume that everyone is familiar with the ACA's history and the challenges we have faced, but that is likely not true. Most of the information is here on our forums, but it would be difficult to put all the pieces together.

So I am going to provide a history of the ACA -- what we originally set out to do, changes that were made along the way, etc. A couple people have mentioned in other threads that the ACA has often thrown ideas against the wall to see what would stick. The ideas were rarely mine. They came from others and were pursued because we have always sought to include everyone's opinions and hoped to serve the entire canyoneering community.

Unfortunately, our efforts to please everyone have created an identity crisis. Is the ACA strictly a training organization? Is it an advocacy organization? Should it be fighting for access? Should it certify guides? Should it only focus on recreational canyoneering? Should it provide a canyon database? Should it be tightly structured or a free-for-all?

I hope a glimpse into our past will help everyone understand what we're going through now. This is going to be long, so I will break it up into pieces; maybe over a couple of days.

Tom: no disputes here.

[ratagonia]

Chapter Two

Rich's background ...

I started canyoneering 32 years ago. In 1990 I started the first canyoneering guide service in the U.S. in Phoenix and subsequently became certified in technical rescue, swift water rescue, etc. I am a Wilderness First Responder and a certified Wilderness First Aid Instructor.

If you are interested, here are more credentials.

At its peak, my guide service in Phoenix employed 35 part time guides and team building facilitators. I started the company because I wanted to guide and teach. The company became so successful that I found myself spending most of my time managing a guide service rather than being out guiding. Kinda like what I feel is happening with the ACA now -- spending most of my time as an administrator instead of out teaching.

Many of the technical rope systems being used in canyoneering today were developed by me while I was working as a guide in the 90s. I picked up a few more tricks during the accreditation process with the American Mountain Guides Association. I also sponsored the very first AMGA Top Rope Site Management course before it even had a name.

In 1999 I went to Europe to become the first American certified as a canyoning guide there and picked up even more tricks. Between 1999 and 2001 I also spent time in Corsica observing a guides exam conducted by the EFC (a French canyoning association) and some time in Australia when the canyoning community there was working on standards for professional guides. I had the privilege of meeting all of the people involved in writing those standards, did canyons with them, shared ideas and information, etc. The skills and techniques taught by the ACA include many unique to the Colorado Plateau, plus more from Europe and Australia. Our curriculums are truly based on international standards.

I have descended canyons throughout the U.S. (Utah, Arizona, Colorado, California, Nevada, Hawaii), Mexico, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Taiwan, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Greece and Scotland.

The list of students who were trained by me in the U.S. and Latin America reads like the who's who of canyoneering. If you want canyoneering instruction in the U.S., you have three choices: learn from someone who learned from me, learn from someone who learned from someone who learned from me, or learn from me. If that sounds like boasting, so be it. I'm proud of this accomplishment.

The link for Rich's extended resume is: http://www.canyonsandcrags.com/canyo...ur-instructor/

[ratagonia]

Chapter Three -

The beginning of the ACA and the Canyons Group ...

The idea was first discussed way back in 1994. In a bar. We were sure canyoneering would grow in popularity. We were right, but it didn't start growing exponentially until the late 90s.

I obtained the canyoneering.net domain name in 1998 and put up a very simple website that posed the question, "Should there be an association and if so, what should it do?" I received around 300 emails. Some from people who had never heard of canyoneering and were just curious, but quite a few from people who had very strong feelings about what an association should do. Some felt it should be anti-bolt. Some felt it should be pro-bolt. One person told me the ACA must work to keep the Boy Scouts out of the canyons.

The two people who expressed the most interest in helping me develop an association were Matt Moore (Desert Highlights in Moab) and Glen Slattery (who was running the canyoneering program for Exum Utah). We communicated frequently by email and phone, but never got around to actually meeting. Matt broke his leg base jumping and was out of circulation for awhile. Glen married and moved to Sedona.

The ACA was originally intended as a professional guides association, but with Matt and Glen out of the picture it didn't make much sense to have a guides association that consisted of only one guide.

