Name - American Canyoneers

[trackrunner]

The "academy" has a guide??

i'm detecting a little bit of sarcasm

for those interested in who it is

"Joe Moerschbaecher, American Canyoneering Association certified guide"
http://www.pvadventures.com/Canyoneering/index.html

[ratagonia]

"Joe Moerschbaecher, American Canyoneering Association certified guide"
http://www.pvadventures.com/Canyoneering/index.html

Now a formerly American Canyoneering Association certified guide, just like Kurty and I.

T

[hank moon]

Occidental Canyon Association OCA!

or, for Hank: Occidental Kanyon Recreation Association

Just add, garlic, onions, tomatoes, turmeric, ginger, cumin, and lime juice - Yum!

[Bo_Beck]

Oops...meant to post this here rather than Mission Statement
S.U.C.K. (Syndicate of Ubiquitous Canyoneers that Klean)

Or maybe "Syndicate of Ubiquitous Clean Kanyoneers"

[tanya]

[restrac2000]

How about taking the lead from the Mountaineers (as mentioned by Mike D.) and American Whitewater and calling ourselves:

American Canyoneers?

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

I like, leaves lots of wiggle room for the future.

[trackrunner]

I like it
another one I thought of Canyoneering Association of America. but I like American Canyoneers better.

[nat]

I like it too. Simple, direct and means exactly what it should.

Nat

[oldno7]

I like it, and in a search, I think it would come up before some other clubs

[reflection]

American Canyoneers? Simple and concise. But is it tainted or benefited by the past ACA moniker? A cross country vison (American) but also a needed perspective on the local front (Regional). Those of you who are so adamant on a national name, what do you potentially see happening (name wise) on a local front in Utah, Colorado, AZ, Nev, Cal or Washington? These are all potentialy seeded local chapters of the big group? Or they sprout on their own when parties tire of directive from a national group that doesn't match their interests? And already, some, staking out positions or territory where they would be the active player. Interesting. And if not a board member, how could/would one tether to the national group if meeting with land managers?

Use Arches as an example. Six people band together to meet with managment, before the final plan is announced. They have to get a blessing from above, the national group, before they show up as the American Canyoneers group? And what if the National Group says no, we are going to send our own people to the meeting, that the others just set up?

It's nice to have groups; but of necessity groups ride the backs of bodies that carry the group moniker in one hand and their own energy and drive in the other.

Flow charts are nice, real nice, conceptionally beneficial. (thank you, seriously!) But behind the curtain are those that will step forward and either grab many of these themes, or, quickly toss them away and announce their own vision and directive.

And the organization. I'd go with a board and NOT officers and let board members gravitate into areas of their interest. Access, stewardship, activism, education, partnering with public land managers. And just how to deal with the commercial guides that are now such a ubiquitous force in the canyoneering community? They become a majority, a minority or NOT members of the board? Maybe folk don't care? I do know though that's it's a bit of a back door dilemma for land managers when citizens come in & speak to their interests as a recreational canyoneer and then in the next breath announce they are a guide for an organization that has maybe some different interests. Or maybe folk don't care about this issue, merging commercial guiding (which just started their own group) with a new national canyon association, that has just what mission statement and looks out for just what national or regional interests?

Some in some groups wish to assist, serve and lead out. Others wish to control, direct and demand. Various leadership styles and a big guess as to who gets invited to the party (board of the new group). Bogely, Canyons Group, AC Academy site, a public plea to the masses? And how and where for meetings if folk are splintered here and there? Maybe internet connection and engagement? Maybe four board members each, from Utah, AZ and Colorado (that's 12) and then maybe four or six others - At Large - from other states, or from within those 3 states if no others step forward?

And who gets to be the king, to sit in the kings chair and voice the commands? Personally to start out with, I'd have a king-free organization. Control need not be the energy driver, initially, in this group, in my view. And I'd have a three prong thrust: Service to the Canyon Community, Stewards to the Public Lands and Partners with Public Land Managers. (Service, Stewards, Partners). And one vote forward - a board member: Bo Beck! he's bright, knows the industry, the environment, SAR, land managers, is polite, civil, AND, he has a sense of humor!

The card game plays out. ACA pulled out from the table weeks back. Who are the remaining players and what cards do they have in the game? I held a hand last week, so small and sweet, my heart did surely sing. That hand I held that brought such joy? Four aces and a king. (apologies to a long ago English poet, that was slapped by his wife).

[ratagonia]

American Canyoneers? Simple and concise. But is it tainted or benefited by the past ACA moniker? A cross country vison (American) but also a needed perspective on the local front (Regional). Those of you who are so adamant on a national name, what do you potentially see happening (name wise) on a local front in Utah, Colorado, AZ, Nev, Cal or Washington? These are all potentialy seeded local chapters of the big group? Or they sprout on their own when parties tire of directive from a national group that doesn't match their interests? And already, some, staking out positions or territory where they would be the active player. Interesting. And if not a board member, how could/would one tether to the national group if meeting with land managers?

