American Canyoneers - Hole in the Rock Road

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

That is what a Board of Directors does. Good definition.

Tom

Same as any publicly owned corporation. The shareholders (members in ACs case) elect a board to act on their behalf. If you don't like their actions, vote them out at the next election.

Does anyone think the board of Apple contacts the shareholders every time they make a decision or take a stance on an issue?

[oldno7]

Does anyone think the board of Apple contacts the shareholders every time they make a decision or take a stance on an issue?

Sorry bluff, but your comparing apples to canyons....

[oldno7]

That is what a Board of Directors does. Good definition.

Tom

For the record, that's also how the aca was run.( albeit a "fake" board(sonny & charly) in a "fake" organization.)

When the AC was being formed, I recall talk of inclusion and transparency.

But like I said, if that is clearly stated as standard procedure in the articles of organization--then thats the rules to play by.

can you paste that part of the AO here so that it is clear to members who are also bogleyites.

Have you read the AO?

[Iceaxe]

Same as any publicly owned corporation. The shareholders (members in ACs case) elect a board to act on their behalf. If you don't like their actions, vote them out at the next election.

You almost got it right.... in a publicly held company the board of directors is elected to act it the "best interest" of the company and shareholders. And BOD members can be tossed out when shareholders don't feel that is happening (Jobs was tossed off the BOD at Apple at one time).

From what I can gather only a small minority of "shareholders" in the AC case believe that wading into the minefield of environmental politics between state, county and feds in regards to road construction will better the organization.

In reality AC is not a publicly held company and the BOD can do whatever the hell they want. They do not have to act in the best interest of the organization or canyoneering and are free to pursue personal agendas. In this particular case several BOD members who also support SUWA have decide it's a good idea to support SUWA in regards to HitRR. There is no way anyone can justify how AC fighting this particular battle will benefit the organization with regards to canyon access.

While the HitRR provides access to canyons, fighting this battle is as silly as fighting the I-15 project through Provo or Las Vegas.

To bad time, money and resources will be wasted on this while the Zion permit system is still a clusterf**k, Arches is considering adding a permit system, canyoneering in Grand Canyon still has many issues, Oak Creek is still closed along with a large portion of the Navajo Nation. It seems to me picking your battles wisely would be a much better use of limited resources.



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Slot Machine]

Too bad time, money and resources will be wasted on this while the Zion permit system is still a clusterf**k, Arches is considering adding a permit system, canyoneering in Grand Canyon still has many issues, Oak Creek is still closed along with a large portion of the Navajo Nation. It seems to me picking your battles wisely would be a much better use of limited resources.

^^ Best thought of the entire thread. ^^

I also hope the AC focuses on the short list above.

[hank moon]

^^ Best thought of the entire thread. ^^

I also hope the AC focuses on the short list above.

Here's a new one: Shane for BOD! Please run. Diversity rules :)

[Wolf]

http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthre...592#post538592

Here is the update on Bogley for elections, it's also on the AC web site. We have extended the application period until 08 July. Shane, you have been asked in the past to be part of the board. It would be great to have you as part of the solution. Anyone else interested, please apply, we could use you.

WOLF

[hank moon]

^^ Best thought of the entire thread. ^^

I also hope the AC focuses on the short list above.

SLOT MACHINE for the BOD, too! Quit hoping and start hopping :)

[Slot Machine]

SLOT MACHINE for the BOD, too! Quit hoping and start hopping :)

Ha! One must be aware of one's limitations. In the small world of canyoneering, I'm somewhat good at a very short list of things.

Playing nice with others to solve big problems isn't on that list. I 'hope' other people can use thier superior interpersonal skills (like Rich Rudow) to solve the aformentioned issues.

But I get what you are saying Hank. I admit that I'm throwing peanuts from the gallery.

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

You almost got it right.... And BOD members can be tossed out when shareholders don't feel that is happening (Jobs was tossed off the BOD at Apple at one time).

Well, to quote you, you almost got it right. Board members cannot be "tossed out." They can be voted out by shareholders, as I said. Jobs was not tossed from the board, he was fired by the board. It works like this: 1) shareholders elect BOD 2) BOD hires senior managers 3) If BOD wants, they can fire managers, which is what happened to Jobs.

Edit:
Just to clarify, Jobs was CEO, so the board could fire him at will. Often, the CEO is also Chairman of the Board, which complicates things quite a bit. Not sure if Jobs was also Chairman, but if so the remaining board members could chose another chairman.

The rest of your post was spot on, I believe.

[hank moon]

Ha! One must be aware of one's limitations. In the small world of canyoneering, I'm somewhat good at a very short list of things.

Playing nice with others to solve big problems isn't on that list. I 'hope' other people can use thier superior interpersonal skills (like Rich Rudow) to solve the aformentioned issues.

But I get what you are saying Hank. I admit that I'm throwing peanuts from the gallery.