It was in this same timeframe that I went to Europe to become certified. Within a few months of my return there was a flash flood incident in Interlaken Switzerland that took 22 lives. International news media searched the internet for background information and found canyoneering.net. I was interviewed by NPR Radio, ABC News and by a number of newspapers around the world. It gave the ACA a major jump start.

In March 2000 the ACA conducted its first formal course in Arizona. I brought Stefan Hoffman over from the Commission Europeene de Canyon (CEC) to be my co-instructor. Students came from the U.S., Canada, Britain, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand. I invited Mark Day, who was serving as the Executive Director of the American Mountain Guides Association at the time. He brought his buddy, Charly Oliver, who became a good friend and ACA board member.

In May 2000 I started an eGroup (later acquired by Yahoo) called the Canyons Group. I invited friends from around the world to participate so it began with a very diverse international group. We let anyone who was interested join the group, but membership in the ACA was limited to individuals who completed our courses.

The Canyons Group started with a very positive tone, but encountered problems within a few months. Some participants in Utah, who had never done a Class C canyon called some of the Europeans pussies for using bolts. Some Europeans, who had never done a dry sandstone canyon wondered why anyone would want to do a canyon without flowing water and how it could be possible to do a canyon without bolts.

There were also pissing matches between American canyoneers. Some considered the ACA (and me) their enemy because we wouldn't adopt and anti-bolt position until we received input from a significant percentage of the canyoneering community. Another dispute erupted regarding whether the ACA should support SUWA. Some said they wouldn't support us unless we supported SUWA. Others said they wouldn't support us if we did support SUWA.

All the while, the one thing we were doing that always received rave reviews was offering courses. Our response to the bolt debate was to offer a series of free natural anchor workshops. I continue to believe that the ACA did more to curb the proliferation of bolts through education than anyone else ever did with their preaching.

I owned the Canyons Group until early 2002 when I grew tired of all the petty bickering. I had been naive enough to think we could focus on the one thing we all love -- canyoneering -- and set aside our differences. Very naive. I gave the Canyons Group to my friend, Tom Jones, and set out to focus entirely on training.

My personal involvement starts in this time frame. Talking with Charly Oliver, an acquaintance from my days in Boulder, he told me about Rich and the ACA and how much he learned in a short time frame. One of the first Latest Raves: http://canyoneeringusa.com/rave/feb11/a.htm Since this trip with CO was before my first course with Rich, I guess that would be in May 2001, with Kip Marshall, Ray O'Neil and Mike Dallin, among others.

But, this is a rebuttal, not my memoir, so let me nit pick. Rich said:

The Canyons Group started with a very positive tone, but encountered problems within a few months. Some participants in Utah, who had never done a Class C canyon called some of the Europeans pussies for using bolts. Some Europeans, who had never done a dry sandstone canyon wondered why anyone would want to do a canyon without flowing water and how it could be possible to do a canyon without bolts.

I have read through the first three months of the Canyons Group, 270 posts to Aug 1st 2000, and find this entirely untrue. For those of you who swing both ways, I bumped what I thought were interesting posts on the Canyon Group. It was a delightful trip down memory lane. Most of the key participants are still my friends. The discussion was for the most part decidedly civil. Most of the discussion in the latter part of July was about what kinds of bolts and what kinds of glue were best for canyoneering. Joe Wrona positioned himself as a staunch defender of wilderness values, and that bolts were generally unnecessary and undesirable in canyons and canyoneering. He was polite, articulate and diplomatic. The first real vitriol was from some dude named Matt Smith (message #252):

Joe,

How can you be so arrogant as to think that you and your buddies running
around pulling out other peoples bolts is a good thing? Just because you
seem to think that zero impact means no bolts doesn't make you right. In
some cases zero impact in fact means placing a bolt so as to lessen the
impact on the canyon due to erosion, excess webbing or potential rescue
situations.

