Is there any interest in a REAL canyoneering association?

[ghawk]

I'd say keep it simple and focus on big issues relating to access. Maybe some safety stuff too.

[Iceaxe]

but i do see value in more organized fests, social gatherings, service projects, pro-active measures to interact with land agencies, etc...

I have no problem and support all of these in general, but understand they are all labor intensive requiring a lot of man hours to arrange and coordinate. My feeling is these are items for a future BOD to address if/when an organization rises from the ashes.

Maybe the entire community could benefit from some fresh eyes working closely with those who have dedicated so much time and effort over the years to progress this sport to it's current state, but less the "history" and bad blood.

I agree fresh blood is great. But it also helps to have experience in the mix as those people have been down this road before and are aware of the many pitfalls. You need a wide and varied mix.

As a side note, with the exception of Rich, the senior canyoneering community has always been able to work extremely well together when it cames to issues involving the general good of the canyoneering community. The initial problems with the ACA began when the senior canyoneering community would come to a consensus on an issue only to have it vetoed by Rich. It doesn't mean we always agree on every issue, but we have always been able to come to a reasonable agreement when it comes to issues like access, permits, ethics and etiquette.


I'm not dissin' anyones ideas or thoughts, I'm just highlighting some items to provide more prospective from someone who has been down this road before. I'm enjoying reading the thoughts and ideas.

[Bshelton]

In no way did I mean to suggest that there needs to be a complete overhaul of people and/or ideas. I fully support and encourage integrating the new and inexperienced with those who have already been down the road before.

I also recognize that a lot of the conflict revolves around Rich and the way some interpret his management of the ACA.

I also agree that a lot of these issues should be addresses by a BOD. I think it would even be fair to suggest an immediate BOD ( emergency or interim if you will) to get things started. Democratic elections to follow.

I suggest (since the opinion is that Rich can not be counted on to follow through with his word) ( I do not hold an opinion on this) this begins from anew. New name,new structure, new mission statement ect... Or Whatever is decided may be needed.

The point is, if we are not getting what we want out of what currently exists then let's start something that works better for the majority.

[mdd]

I started an egroup to discuss this at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyonorgdiscussion/

The group is open to anyone interested in participating, or just watching to see what happens.

I envision the egroup more for people who want to actively participate in starting a new org, and this thread to be a place where people who aren't interested in actively setting up an org can contribute and discuss ideas too. I'll crosspost interesting tidbits between them if need be so those who don't read bogley can still get a feel what people are saying. If the conversation ends up being entirely through bogley, I'm ok with that too.

M

[Iceaxe]

FWIW: Bogley just set a record.... The most members online over 24 hours was 243, 10-07-2011 at 09:04 AM. The number is actual registered members who are logged in.

That time frame was the height of the ACA/Rich Carlson outting/bashing/questioning/exposing/whining thread.

Which tells me canyoneers do care about what is happening in their sport.

[Don]

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately..... I'm not sure if an umbrella organization is required. But I'm interested in being involved in any discussions regarding a possible future organization and its direction.

If an organization is deemed necessary I see it being more of a "Guidance Council", similar to the old ZCC (for those that were around back than). A group that can watch out for the general interests of canyoneers and rally support for items like permits, access or the new Arches management plan when required. Such a council would not dictate to the membership, but simply provide easy to understand information and a suggested course of action. This allows members to support a particular issue in a manner they deem appropriate.

As I see it the majority of canyoneers just want to have fun and enjoy canyoneering. But they are willing to rally and provide support as a group for items they deem important when the need arises.

The Guidance Council would only require a simple website and a mailing list you could sign up for. Similar to the old ZCC. And I don't see a Guidance Council becoming a hugh work load for any one person or group. Most of the information gathering an distribution is already being done by several individuals that take an interest or concern in these types of matters.

I would expect the Guidance Council to be run by a large and varied democratically elected board of directors.

I don't see an additional forum being required. It would just dilute the waters and you can easily get a message to most canyoneers by a simple mailing list and/or posting to one of the current 2 1/2 forums (I counted the ACA site as 1/2 because of lack of traffic and you never know who is allowed to post).

High quality schooling, guiding and beta are currently available in many forms and should not be of concern to a Guidance Council. The good schools, guides and beta remain and the weak are quickly thinned from the herd.

