Name - American Canyoneers

[mdd]

Personally I dislike the term "coalition" because, to me, it implies that the group is fighting for something (like the "rebel coalition", "coalition of the willing", or more local for me, the "colorado environmental coalition"). I think it works for the Canyon Access Coalition, because, well, you are fighting for access.

Club sounds a little informal but is workable. Society sounds a little less informal but also old fashioned (Canyon Recreation Society? American Canyon Society?).

We could rip off the Mountaineers and call ourselves the Canyoneers...

Federation sounds too weird to me, like we're the government or something.

I hate to say it but I think "Association" is the best choice, though overused, and hopefully not confused with the ACA.

I'm sorta vaguely interested in not including "canyoneering" to reflect that we are both canyoneering and canyoning (Canyon Recreation Association? Is that acronym a little too close to "CRAP"?), though "canyoneering" probably sells more so I can concede this point.

Must we have a TLA? Will Canyoneering Association (CA) work?

I'm ok with including some geographical component to the name... Association of American Canyoneers (AAC) has a nice ring to it, as does North American Canyoneering Association (NACA). I don't like using US because there are some quality canyons just across the borders in both Mexico and Canada.

M

[trackrunner]

I don't like using US because there are some quality canyons just across the borders in both Mexico and Canada.

True but I don't want to have an all inclusive name if there is no interest from Mexican & Canadian canyoneers to join or help form this in their countries too. Seems a little xenophobic to force them under this umbrella if their community is:

1. happy with the current status
2. or not interested in joining forces
3. or would rather create a local national org

It should be their call IMO, that's all. If they do their own thing we can sponsor cross border rendezvous. You show us yours we'll show you ours. . .






Canyons of course, strictly canyons & culture

The term American could be vague enough to be US or other countries in the Americas. That could make it a better choice if the too geographic & national specific term US is wanted to be avoided, or if other countries in the Americas want to join/merge after the formation.

I also like acronyms that ares easy to speak as a word. So far CAC is one that works.

[ratagonia]

I would suggest that only names with a .com domain available should be considered. I know this limits the name availability considerably, but it sure makes things easier from a marketing standpoint.

As a non-profit, it should be a .org. Yes, taking the same .com domain is a really good idea.

Some guy used the .net domain for his quasi-organization - seemed kind of odd.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Seems a little xenophobic to force them under this umbrella if their community is:

...

The term American could be vague enough to be US or other countries in the Americas. That could make it a better choice if the too geographic & national specific term US is wanted to be avoided, or if other countries in the Americas want to join/merge after the formation.

I also like acronyms that ares easy to speak as a word. So far CAC is one that works.

How are we forcing them under this umbrella? Holding their head under a waterfall or something?

I like using "American", because it does have a certain ambiguity to it. The Canadians or Mexicans might find us useful to them sometime in the future.

Tom

[canyoncaver]

More food for thought:

Maybe instead of a coalition or a federation it could be a "society" or a "union." "Alliance" is a word that suggests that highly individualistic components are coming together for a common cause while still maintaining their own identities.

American Canyoneering Society
Society of American Canyoneers
Canyoneering Society of America
Union of American Canyoneers
American Canyoneering Union
Alliance of American Canyoneers
Canyoneering Alliance of America

I even like American Canyoneering Alliance, although it has regrettable acronym problems.

[shagdeuce]

CanyonAlliance.com/.org is available. A little outside the box here...taking a page out of the candition name: canyation.com/.org (canyon+nation) is also available.

[BLUEberryBOB]

GCCA.com

Giant Crack Canyoning Association.
A bit of a light hearted name.

[reflection]

National or Continent Organization?
Regional or more local Organization?

What are the planned and hoped for interests and activities of such a group?
Should, could, more than one group exist? An additional National one, and an Additional Regional one?

Folk in the NW and California already have their canyon organizations.
Canyoneering (other than in mountains) is primarily a West, SW and Intermountain West activity.
I had earlier tossed out Colorado Plateau Canyoneering Coalition or Assoc. CPCC or CPCA.
I agree that having both a dot. org and dot. com would assist the effort.

When it comes to dealing with issues in Arches, N Wash, the Roost, San Raphael, Canyonlands, Zion....I much prefer a regional name when it comes to advocacy. ACA was always way to broad and ambiguous (in my mind) when it came to that group or party, advocating or involving in matters continent or nation wide. Did work for organizing rondy's or training though.

Parties will come at this with different experience, ideas and angles. Having a name that is available as a .org or .com is important. Those that wish to lead on this will have the final call as to whether they want to have a national or regional moniker, or maybe both? I've been involved with many groups and I still have a bias toward a regional name, but accept that if someone wants to, they could also run with a national group name.

Another regional grouping would be Utah Canyoneering.org or .com; Arizona Canyoneering.org or .com, or Colorado Canyoneering.org.or com. Utah Canyoneering suits me, or Colorado Plateau...