Are you so blind as to think that if you pull out a bolt somebody isn't
going to go down the same canyon a week behind you and put a new bolt in?
It is sheer stupidity to think that you are going to keep the canyons bolt
free. Why not wake up to the fact that bolted anchors are a reality you are
going to have to live with. If you were truely an ethical canyoneer you
would be more concerned about educating people on the proper use of
artificial anchors (so they wont be placed frivilously and poorly) than
egocentrically maintaining some fanatical argument that no bolts are ever
necessary. You need to look at the canyoneering community as a whole rather
than the small minority of "No Bolters" for policy decisions.

Much respected canyoneers such as Dennis Turville even consider bolts to
have less impact in certain situations. What you are advocating is merely
going to create a viscous cycle of bolting and pulling. Such a cycle is
certainly going to have more impact on ANY canyon than merely placing proper
bolts the first time. If you feel that reduces the challenge or beauty of
the canyon then continue using your natural anchors. But remember that if
you pull a bolt it will only be a matter of time before a new one gets
placed and the extra impact will be who's fault? Yep thats right Joe Wrona
himself. You are not the final word in canyoneering and should stop
considering yourself to be such. The best way to protect the canyons is to
work with a group such as the ACA to promote ethical techniqes rather than
Joe's techniques.

Matt

and seventeen minutes later from Rich Carlson (#253):

Bolt Pulling?

Joe,

You're beating a dead horse. You and Steve Allen do not speak for the
canyoneering community and have no right to pull bolts. I know from
the hundreds of emails that I have received at the ACA that the
overwhelming majority of canyoneers are in favor of properly placed
bolts when other safe and reasonable options do not exist. The
practices of using human anchors, leaving the canyon and reentering,
bypassing the drop and creating new trails, etc. have been discussed
and are not considered reasonable by anyone, except your very small
minority.

Frankly, I believe that the biggest threat to the future of
canyoneering in the United States is this kind of petty bullshit.
Someday someone is going to get stuck between drops because they
received information that there were bolts - or simply assumed that
there would be, but prior to their descent, some self-righteous
zealot came through and pulled them. The rescue will also be more
difficult due to the lack of reliable anchors for the rescue team.

Your previous prediction that more bolting bans will be implemented
on public lands is contrary to reason. A land manager may object to
bolts on what grounds? That they are unnatural in a wilderness
environment? Is this a bigger issue than their potential liability
when someone decides to sue them for creating/allowing an unsafe
situation for an "average" canyoneer? Only time will tell, but I
predict that the situation will actually turn the other direction and
some bolting bans now in place will be repealed. I hope it happens
without a multi-million-dollar lawsuit.

As a lawyer yourself, what do you think your liability will be if it
is discovered that it was you who pulled the bolts that someone was
counting on for their descent? How will you argue your case?

Rich

So - I do not see anyone "calling Europeans pussies for using bolts". I see a disagreement over policy, and a defense of what I think is now the majority view in canyoneering, that bolts should only be used when necessary, and then, carefully.

Perhaps if I had read another month, someone would have. I have not read that yet. But this is the start of the "bolt argument", and Rich's unabashed history states something other than what happened. Following the style of Truthdig http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ I would have to rate THIS STATEMENT as PANTS ON FIRE.

----
I would like to bring up one of my favorite Dead Horses, namely:

You and Steve Allen do not speak for the canyoneering community and have no right to pull bolts.

while stated vehemently, is an untrue statement. Legally, if a person has a RIGHT to place bolts, surely another person has a RIGHT to remove the same. Perhaps the vehemence with which Rich states this indicates that it is a MORAL issue, rather than a legal issue. In which case, it seems a point that could be discussed, rather than stated emphatically as if it was a well-established consensus. But I digress...

----
Then again, it would be a mistake to consider this one paragraph as being all that meaningful or important. It does, however, directly relate to the TONE of Rich's memoir, and his self-portrayal as a martyr across the extent of it.

