Is there any interest in a REAL canyoneering association?

[Felicia]

I would like to participate.

[ratagonia]

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

People who would like to participate should join Mike's Group. First Step.

Tom

[Scott Card]

As I peruse the interwebs, I think a new and improved ACA could house the big issues of this survey including the "Fests", access, networking, lobbying, etc. The right board and the right face(s) to the organization could do this. This current movement on so many forums and so many different players reminds me of the 13 Colonies. Sooner or later, we need to unite if we are to be relevant or we are left to try to keep track of a bunch of side shows with no main event. I like the ideas, I like the passion, I like the excitement, but like my Garmin, it seems we are still searching for satellites. We need to triangulate. I have some ideas but the timing is not quite right. A few more phone calls, a few more emails and we will see if any ideas have any "stick" to them.

[Scott Card]

People who would like to participate should join Mike's Group. First Step.

Tom

Oh, and I joined.

[lugnutz]

why is a link to teh yahoo egroup allowed from bogley but not a link to bogley allowed from the egroup? intolerance maybe

[skiclimb3287]

why is a link to teh yahoo egroup allowed from bogley but not a link to bogley allowed from the egroup? intolerance maybe

If you join over there and read through, it appears that Kip was trying to keep the conversation all in one place so it was easier to follow. Don't think it will all stay in one place though...

[lugnutz]

If you join over there and read through, it appears that Kip was trying to keep the conversation all in one place so it was easier to follow. Don't think it will all stay in one place though...

good intentions but it appears the conversation started here and then on the 24th post here he introduced yet another group

[bshwakr]

good intentions but it appears the conversation started here and then on the 24th post here he introduced yet another group

I you want this and other members of the 'SCC' (as shane calls it) to contribute, you should probably make up your mind where you want the discussion to be housed. Or do you like logging in to 5 different groups to hear the same thing over and over again?
k

[skiclimb3287]

I agree that the big item to have an association rally around is access. The voice of many individuals independently expressing their opinions vs many individuals voicing the collective opinion of an association on issues like access has a very different effect, and I think the collective voice has more power with the powers that be. If the perception is that the canyoneering community as a whole has such and such an opinion, that will get us a lot farther.

It has been brought up that an association delving into the politics will be challenged to gain a consensus on things like Bolt vs Natural, SUWA vs. anti-SUWA, etc. I don't think these need to be issues taken up by the association. If the issue is going to be polarizing to the community, why even step in that pile . Those issues only need to be addressed when directly relating to other issues of importance, like access. If land managers are going to take access away largely based on bolts, I think the community can come to an agreement that in that scenario it is better to go au natural.

Its going to be a fun ride for the next while!

[Scott Card]

Some have the perception that playing in Bogley is like playing with a skunk. . . . . you are going to get stink on you. So I think that was another reason for the new egroup because some just refuse to play in Bogleyland. The Canyons Yahoo group is virtually silent on the issue right now.

[skiclimb3287]

I you want this and other members of the 'SCC' (as shane calls it) to contribute, you should probably make up your mind where you want the discussion to be housed. Or do you like logging in to 5 different groups to hear the same thing over and over again?
k

I wonder if we can really get everyone on board with going to one group to discuss this. As has been mentioned before, many won't come here, and just as many don't like the Yahoo setup. I am not a fan of the Yahoo style, but I can get over that to keep the conversation in one place. Hopefully everyone can do the same, whether that is here or there?

[lugnutz]

I wonder if we can really get everyone on board with going to one group to discuss this. As has been mentioned before, many won't come here, and just as many don't like the Yahoo setup. I am not a fan of the Yahoo style, but I can get over that to keep the conversation in one place. Hopefully everyone can do the same, whether that is here or there?

whether they log on here or not to make their presence known they can still view the discussion. i loathe signing into a site just to see the information that is only being duplicated some where else that is already "guest friendly".

does he want people to log on for the numbers? because i have a casual interest in doing canyons and the moderators here at bogley may only be logging on over there just to view the discussion.

so if they don't like getting their hands dirty on bogley, what ever that means - they can still read the progress here in stealth

this is all that i will say on this subject.

[Iceaxe]

I'm not a big fan of the creation of yet anther forum... I would have suggested posting the info here and on the existing Yahoo site (as opposed to creating the new yahoo site). My reason being..... that's where the canyoneers.

[Iceaxe]

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.

AGREED!

I'll tell you guys the same thing I tell my crew when we begin a big project like designing an oil refinery or power plant.... "Do the easy stuff first, and when that's done all that's left is easy stuff."

If you tackle a project like this all at once its overwheming. So just start with the first priorities and work from there.