Hi Slot Machine

I'm not saying you (or Shane) are throwing peanuts. I'm saying that the AC BOD (or any similar BOD) needs diverse viewpoints to draw on. The view that the AC should avoid taking a "SUWA lite" path is an important one to consider when prioritizing projects, writing statements, etc. The devil's in the details.

Since the AC already has several skilled people people on the BOD, that's covered. What's not covered are the POV and other skills that you and Shane could bring. I'd like to see a Shane and Slot ticket this time around :)

Next?

[Iceaxe]

Jobs was not tossed from the board, he was fired by the board.

FWIW: About six months ago I read the book "Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson.... it's a great book and I highly recommend it.

[penmartens]

It seems that this thread is having trouble deciding what it wants to be. Is it a bitch session regarding an organization that most people don't belong to; or, is it an airing of facts so that people can be informed about an environmental/conservation/recreation issue involving the Escalante area? Perhaps, moderators could split this off.

AMERICAN CANYONEERS

I am not a member of the AC. They are a new organization. I am waiting and watching to see if they become something I want to be involved with. As far as I can tell they are doing exactly what they said they would. They sought out members to pay a nominal fee. They had an election by the members to choose a board of directors who would take a stance on a variety of issues and use the number of members (300 or 400, depending on which report you read) to lend substance to the voice of the BOD.

This is not unusual. It is how many organizations/clubs work, including: Access Fund, Sierra Club, SUWA, Colorado Mtn Club, Wasatch Mtn Club, etc. None of these organizations poll their members before taking a stand on an issue. There is nothing evil nor underhanded about this. It is standard practice.

For those who are members, they do have a choice if they don't like how things are done. They can wait until an election and vote out the offending members, they can write to the BOD and make known their differing opinions, they can launch a recall before an election is due. Members are not powerless to guide the BOD of whatever organization they belong to.


THE HOLE IN THE ROCK ROAD

There seems to be much false information and innuendo surrounding the issue. I appreciate Scott's facts about paving.
I don't see anywhere, other that the AC's bombastic introduction, that the BLM is considering paving the HITRR. A baseline study is being conducted by Dr. Casey. He and his students want to know many things about the Escalante area including who is using it, how, and why. They also want to know what makes the area 'special' to its users. If one showed up to rant about paving, either pro or con, and not prepared to talk about the many issues the study is looking for, you might be regarded as an environmental wacko.

I thought there was a link somewhere in this confusing thread from a UT paper or news report quoting the Garfield County commissioners as wanting to improve the HITRR with water diversion culverts and gravel. That is a far cry from paving.


BOGLEY

We need some facts here. If Bogley is the premiere canyon site they claim, then step up and get YOUR members some facts.

Is a group or organization trying to pave the HITRR?

Would any improvements stop at county lines, or does BLM, as a federal entity have the ability to cross county lines?

Is the BLM looking at a road, or are they looking at a management plan? Dr. Casey's study indicates perhaps more than a road is at stake here.

Bogley could come up with a better poll. Instead of a single focus, black and white question, they could expand, gather beta on the wishes of its members and present those findings in an orderly manner to land managers.

I am not a pollster, but would make some suggestions:
1. Would you like to see the HITRR paved?
2. Would you like to see the HITRR improved with culverts, grading, and gravel?
3. Would you like to see the HITRR with the same level of management it has had for the last 10 year?
4. Would you like to see the HITRR left alone to the effects of nature and people?
5. How many times have you accessed the HITRR in the last year? last 5 years? last 10 years?
6. What do you when on the HITRR?
And so on....

Respectfully,
Penny

[ratagonia]

To pave or not pave the Hole in the Rock Road... that is the question....

So this concerns me greatly.... American Canyoneers has taken a stance on an access issue with almost ZERO input for their membership and with almost ZERO research on what the impacts will be. I believe this is a knee jerk reaction.


You can read the details here:
http://www.americancanyoneers.org/gs...e-study-hitrr/


But bottom line American Canyoneers is advocating that the Hole in the Rock Road not be paved.


I don't know if paving the road is a good or bad idea, I'd really need more information to establish a sound conclusion.

Here are a couple of quick thoughts... a county normally paves a road when it makes sense economically. In other words, because of higher traffic there is a point in time where it is cheaper to pave the road than it is to maintain a gravel/dirt road. Is easier access a bad thing? If so, bad for who? Certainly not the county who would be responsible for the road.... If limiting access is your goal shouldn't you be advocating for the road to no longer be maintained at all? After a few large storms the road would soon turn into a 4x4 road and greatly limit access....


I'd really be interested in seeing more research and facts from both sides before jumping to a conclusion.... Why does the county want to pave the road? What is the long term projection for the area? Will paving the road actually impact visitation? If so, how much? Is the long term effect going to help or hurt canyoneering? I really hate to see a national access organization jump to a conclusion without some facts, figures and muscle to back up their stance, not to mention a consensus from their membership.... anyhoo... food for thought....