I don't choose to have time to stroll through the next two months of posts. Rich's next paragraph in Chapter 3:

There were also pissing matches between American canyoneers. Some considered the ACA (and me) their enemy because we wouldn't adopt an anti-bolt position until we received input from a significant percentage of the canyoneering community. Another dispute erupted regarding whether the ACA should support SUWA. Some said they wouldn't support us unless we supported SUWA. Others said they wouldn't support us if we did support SUWA.

is interesting. Yes, there was some discussion of these issues. This is not how I would characterize the discussion, but I am working from a fungible medium here, memory, so I think it is fair to say that this paragraph is a fair representation of how Rich remembers it, and I think it has a lot of "spin" to it. Since it does not make specific, verifiable claims like the preceding paragraph, there is not point in "TruthDigging" it.

Tom

[nat]

Chapter Three -

So - I do not see anyone "calling Europeans pussies for using bolts". I see a disagreement over policy, and a defense of what I think is now the majority view in canyoneering, that bolts should only be used when necessary, and then, carefully.


Tom

I think I see a little more than that in the posts that you have reposted on yahoo. In Joe Wrona's response to someone asking about the Swell, he certainly implies that the bolts in the Swell and eventually in Zion will be pulled. Not exactly the majority view. Some would find it provocative.

Nat

[ratagonia]

I think I see a little more than that in the posts that you have reposted on yahoo. In Joe Wrona's response to someone asking about the Swell, he certainly implies that the bolts in the Swell and eventually in Zion will be pulled. Not exactly the majority view. Some would find it provocative.

Nat

Yes.

Zion Park has a bunch of easy descents. The black
books at the backcountry desk will have beta on each
one. Cold water can be an issue in a couple of the
Zion slots, but you can get by without wet/dry suits
in Mystery, Pine, Keyhole, Right Fork, and the dry
canyons. September is a good time to be doing slots
in Zion, and you can climb and boulder between
descents.

The San Raphael Swell also has a bunch of easy
descents. As in Zion, the Swell slots have been
bolted into submission, so they are pretty much easy
terrain nowdays.

If you go to these areas, please bear in mind that
what you see in terms of permanent protection is the
exception rather than the rule for Southern Utah slot
canyons. Bolts that are placed in just about any
other slot area of southern Utah will be pulled. The
Swell slots will eventually be cleaned as well, but
probably not before September. Zion may take awhile.

Hard to say how to take it, given the gentle nature of the Forum up to that point (swiftly broken).

I took it as an off-hand joke. Mildly provocative, but not exactly an in-your-face claim, as it was taken by Matt and Rich. In context, that being that about half of the previous month's posts had been about what glue to use, it seemed to me like a humorous poke from the other side. Kinda like wearing an Obama shirt into Kanab to go grocery-shopping - which I only do every-other month.

But Joe also makes an important point, one which I make from time to time, to which quite a few people object. The point: A canyon being bolted at a certain drop as reported in a guidebook and/or Interwebs Forum does not mean you can go out there and count on it still being there. Canyons change, and yes, some people take bolts out that they find in the wilderness. So if you wander out in the wilderness, be ready to exercise your carefully honed natural anchor skills, and bring whatever tools might be needed.

Perhaps I read his few sentences more broadly than most...

Tom

[nat]

Yes.



But Joe also makes an important point, one which I make from time to time, to which quite a few people object. The point: A canyon being bolted at a certain drop as reported in a guidebook and/or Interwebs Forum does not mean you can go out there and count on it still being there. Canyons change, and yes, some people take bolts out that they find in the wilderness. So if you wander out in the wilderness, be ready to exercise your carefully honed natural anchor skills, and bring whatever tools might be needed.

Perhaps I read his few sentences more broadly than most...

Tom

Of course I agree with this point. Still, I think that the last paragraph of Joe's post that you quote above is a little more provocative than wearing an Obama t-shirt in a Kanab grocery store (or a Bush t-shirt in a cafe in Berkeley ).

Nat

[ratagonia]

Of course I agree with this point. Still, I think that the last paragraph of Joe's post that you quote above is a little more provocative than wearing an Obama t-shirt in a Kanab grocery store (or a Bush t-shirt in a cafe in Berkeley ).