I don't see a need for a Guidance Council to provide rendezvous or fests. The current organizations and forums do a nice job of that already. If someone wants to organize a social event they are welcome to do it on Bogley, and I know the Yahoo group has also support individuals organizing social events in the past. There is also a rumor that "Tom-Fests" will be starting back up, which were always a great time.

A Guidance Council should provide recommendations for proper technic and ethics with regard to environmental matters (rope grooves, erosion, etc).

Anyhoo..... that's my 2 cents.

Makes sense to me. I'd support that.

...Be interested to hear what Tom has to say as well.

[Don]

I started an egroup to discuss this at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyonorgdiscussion/

The group is open to anyone interested in participating, or just watching to see what happens.

I envision the egroup more for people who want to actively participate in starting a new org, and this thread to be a place where people who aren't interested in actively setting up an org can contribute and discuss ideas too. I'll crosspost interesting tidbits between them if need be so those who don't read bogley can still get a feel what people are saying. If the conversation ends up being entirely through bogley, I'm ok with that too.

M

Only the 4th message on that new egroup and already the suggestion of a 'no linking to Bogley' rule. Wow, we really do have a reputation. (and I'm off to post a link to this comment...)

[ocanler]

Fully agree with the comments made by Bshelton and Iceaxe.
Training and skills can be left out to private guiding companies. There seems to be no lack of guides and skilled people doing that. The primary concern of a this association should be land access. The canyoneering community needs to have one unified voice to deal with access restrictions imposed by National parks and BLMs.
The Rendez-Vous are also nice and should be handled by this association.
Canyon topos ,Betas, and conditions can be handled by the many forums, websites, and books available. I must say it would be nice to have a monthly Canyoneering magazine by subscription just like Backpacker. I would buy it.
Looks like some "new blood" would also be a good thing. Judging from the tasty threads on Bogley in the last few days, it looks like the "old guys" could use a break, or be used as advisers.

My 3 cents.

[tanya]

Only the 4th message on that new egroup and already the suggestion of a 'no linking to Bogley' rule. Wow, we really do have a reputation. (and I'm off to post a link to this comment...)

Crotchety old FARTS!


Never Mind! That's Kip! He is neither old nor Crotchety. I don't get it.

[Gambel Oak]

The big ticket items are where I like to see my donations go. Keeping members notified of proposed state and federal legislation with possible implications to the canyoneering community. Providing educational material/training to local groups of canyoneers that would assist them in organizing for local projects. Educational / training material on how to cultivate a positive canyoneering image among the local community. Promoting techniques for minimizing our impacts. Compromise is good.

[Bshelton]

I disagree with the "old farts" needing a break, I think they play a vital role in where we come from and certainly have the needed relationships to determine where we go.

But I certainly agree with the role the "association" would play. I would also like to hear the thoughts of the all mighty emperor as well as others.

IMO as much as some of the pioneers would like to abstain from an association, I think they have an unwritten responsibility to it.

A newsletter would be awesome and I would also subscribe, but probably something to look at after the foundation is laid.

Again, just to be clear I don't claim to know much of political history and my opinions are solely from what I have learned on this forum. If I am off base please let me know.

[ratagonia]

But I certainly agree with the role the "association" would play. I would also like to hear the thoughts of the all mighty emperor as well as others.

IMO as much as some of the pioneers would like to abstain from an association, I think they have an unwritten responsibility to it.

IMNHO, those who claim an unwritten responsibility to others, therefore have an equal or larger responsibility themselves.

An association of any sort not only requires leadership (chiefs), but also requires people willing to do stuff (indians).

I think a good association could be made based on TWO aspects -

1. Access issues modelled on the Access Fund (the REAL work) plus
2. Social club based around events, slyly sucking people into doing some of the REAL work.

Contrary to Mr. Carlson, I do not think the community has to be split on access "politics". Except for extremes on both ends, we mostly agree, and should not get lost in quibbles about the details. It is not SUWAites vs. USAllers. Nor bolters vs. purists. I think we are all "Treated Fair"ers.

Tom

[Sombeech]

Only the 4th message on that new egroup and already the suggestion of a 'no linking to Bogley' rule. Wow, we really do have a reputation. (and I'm off to post a link to this comment...)