My apologies, Penny. I read Ice's post without reading the AC page, and ass-u-me-d that Ice's post was related to the AC page. My bad.

Tom

[Slot Machine]

Since the AC already has several skilled people people on the BOD, that's covered. What's not covered are the POV and other skills that you and Shane could bring. I'd like to see a Shane and Slot ticket this time around :)

Hi Hank! Nice of you think that I have skills that would add to the AC. However, I have no interest in adding another level of complexity to a hobby that should be as simple as 'hiking with ropes'.

We need some facts here. If Bogley is the premiere canyon site they claim, then step up and get YOUR members some facts

This is such a strange comment, since Bogley is a forum and not a person (or canyoneering association). It's not the forum's responsibility to do research for a user.

Although, I DO like the rest of your post Penny. Yes, this thread is a-wanderin', and I do like your suggestions about collecting better data.

Bob

[Iceaxe]

Is a group or organization trying to pave the HITRR?

Would any improvements stop at county lines, or does BLM, as a federal entity have the ability to cross county lines?

Is the BLM looking at a road, or are they looking at a management plan? Dr. Casey's study indicates perhaps more than a road is at stake here.

Bogley could come up with a better poll. Instead of a single focus, black and white question, they could expand, gather beta on the wishes of its members and present those findings in an orderly manner to land managers.

I believe this is exactly the type of information the members of Bogley were asking American Canyoneer to supply. It was American Canyon that posted in bold type across their website "Tell the BLM that paving the HITRR is WRONG!" Which is what started this entire thread.

Bogley is a forum for sharing ideas, thoughts, beta, opinions and information. Bogley is not an "Access Group" or any type of political organization. Heck, Bogley isn't even organized beyond Acca paying the light bill every month. So bottom-line I think you have some great questions, but you are asking the wrong organization to supply you the information, after all, isn't that what an organization devoted to access is supposed to do? Particularly before taking a side?

[Sombeech]

Bogley itself is made up of all of us. The admins like @accadacca and myself may have certain viewpoints, but our opinions do not represent Bogley as a whole. The members who post, represent Bogley.

We also won't be the ones providing facts and research, nor should anybody ever, EVER depend on our study results in a matter like the paving of this road. I will probably never drive it my entire life.

Threads, and polls like this are created by members daily, as well as the content that fills those threads. Any member is welcome to chime in, and when the conversation sways one way it does not necessarily reflect the admins' opinions.

If a thread leads astray from a certain person's opinions, knowledge or findings, that person should just simply post more ;)

From what I am observing in this thread, some members just want some feedback in regards to the decision by the AC to urge against paving. In my quick skimming of the thread, i haven't seen much regarding the reason, at least by a proclaimed BOD member. And please note that i am not demanding this, that is just what the thread is asking for.

Thanks, now get your Bogley on.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Iceaxe]

I'm not saying you (or Shane) are throwing peanuts. I'm saying that the AC BOD (or any similar BOD) needs diverse viewpoints to draw on.

Hank, thanks for considering my view valuable. And I share your concern that American Canyoneer could use a wider point of view. As you know the organization was formed among a group of friends and acquaintances. I have no problem with that outside the fact that such a group has too much inbreeding of ideas. It's a big problem when everyone is fishing for ideas in the same small pond.

But I am not currently interested in a spot on the American Canyoneer BOD for the following reasons:

Being on the BOD would muzzle me on many issues where I prefer not to be muzzled. For instants, it would be hard for me to openly discuss issues such as civil disobedience (poaching) in an open forum as many would not understand that my personal views are not that of the organizations.

My experience with a similar organization (the ACA) really left a bad taste in my mouth. As you well know, I did some heavy lifting at the start for the ACA and was rewarded by being villainized for the next 10 years after I had a difference of opinions with the leadership.

At times I see American Canyoneer beginning to follow the same trajectory as the ACA, particularly with this HitRR issue, and that troubles me greatly.

As some of you know I have had a couple victories with regards to access over the years. When I look back on what it took to make them happen I believe it was much easier working alone and that attempting to get an organization to jump through the required hoops would have exhausted me.

I respect much of what American Canyoneer has done to date, particularly the service projects. I look forward to the day when American Canyoneer has a big win in the department of access to put in their trophy case. But in my humble opinion, if American Canyoneer keeps tilting at HitRR windmills such victories will never happen.

[penmartens]

Thank you for clarifying what this thread is about; also, for clarification on what Bogley is and is not.
I will look for useful information elsewhere.
Penny

[Iceaxe]

I will look for useful information elsewhere.

You will find a tremendous amount of useful information on Bogley.... but it's up to you to sort it out and come to an educated personal conclusion.

If you are looking for someone to hold your hand and guide you down the yellow brick road to a predetermined destination then you are correct, Bogley is probably the wrong place.