Use Arches as an example. Six people band together to meet with managment, before the final plan is announced. They have to get a blessing from above, the national group, before they show up as the American Canyoneers group? And what if the National Group says no, we are going to send our own people to the meeting, that the others just set up?

It's nice to have groups; but of necessity groups ride the backs of bodies that carry the group moniker in one hand and their own energy and drive in the other.

Flow charts are nice, real nice, conceptionally beneficial. (thank you, seriously!) But behind the curtain are those that will step forward and either grab many of these themes, or, quickly toss them away and announce their own vision and directive.

And the organization. I'd go with a board and NOT officers and let board members gravitate into areas of their interest. Access, stewardship, activism, education, partnering with public land managers. And just how to deal with the commercial guides that are now such a ubiquitous force in the canyoneering community? They become a majority, a minority or NOT members of the board? Maybe folk don't care? I do know though that's it's a bit of a back door dilemma for land managers when citizens come in & speak to their interests as a recreational canyoneer and then in the next breath announce they are a guide for an organization that has maybe some different interests. Or maybe folk don't care about this issue, merging commercial guiding (which just started their own group) with a new national canyon association, that has just what mission statement and looks out for just what national or regional interests?

Some in some groups wish to assist, serve and lead out. Others wish to control, direct and demand. Various leadership styles and a big guess as to who gets invited to the party (board of the new group). Bogely, Canyons Group, AC Academy site, a public plea to the masses? And how and where for meetings if folk are splintered here and there? Maybe internet connection and engagement? Maybe four board members each, from Utah, AZ and Colorado (that's 12) and then maybe four or six others - At Large - from other states, or from within those 3 states if no others step forward?

And who gets to be the king, to sit in the kings chair and voice the commands? Personally to start out with, I'd have a king-free organization. Control need not be the energy driver, initially, in this group, in my view. And I'd have a three prong thrust: Service to the Canyon Community, Stewards to the Public Lands and Partners with Public Land Managers. (Service, Stewards, Partners). And one vote forward - a board member: Bo Beck! he's bright, knows the industry, the environment, SAR, land managers, is polite, civil, AND, he has a sense of humor!

The card game plays out. ACA pulled out from the table weeks back. Who are the remaining players and what cards do they have in the game? I held a hand last week, so small and sweet, my heart did surely sing. That hand I held that brought such joy? Four aces and a king. (apologies to a long ago English poet, that was slapped by his wife).

I recognize your concerns, Steve, but I also think you have a gift for making things difficult.

I think this can be synopsized to: how do we keep the place from being seized by a control-freak, again.

Easy: involve many people right from the git-go, in a way that allows a big handful of people to all have equal control.

Tom

[neumannbruce]

American West Canyoneering Association
AWCA

[reflection]

" A gift for making things difficult". My oh my? Already on the canyons group, folk commenting that it's a Bogley Canyoneering group and not one with a collective fold? And that some don't wish to look at or participate in Bogley - where the bulk of discussion has occured. Are these commentators likewise being difficult? And, is there anything wrong with voicing options along with concerns? I'll say it again, any viable national group should consist of members from at least 3 or four states. UT, Colo, AZ, Calif. Control? Originally there was discussion re a Colorado Plateau group, that would be regional and would focus on the Intermountain West and Southwest. But then, a strong voice or two wanted his/their their way & kept pounding for a national group - but never backed up their plea re how the organization would collectively represent national or regional interests, unless the board was actually diverse and in place.

Names ?
Utah
AZ
Colorado
California

Not just Bogley particpants, Heavens Sakes! Who are parties that would want to particpate? And was asked earlier, does the group want professional guides (who already have an organization) as members of the board? For Utah, I'd have two from the Wasatch Front, one from the Zion/St. George area and one from Moab/Monticello/Blanding. Bo Beck would fit from St. George and who from these other areas. Would Shane wish to be on the board - I would imagine?; and I assume Tom, in spite of his hesitation would need/want a seat on the board. And if one goes with guides, Matt in Moab and/or Jared in San Juan. Folk that don't wish to associate with Bogley, could be contacted by interim board members, possibly.

Finally, if there are NOT folk that wish to step forward from other states or jurisdictions, then I'd say, pull back, take another look and set up a regional or UT group and take any credible board member that would like to join.