Nat

It certainly set a few people off...

Tom

[Scott P]

I have read through the first three months of the Canyons Group, 270 posts to Aug 1st 2000, and find this entirely untrue.

There was some of this when I first joined the canyons group. I only remember because it was one of my early post to the group.

My post concerning Eberhard Schmilinsky (when someone else called him a "jerk" and someone else ask why he could be called one):

This guy was one of the main culprits behind the
closing of the Kaibito Chapter of the Navajo Nation to
canyoneering. All his "sport descents" were done
illeagally and with out a permit. When he was warned
not to go he still flew in with a helicopter and
bolted the canyons and even intalled long chains in
them. He has done this several times over the past
few years and after the canyon closures. He also
promotes the canyons to many even though they are
legally closed; that's why he intalled the chains and
bolts, etc. so the masses could do them. Now I would
like to know, if I went on someones property,
repeatedly vandalized it over several years, and after
being warned each time to stop doing so, bragged about
what I did, promoted people to tresspass on the
property-no matter what the law says, and helped
caused several other law abiding citizens to be banned
from an area-probably permanently, what would I be called?

Joes' response (which was almost surely meant to be a joke):

A European canyoneer.

Thread:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/message/12441

It may be posts similar to this (surely meant tounge in cheek) that is being referred to and then they were exaggerated into "Some participants in Utah, who had never done a Class C canyon called some of the Europeans pussies for using bolts".

Not too long after, Rich's started thread on the Europeans vs. Americans was certainly a classic discussion. Unfortunately, I think Joe was gone by then? I kind of miss Joe. He could rub people the wrong way, but he made some good points.

[Wasatch]

I joined the yahoo group in Jun 2003 I believe just after Ralston's adventure. I remember reading the older post's to see what the canyons group was all about, all I can say is WOW!

[ratagonia]

There was some of this when I first joined the canyons group. I only remember because it was one of my early posts to the group.

My post concerning Eberhard Schmilinsky (when someone else called him a "jerk" and someone else ask why he could be called one):

Joes' response (which was almost surely meant to be a joke):

Thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/message/12441

It may be posts similar to this (surely meant tounge in cheek) that is being referred to and then they were exaggerated into "Some participants in Utah, who had never done a Class C canyon called some of the Europeans pussies for using bolts".

Not too long after, Rich's started thread on the Europeans vs. Americans was certainly a classic discussion. Unfortunately, I think Joe was gone by then? I kind of miss Joe. He could rub people the wrong way, but he made some good points.

Just to be clear, that was in 2003, which would be 3 years after the year 2000, when RC claimed (etc.).

"European Canyoneer" - that's hilarious!!!! Awesome joke.

May I note that this in no way changes the "Pants on Fire" rating of Mr. Carlson's Statement in his Memoir.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Chapter 4

Quit guiding after 12 years in business ...

During the period that I owned the Canyons Group a few people suggested that I had a conflict of interest owning a guide service while running an association that trained and certified guides.

I started the ACA to serve the canyoneering community and decided that I could serve best if I removed that perception of a conflict of interest. The decision to give up my guide service was made easier by two other factors:

1. I had an exclusive guiding privilege on the White Mountain Apache Reservation in Arizona. The privilege came with the understanding that I would train Apaches as canyon guides. I had trained quite a few and felt they were in a position to take over guiding on their own land.

2. My family had already made a decision to move to Cedar City, Utah, and purchased some land here.

Quitting my guide service didn't stop some from negative speculation. A rumor started going around that I was using the ACA to work my way into a guiding arrangement in Zion National Park. The idea had never occurred to me.

and Chapter 5, also a short Chapter:

The ACA's first Board of Directors ...

The ACA was incorporated in 2002. Before I incorporated I asked Charly Oliver, Tom Jones, Hank Moon and Mark Day to serve as the initial Board and to help me write the Bylaws. We held a meeting at Tom's apartment in Salt Lake City with all but Mark in attendance.