I know some of the players on this board. Most are from Utah, and most spend most of their hours canyoneering in Utah. Others, there is a blending, merging with other states and zones, or with/in their state of interest.

In my view, on regional matters there is a necessity of one voice vs. multiple when it comes to canyoneering. ZCC and ACA, at times, had different agendas and styles. (arguably made no difference) Still it would have been nice to sit with land managers and let them know you/other players speak for the ONE main canyon organization in your region. (and it's important that a diversity of views go into shaping that one voice).

I can see it now, some of us, or some of you, meet with land managers in Price or Hanksville. Folk speak up as reps of the American/United States Canyoneering org/coalition...and then folk from Colorado show up with a different view and maybe others show up from Moab or Blanding with still different views. Is this abstract? Well, private guide services from all over the map, have been showing up in land managers offices reportedly speaking on behalf of a large contingencies of canyoneers (except that much or most of the time, public canyoneers are never engaged with prior to the meetings).

Dear, how to be consise? Excuse me. Personally I have time and interest in dealing with Utah (and some degree AZ) canyon matters. I have NO time and little interest in dealing with collective national canyoneering matters; totally unwieldy and not practical as regional players already stake an interest in their territory. We have seen and experienced ACA for the past decade. As a teaching, training or rondy moniker it kinda worked, but there was no organization behind the driver.

If someone is retired, wishes to drive a big bus and build a big (in their mind) empire then I guess a national group is in the offing. Most of us though still work, and the need and benefit, to meet as a group, and then to at times, meet with regional land people argues for what? The Global Canyoneering Canyoneering, Planet Earth, Milky Way Canyon Group?
I can see the young team member on the Arches Management Planning staff now. You/your group, represents just who? And how many other canyon groups are out there?

ZCC was created to deal with Zion matters; I suppose, possibly? it could be merged with another regional group, but I would not merge it, (if it were my decision) with a national one. And the organization? A board, officers, a rotating president or someone that wishes to be president for a long time? If folk are adaptable and flexible it could work. If leaders though were martinets and chieftans, then it still might work, or may not (in the long run).

[Iceaxe]

A Colorado Plateau based advisory group.

My interest, experience and knowledge is with the Colorado Plateau, I'd prefer to see the organization deal with that area only. If Canada, Mexico and California want there own organization let them build one.



One of the ACA's downfalls was they were always building a bigger elephant sandwich, even when they couldn't eat what was already on their plate. Lets not fall into the same trap.

[Sandstone Addiction]

Intermountain Canyoneering Enthusiasts and Alliance of Xtreme Engineers or ICEAXE

[ratagonia]

The ZCC was focused on Zion matters, but then, other issues came up we were all interested in, how do comments from the Zion CC get taken by a land manager? Even if our focus NOW is specific, in the future it may not be. The name should reflect a big-tent view. Offering support for Rich's efforts with the Grand Canyon, for instance, is something we all in Utah SHOULD be doing, as it is really supporting canyoneers. If issues come up in the Northwest or Death Valley, the national should be involved to represent ALL canyoneers, because the 6 people who canyoneer in the Northwest are not gonna have much pull.

Intergalactic Canyoneering Association might be a little over-broad. How about keeping it local: Galactic Canyoneering Association

Tom

[trackrunner]

The ZCC was focused on Zion matters, but then, other issues came up we were all interested in, how do comments from the Zion CC get taken by a land manager? Even if our focus NOW is specific, in the future it may not be. The name should reflect a big-tent view. Offering support for Rich's efforts with the Grand Canyon, for instance, is something we all in Utah SHOULD be doing, as it is really supporting canyoneers. If issues come up in the Northwest or Death Valley, the national should be involved to represent ALL canyoneers, because the 6 people who canyoneer in the Northwest are not gonna have much pull.
Tom

+1 ^^^ QFE

[reflection]

A National canyon group sounds fine and equitable; but then the devil in the detail drama in organizing, staffing and following up on matters? Why should someone in the Intermountain West be the leading oar on AZ Grand Canyon matters when there are many finely qualified folk from that state that could have their own sub-group? And how easy is it for Intermountain folk to fly to and meet, when needed, with FS officials in the NW that may have questions or concerns re canyon activity? If NW canyoneering is important to folk, and they want a voice, nothing stops them from banding together in a group, regardless of size. If there was a National group, they (anyone really) could have their own chapter. But then of course who has the interest or inclination to go National? Some I suppose, and maybe they can speak to how such an organization might work. (we've seen for the past decade how one national group, in some ways, didn't work)

A National Group, if someone wants to lead out - OK; Personally I support a regional group, Utah/AZ/Colorado, or simply Colorado Plateau.

The trajectory of canyoneering in the future? Guided commerical operations having an interest in engaging with land managers, and acting as if they are the mavens of the canyon community? They now reportedly have their own organization. Non commercial canyon visitors though, who often share similar interests, what organization do they have if and when other competing interests arrive? And shouldn't they too be able to engage with land managers?