Amazing, discouraging really, to see the lament on the canyons group as folk frowned on Bogley. To some of those folk I would say, yes, there are some strong voices and personality, and there is a culture too - but in spite of this, it's a viable forum where folk can easily, with organization, offer views. Surprising that some, many, don't wish to participate. Sounds like anothe uprising. ABC against the castle of ACA and now XYZ battling with Bogley. There must be something behind it all, why so many (?) don't wish to engage, on this party line? Personalities at play? Myself, I wish there were a forum where aerobic activity only, would be displayed, and others (who have respectable interests) could have their hook, bullet and machine forums on another site. I trust I'm not being difficult - is having an alternative point of view so troubling? Apparently though, there are some/many? that don't wish to participate and talk on this site - and if that's the case, how and where does a collective forum arrive where interested parties, from different locales will step forward and engage? If the interest level lags, I'd vote to pull back to a CP group, and if the interest level lags further, then a Utah group. Made up of Bogleyites? No made up of humans that care about canyoneering and it's future. Hopefully that's a peaceful, easy and not a difficult offering?

[ratagonia]

" A gift for making things difficult". My oh my? Already on the canyons group, folk commenting that it's a Bogley Canyoneering group and not one with a collective fold? And that some don't wish to look at or participate in Bogley - where the bulk of discussion has occured. Are these commentators likewise being difficult? And, is there anything wrong with voicing options along with concerns? I'll say it again, any viable national group should consist of members from at least 3 or four states. UT, Colo, AZ, Calif. Control? Originally there was discussion re a Colorado Plateau group, that would be regional and would focus on the Intermountain West and Southwest. But then, a strong voice or two wanted his/their their way & kept pounding for a national group - but never backed up their plea re how the organization would collectively represent national or regional interests, unless the board was actually diverse and in place.

Names ?
Utah
AZ
Colorado
California

Not just Bogley particpants, Heavens Sakes! Who are parties that would want to particpate? And was asked earlier, does the group want professional guides (who already have an organization) as members of the board? For Utah, I'd have two from the Wasatch Front, one from the Zion/St. George area and one from Moab/Monticello/Blanding. Bo Beck would fit from St. George and who from these other areas. Would Shane wish to be on the board - I would imagine?; and I assume Tom, in spite of his hesitation would need/want a seat on the board. And if one goes with guides, Matt in Moab and/or Jared in San Juan. Folk that don't wish to associate with Bogley, could be contacted by interim board members, possibly.

Finally, if there are NOT folk that wish to step forward from other states or jurisdictions, then I'd say, pull back, take another look and set up a regional or UT group and take any credible board member that would like to join.

Amazing, discouraging really, to see the lament on the canyons group as folk frowned on Bogley. To some of those folk I would say, yes, there are some strong voices and personality, and there is a culture too - but in spite of this, it's a viable forum where folk can easily, with organization, offer views. Surprising that some, many, don't wish to participate. Sounds like anothe uprising. ABC against the castle of ACA and now XYZ battling with Bogley. There must be something behind it all, why so many (?) don't wish to engage, on this party line? Personalities at play? Myself, I wish there were a forum where aerobic activity only, would be displayed, and others (who have respectable interests) could have their hook, bullet and machine forums on another site. I trust I'm not being difficult - is having an alternative point of view so troubling? Apparently though, there are some/many? that don't wish to participate and talk on this site - and if that's the case, how and where does a collective forum arrive where interested parties, from different locales will step forward and engage? If the interest level lags, I'd vote to pull back to a CP group, and if the interest level lags further, then a Utah group. Made up of Bogleyites? No made up of humans that care about canyoneering and it's future. Hopefully that's a peaceful, easy and not a difficult offering?

I support the idea of attempting to include as many people from as many areas as possible in the new organization.

It seems, however, a mistake to create regional quotas for the BOD. Was that the suggestion? Are there three canyoneers in Minnesota who would like to participate on the board? Florida? (Jim Bodoh would be a good choice). Maybe Wyoming Dave would represent his homeland- Rhode Island.

My mistake - perhaps you are suggesting to reach for geographic diversity in the interim BOD. Sure. Here's the process: nominate people, encourage them to accept. There is a separate thread for that.

I am confused. I don't think WE determine what the ACA2 IS, I think we create it, create a structure, then it becomes what it becomes. I hope it becomes what its members desire and are willing to create. While I have a vision of what and how it could work, I have little attachment to a specific vision, or to imposing MY vision on the ACA2.

I believe the desire to move the discussion to a neutral forum has been expressed by a least a few voices, and is considered a high priority.

Tom

[hank moon]

I believe the desire to move the discussion to a neutral forum has been expressed by a least a few voices, and is considered a high priority.

- This is just a discussion, not a decision-making body. As long as discussion remains free and open to all, there is no reason to strive for "neutrality"

- The "neutral forum" does not exist. Add known personalities /relationships to any "neutral forum" and any illusion of neutrality quickly vanishes.

- The obvious "maybe a bit more neutral" forum would be the org's own discussion room and/or website.