I know that some people don't like the "attitude" on bogley that I keep hearing about, some say "edgy format" (?) and sure I've contributed to that with my spontaneous attempts at humor (if that's really what they're talking about) but I may be way off. -and I've tried to tone it down a little. We try to be as censor free as we can, even though Shane edits some of my stuff

Is it just the fact that bogley isn't solely a canyoneering forum? If so, I would understand. But otherwise, dang, I'd really love to know how we can be more welcoming and accommodating. [no sarcasm]

With the new and continuing incline of online members here (mostly canyoneers), I saw that as a sign that creating more forums and egroups would only dilute the demographic and split them up even further.

Feedback is always welcome regarding how we can help accommodate. Even if the bulk of that would be "Sombeech, just stay out of the way".

We've worked hard to provide features that make sharing trail data easier;

• Embedded Google Maps and routes
• Embedded Slideshows
• Embedded Videos
• Event Calendars and Invite notices

Or is it that these things are too much? It's understandable that some people just like the basics.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents. We're just trying to to make a good place for discussion. If anybody has any feedback please feel welcome to send me a Private Message and let's work some of these annoyances out.

Thanks

[Iceaxe]

For those new to this association type stuff.... the theory behind a large Board of Directors is that no one strong personality can bulldoze the group into submission. The basic idea is every ones opinion gets diluted into a common consensuses.

The larger and more diverse your foundation the better your chances of success.

[Scott Card]

Here is my one concern with a large board of directors. Who will actually take ownership of the "association"? The Association needs some one(s) to be in the store, someone to teach, someone to create the website, someone who is getting paid as a job to run the show.

I presume a board will appoint someone or someones and set a wage and duties under your plan??? Otherwise I fear anything a board does will die unless there is money attached to some leaders who will in essence take ownership of the thing and run it well.

There are other ideas floating out there but I will hold off discussing them for now.

[Bshelton]

I couldn't agree more. We all share a responsibility to be involved. We all enjoy the canyons, therefor we are all stakeholders in it's future. As I posted earlier I for one would be happy to do some work ( as an indian) I have my areas of expertise, organizing and running a canyoneering association is not one of them.

I would commit time, effort and money to any group who move forward with leading an association that listens to the community and spoke fairly for the majority based on an informed democratic process.

There is certainly two parts to this.

1) The primary function- dealing with land management issues, permitting processes, recognizing " best practices" ( safety, technique, ect..), keeping members informed and recognizing and steering the future of this sport as one voice for the majority.

2) As mentioned the social aspect. Although not the primary role or responsibility of the association it is a great place to recruit members( and their money and time to get the "real work" accomplished) but it is also a great opportunity to share the position of the association and reasons behind said position. An important optional role that should not be overlooked.

[Iceaxe]

someone who is getting paid as a job to run the show.

Getting paid???....

Your plan is much grander than mine.....

I'm thinking something modeled after the ZCC.

I know this can be done because we did it once before with the ZCC, which was a similar organization to what is being discussed here. The ZCC was also somewhat successful in its day with probably its biggest victory being getting some of the permit limits raised in Zion. "the Store" consisted of a mailing list, a small website where information was posted and questions could be asked and answered.

That's at least my idea until we actually have some money and a revenue stream. It at least gets the organization off the ground and flying.

[Scott Card]

You are correct, my plan is much grander and yes, it involves somebody getting paid from the dues and other monies that could be generated through well.... let's just say, stuff.

[Bshelton]

Getting paid???....

Your plan is much grander than mine.....

I'm thinking something modeled after the ZCC.

I know this can be done because we did it once before with the ZCC, which was a similar organization to what is being discussed here. The ZCC was also somewhat successful in its day with probably its biggest victory being getting some of the permit limits raised in Zion. "the Store" consisted of a mailing list, a small website where information was posted and questions could be asked and answered.

That's at least my idea until we actually have some money and a revenue stream. It at least gets the organization off the ground and flying.

Agreed.

[restrac2000]

Money in this arena will be limited for a long while, if I were to guess. Costs could be kept fairly low: printing materials, website, etc. Volunteering, maybe some "in kind" donations and out-of-pocket expenses could likely float an association for a while. In the long run some income will be needed for the organization for the burden to be diffuse.

Sustained membership fees will require a reliable product.

Phillip