1. Decide if an organization is required/desired.
2. Figure out an inter BOD to get it off the ground.
3. Decide what your number #1 priority is (Access?) and get to work.

Simple!

[accadacca]

I'm not a big fan of the creation of yet anther forum... I would have suggested posting the info here and on the existing Yahoo site (as opposed to creating the new yahoo site). My reason being..... that's where the canyoneers.

Yep, exactly. Bogley has the largest population of active canyoneers on the internet. I challenge anyone to prove me otherwise.
Just look at how many topics and posts have been created here on this one subject. Not to mention the nearly 40,000 posts in the canyoneering section.

[CarpeyBiggs]

if access is truly what is going to be the focus of the association (which I believe it is), what are the issues that need focusing on, immediately?

my first thought is the fact that the GCNP backcountry plan is under review. a lot of work behind the scenes has already taken place, mainly by rich rudow and todd martin. i think i can say confidently that they would support an official association, and would likely be able to put together a lot of meaningful content on the grand canyon situation.

what else is a pressing access/impact issue? what else needs to be addressed and represented by a community association?

[Iceaxe]

if access is truly what is going to be the focus of the association (which I believe it is), what are the issues that need focusing on, immediately?

Grand Canyon Management Plan

Arches NP Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan

I'd say those two topic's should be at the top of the list.

A review of the Zion Permit system with possible suggested changes should also be on the list, but not at the top.

FYI: I spoke with the Arches rangers this summer. They say their plan is currently one or two years out. They are still in the process of gathering information, which to me means they are still open to possible suggestions and input.

[ghawk]

I would also add that discussion of low impact techniques (eg. staying in watercourse, natural anchors when possible/appropriate, following permit systems even when they can be tedious) and finding ways to get those techniques more widely embraced by the average joe canyoneer would be something to consider, because this directly affects access. If nobody does does something wrong, then access to new areas is easier an we maintain access to what we have. An association can advocate our cause and if a low impact mentality is part of our group then that gives more power to say "We are responsible, so you should give us more/easier access" or "this area has been closed because of bad behavior by previous canyoneers (eg. canyons on reservations) but we will follow your rules and respect the land". I know some of that is idealistic but I feel an association could help with these issues. I would like to see canyons on reservation land opened and I feel that creating respectful relationships through an association could help.

[Scott Card]

AGREED!

I'll tell you guys the same thing I tell my crew when we begin a big project like designing an oil refinery or power plant.... "Do the easy stuff first, and when that's done all that's left is easy stuff."

If you tackle a project like this all at once its overwheming. So just start with the first priorities and work from there.

1. Decide if an organization is required/desired.
2. Figure out an inter BOD to get it off the ground.
3. Decide what your number #1 priority is (Access?) and get to work.

Simple!

And that, Shane, is why you are successful. I look at it much the same way but I also would like to create some sort of a vision to work towards. Even in your business you start with the big picture in mind and then move to the easy stuff. One of my points is to define the picture, the plan, the renderings. Back in the day when I was drawing and painting, I never sat in front of a blank canvas or paper and just started free forming it. Some can do it and make great work (albeit unrecognizable most times) but I had to have a picture in my mind of where I was going. If i believe in the vision, then i go to work on filling in the blanks.

As to your number 1 item, I'd be interested in your thoughts why a organization would not be desired. I know it is not required but based on the interwebs, it seems to be desired unless all this furor the past month was just to take Rich down.

BTW, I'd be happy to be the facilitator of the discussion, the white board guy so to speak. My large conference room is available and can hold 40-50 people. I don't think of myself as one of the Gurus but I know how to work the volume button on the internet and this is my interest. I don't mind inviting anyone or everyone who is interested. I would even draft a proposed agenda and email it to a you and others to tweek before this grand meeting. At the meeting we could select a board of interested individuals by vote to then define the easy stuff.

Or, as you suggest, a group of 12 could meet and then broadcast the findings to the various boards and see what the reaction is. Do we have 12 who are committed enough to stick with this thing long enough to make it happen? Whether a meeting of everyone or just 12, I don't know that it matters to me. Either way I am willing and available and my office and/or my computer and projector, white board etc. are all at the canyoneering communities disposal for this meeting. My projector and computer are mobile if we were to meet anywhere else. If desired, I could also facilitate an internet based meeting so ya'll don't have to get dressed. I personally prefer to see people face to face, in person, and based on discussions here and on yahoo, it may be desirable to meet face to face so that we are tempered in our comments or so that we can just go out back and work each other over and be done with it.

[accadacca]

I would be willing to help build a website for said organization and be the webmaster. I have access to resources and the technical skill myself. I manage a web team and direct a dozen technology professionals. I also have some server space that I could put it on for free. When it gets organized, if the need arises, then the offer is extended.