I proposed that Tom serve as the ACA's President. I would serve as the VP of Training. Charly would serve as the VP of Marketing and Public Relations. Hank would serve as the Secretary/Treasurer.

We also discussed how ACA courses would be conducted in the future. Until then, the ACA used my guide service insurance and permits for courses. The plan was to offer all future courses through the ACA directly. Everyone was in favor except Tom. He wanted all courses to be taught only by guide services certified by the ACA. His position made no sense to me. I had just given up my guide service to focus entirely on the ACA. Tom finally admitted that his position was based on his plans to start a guide service and he wanted to teach ACA courses. At that point, Tom had zero teaching experience. I felt betrayed. All I wanted to do is teach and my friend was trying to get exclusive rights for himself to teach the curriculum that I developed.

Ah, I think in both of these chapters we come to the gist of the matter. And maybe it is just a difference of point of view, but it has driven the conflict between me and Rich, and probably others and Rich.

Rich and the ACA: where does one end and the other start. What are ACA things, what are Rich things.

The year before, we had talked about formally forming the ACA, but we left it open for a year to let things gel. We held three Rendezvous - 1 hosted by Rich in Globe, AZ; 1 held in the Swell by me; and 1 held in Cedar Mesa by Charly. All were successful and fun. There was enthusiasm for a Canyoneers Association.

We had some ideas about what the ACA could be, and would be, but had not really looked at the consequences. We met at my house and discussed less important things, and then Rich presented us with a budget that involved running courses with a total of expenditures of $10,000 (I'm just drawing numbers off the top of my head...), including paying him some money as executive director and for running courses.

WAIT. HOLD ON. STOP ==> we were four friends talking about organizing a social club, and suddenly you want the board to approve a $10k budget?

It was perhaps more complex than Mr. Carlson presents. If "Everyone was in favor except Tom.", then they should have just kicked me out and gone on their merry way without me - but that is not what happened.

So let me express my vision of how I expected the ACA non-profit ORGANIZATION to operate, but the backstory has to do with the AMGA (American Mountain Guides Association) where Mark Day was the Exec and my friend Ramsay Thomas was the President.

The AMGA ran guide courses - courses where climbers learn how to become guides - but they were not real good at it. They were finding that running courses was becoming a burden on the organization because it took up so much time (mostly the logistics) and filling the courses became important to the AMGA financially. The AMGA had members who were professionals at running courses and, really, it made much more sense for the AMGA to provide curriculum and quality control, and contract the actual courses out to some of its members. In this way, the staff of the AMGA could get back to doing AMGA stuff, and the finances of the Association would not be jeopardized every time they tried to put on a course.

I think it was clear to everyone, and perhaps still is, that a primary role for the ACA and/or for Rich could be/should be running courses for guides, and/or setting the curriculum for guide training. The question is what would be appropriate for the ACA and what would be appropriate for Rich acting as his own business. My answer was setting the curriculum and exercising QC, and perhaps then certification and low-cost marketing were appropriate activities for the Association. Actually running the courses becomes a substantial business activity, with substantial financial risks - probably best left to private businesses under ACA guidance.

But, what if we extend that to teaching beginner courses for recreational canyoneers. Again, it seems like the ACA could offer a curriculum and (maybe) a certificate program, but actually running courses not only seems like a (risky) substantial business activity, but also brings the ACA into conflict with the guide services that we were trying to court as members. This is the "conflict of interest" alluded to.

During the period that I owned the Canyons Group a few people suggested that I had a conflict of interest owning a guide service while running an association that trained and certified guides.

This may be Rich's perception of where people thought the conflict lay, but as one of the people saying there was a conflict of interest, that is not quite it.

I had no problem with Rich doing stuff under the ACA banner, as long as there was a clear distinction between non-profit Association activities and for-profit money-making activities. Thus, I see no problem with (as ACA training director) Rich publishing a curriculum and the ACA offering this to assorted guide services for a fee; and for Rich (as Rich Carlson, teacher extraordinaire, LLC) teaching classes to beginners using that curriculum ON AN EQUAL BASIS WITH OTHER ACA MEMBER BUSINESSES.