Commerical private groups certainly could be players in most any organization, but in a prospective new regional group, I'd want the officers and board free of any commercial guiding interests. Otherwise built in conflicts exist when meeting with FS, BLM or Park people.

Don't wish to get off track. If folk want a national group, then a national name. If folk want a regional group then a regional name. Both could arguably exist, but if only one did, in the short run, I'd go for the regional offering.

And then of course, how long does this linger in the talk about stage, before someone says OK, let's go with a name, pay the web domain fee (or skip that); get a bank acct (easy, do it under one officers name); come up with a logo and then have a meeting? Or, maybe interests of the community are so diverse that's it's best if a new group is just talked about?

The driver in most public land use groups is issues/advocacy/decisions/SAR/education. A regional group could have monthly training sessions (and not have to be tethered to the ACA canyon leader system?); it could have presentations in various municipal areas (slide shows, skill, technique - show and tells) and it could have a presence with individual land managers. Or it could/would take any direction it's leader(s) wished or wanted.

[ratagonia]

Let me express my vision as I did on the other related thread:

There are millions of climbers. There are tens of thousands of canyoneers.

There might be more climbers living in Boulder Colorado than there are canyoneers in the entire United States.

So I don't see what you think is going to happen. A thousand California canyoneers are going to get together to work with Death Valley National Park on access and rescue issues? I don't think so.

The scenario I see is Mike S. steps forward as the Death Valley guy, and WE assist him with:

1. coaching about what he should do
2. connections with other canyoneers and people in the Park we know
3. stand behind him so when he talks with the Park Service, they consider him a representative of canyoneers. When needed, Steve Mallory, business owner from Las Vegas and Tom Jones from Mt Carmel join Mike S. in meeting with the Park Service.
4. when the Park asks for comments on a Plan, we alert our membership, and they get 400 letters supporting the program that we and Mike S. think is the best reasonable plan for canyoneers;

Etc.

Sure, Colo Plateau issues will generate more letters. But one of the way the Access Fund works is that for someone's home crag, that the land manager thinks no one cares about, the Access Fund can generate letters from climbers across the country that tell that land manager yes, people care, climbers are respectable members of society, and you should consider our opinion in making your choices.

The Access Fund is a TEAM, a supportive team. Where a local organization is the effective vehicle, they support a local organization. Canyoneering could maybe come up with a local organization for Zion, but that is about it.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Don't wish to get off track. If folk want a national group, then a national name. If folk want a regional group then a regional name. Both could arguably exist, but if only one did, in the short run, I'd go for the regional offering.

A local or regional name is self-limiting. A National Name, if applied to a local or regional organization, does not get in the way. Even if we only see a regional organization (and I don't), why not have a National Name that allows us to support whomever, as the situation applies.

Again, the 12 canyoneers in the Pacific Northwest, which some think already have an organization (do you mean the PNW Yahoo group? or Ken Liebert's website?), are going to be perceived as a group of 12 individuals by the Park Service, when Ken goes up to talk with Rainier National Park. As the PNW Representative of the Inter-Galactic Canyoneering Association, he might be taken a little more seriously, especially with a few kanyoneering Klingons in their contingent.

Tom

[ratagonia]

The trajectory of canyoneering in the future? Guided commerical operations having an interest in engaging with land managers, and acting as if they are the mavens of the canyon community? They now reportedly have their own organization.

Really, what? You mean the ACGA? very nascent. It is a little early to call it an organization.

Tom

[restrac2000]

I support a national name or at least Inter-Mountain West regional direction. Thus far it seems we need to include these states in the mix:

Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Washington.

Hawaii seems to have its problems, only heard rumors, but that seems intangible for us mainland folks. Could be wrong.

Am I missing any states or regions? I know a few folks have mentioned Idaho and Montana in the past but I haven't heard much noise up there is a while.

I agree with Tom on this one. A big tent doesn't come with many problems, at least early on. A small tent excludes folks from the onset. Our focus may be on CP issues at first but I don't see that as a problem. We start with problems that are the most immediate and build up success (and failures, its gonna happen). As we gain respect we can expand our efforts.

Another benefit of a broader org is we can incorporate and educate folks about the regional options that exist. The ACA was visionary early on it this way....it only helps us to diffuse use across many areas. A few thoughts. Still digesting some of the comments.

Phillip

[ratagonia]

Occidental Canyon Association OCA!

or, for Hank: Occidental Kanyon Recreation Association

[trackrunner]

Am I missing any states or regions? I know a few folks have mentioned Idaho and Montana in the past but I haven't heard much noise up there is a while.
Phillip

North Carolina. I know of at least one person (ACA guide) finding, exploring, & guiding there.

[oldno7]

North Carolina. I know of at least one person (ACA guide) finding, exploring, & guiding there.

The "academy" has a guide??