So, someone (some ONE person, that is) needs to step up and take more action. Announce that the org has been created, here's the discussion group, here's the iBOD, etc. If that one person acts wisely, something might take off. I suggest rather than nominating other people, folks who are genuinely interested in doing something nominate themselves. That might spark enough interest in the ONE person to say, "hey, I like the look of that iBOD, I'll run with that"

What's needed on the iBOD is people who are:

a) motivated to do the startup gruntwork
b) have the skills, initiative, etc. to actually do it in a reasonable time frame
c) are willing to give it all up in a reasonable time frame when the first elections are held for the eBOD

Cross-posting this to the iBOD thread.

p.s. I have no interest in being on the iBOD

[accadacca]

- The "neutral forum" does not exist. Add known personalities /relationships to any "neutral forum" and any illusion of neutrality quickly vanishes.

Well put. A "neutral forum" will NEVER exist. The cause and movement of the org will be discussed on several (Bogley, Canyons, ACA, Facebook, etc) online communities. The roll of the org is to monitor the community as a whole and take action based on the needs of the entire Canyoneering community. The online communities are simply a mechanism or vehicle for spreading and discussing the objectives of the org. If the org hopes to influence the entire community, they need to touch and participate in ALL online Canyoneering communities.

[taatmk]

CUC
Coalition of United Canyoneers

[reflection]

A mistake? American Canyoneers? And you want someone from Florida, Minn. or back East on the board? NO PROBLEM; at large members come from anywhere. I said it before; I guess you missed it? Ask though, where is the epicenter of American Canyoneering? If a viable new group is to exist, is there something wrong with offering the option that maybe some should come from 3-4 states, and that others could be at large members (from ANY state)? Wish to have an AC group made up of 5-6 ibod members from ONE state and made up of 3-4 that have a professional handle already in the game? That's quite representative? D Black already went on record stating real reservation re a new group, particularly when those with the energy have a financial stake in the process. Maybe he made a mistake saying that, and he was being difficult? Why don't you, point blank, tell him so on the canyons site?

Ideas and the free flow of views is one thing. Folk having to have their own way and mocking others when their views differ is another. A bias of outside info to match pre-existing views or disregarding that which conflict with them? Some always, seem to have a full command of the facts?

What's the link to American Canyoneers? Who intends to control it, who are/is the moderator and who channels to volume and tenor of issues to be discussed? There are already how many control centers in the canyoneering community and just how many views when it comes to parceling out needed service to the land agencies, working with them on access and managing use patterns that balance safety and resource protection? Or maybe access is the sole rider in this whole game?

Is it naive or realistic to image that if so many canyoneers, that don't particpate on yahoo, on ACA or Bogley, are now going to share opinions on an American Canyoneers site? If so great. Those that do participate - if they offer cogent and relevant ideas, then fine. I have NO strong allegiance to any of the three sites; I do recognize though the time, effort and energy that some offer to support their alliance and I hope folk are generally complimentary of their effort, this regardless of political or personal opinion on x,y or z matter. From a distance, much of the commentary and rhetoric relating to this is historically interesting, somewhat entertaining and sometimes so surely and serious.

More interesting to me; the near future of land managers decisions re Arches, Glen Canyon, Zion and Grand Canyon. Something positive may come of a new group or something otherwise? Worth an effort though? Yea, Nay? All the Kings Horses and All the Kings Men...should they put the intended ACA (or the new AC's) back together again? Ideas, energy, (control) & seemingly endless puzzles. Hopefully some have a clear vision into the future. So confusing really, all the voices, strong opinions and seemingly endless rifts.

[CarpeyBiggs]

What's the link to American Canyoneers? Who intends to control it, who are/is the moderator and who channels to volume and tenor of issues to be discussed? There are already how many control centers in the canyoneering community and just how many views when it comes to parceling out needed service to the land agencies, working with them on access and managing use patterns that balance safety and resource protection? Or maybe access is the sole rider in this whole game?

the domains of americancanyoneers.org/com/info have been purchased by wolfgang schuster. i (dan ransom) developed a wordpress frontpage for it, and installed the phpBB3 forum. currently, wolfgang and i have access, and moderation abilities. however, the website and forum are being created with the intent of having a central location to discuss the formation of an interim board, which will then be granted control of the site. wolf and i have donated the necessary resources to get it started, with the hope that a board will form to carry on the project.

Is it naive or realistic to image that if so many canyoneers, that don't particpate on yahoo, on ACA or Bogley, are now going to share opinions on an American Canyoneers site? If so great.

i'm skeptical as to who will participate, certainly. i'm just hoping that MANY people will take interest, that a diverse iBOD will be formed, and a transparent, member run organization will be a result. my hope is that resource protection and access are the focus of the organization, eventually resulting in an association that has enough members to carry significant weight when interacting with land managers.