Similarly, it would seem better to have the logistics of running a GUIDE TRAINING course run by a for-profit business, while the ACA provides curriculum and QC. A little murkier, since Rich would be the only one running Guide Classes, at least for awhile. But these would be few and far between, so it might not be so important to cut through the murk on that one.

It was very clear to me that Charly, Hank and I were in no position to take on the liability of Rich running courses with a very hazy budget in our name.

Tom finally admitted that his position was based on his plans to start a guide service and he wanted to teach ACA courses.

I can see how Rich would remember it this way, but this is a mis-representation of my position. I had no interest in guiding/teaching in the near future, but what if I wanted to 5 years down the road. Thus, I was thinking from the viewpoint of the professional members we were trying to bring into the ACA. One of the topics on the table always was 'How can the ACA serve professional/business members". The answer to that seemed clear - provide curriculum and NOT compete with guide services for recreational students.

Rich continues:

At that point, Tom had zero teaching experience. I felt betrayed. All I wanted to do is teach and my friend was trying to get exclusive rights for himself to teach the curriculum that I developed.

Wow. Exclusive rights? Now that's a stretch. I was trying to secure for professional members paid access to ACA curriculum on an equal basis. That is what professional organizations do - set standards, establish curriculum, and charge a modest fee for using it. If Rich's interest was in disseminating high-quality training, this would be the way to empower professional members of the ACA to spread that training throughout the free world... well, at least from Zion curtain to Zion curtain.

"At that point, Tom had zero teaching experience." - Entirely 100% true. I was looking forward to taking Rich's guide courses to learn how to do all that stuff.

In my mind, we left that meeting in a state of conflict - with Rich charged with coming up with a different model that we could all buy into. He did - he would go it alone, and we could support his effort or not, to each of us our individual choice.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Chapter 6

The ACA and the OCA ...

I had some soul searching to do. All I wanted to do is teach canyoneering courses. The curriculum I developed was extremely popular, attracting hundreds of students from around the world. I quit my guide service and was planning to leave the Canyons Group because I hated the politics. But it looked like the ACA was going to stay involved in politics with the new board and one of the board members had plans to take away or dramatically restrict my ability to teach.

I made a decision. The ACA would become nothing more than a canyoneering school. I notified others that I was tired of all the politics. If they really wanted to get involved in those areas, they should form another organization.

Fourteen people interested in forming a canyoneering association that would address access and environmental issues met over a weekend in Moab. After their meeting they announced that they were forming the OCA - the Other Canyoneering Association. Nothing ever became of it because they all realized that it would be much more work than any of them wanted to invest.

Still only one association in the U.S. -- the ACA -- and it was focusing on courses. 2003 through 2005 were phenomenal years for the ACA. We had thousands of students come through our courses; All conducted directly by the ACA and taught by me, Charly or Dave Black.

I was happy doing what I do best -- teaching. Life was good.

"But it looked like the ACA was going to stay involved in politics with the new board and one of the board members had plans to take away or dramatically restrict my ability to teach."

I am shocked to discover I had so much POWER over Rich's life.

"The ACA would become nothing more than a canyoneering school." Rich discovered that in Nevada, you could incorporate (at least initially) with only one director, as a non-profit. So he established the ACA as a Nevada non-profit, which thus did not need a governing Board of Directors of several people, but could operate and maintain control. It is perhaps unfortunate that Rich did not call it the American Canyoneering School, but then again, it was a lot more than a school, it was also a club, and a certifying organization, and ... well, lots of things.

Interesting take on the OCA. Yes, we met in Moab, had a great weekend. We talked, and decided there was really no compelling interest in having any kind of formal organization. The 'wry' name was kind of a reflection of this, yes?

"Still only one association in the U.S. -- the ACA -- and it was focusing on courses." Again - one of the issues - was it a school? or an Association? Or some strange amalgamation? Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Tom

[hank moon]

Creaky old links dating back to the 'OCA' days - fun!

http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/group/oca.htm
http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/group/index.htm