American Canyon Guides Association ACGA

[canyoncaver]

I am very confused to hear in this thread that the ACA has a "gold standard" at all!

When I took the ACA's tech and advanced courses in 2009 there were no "standards," only tools for the toolbox. I actually went to the courses looking for the "standard" and never got it. We only got multiple ways of doing every aspect of canyoneering. We were not given much practice on these many ways, we were not tested on any of them to see if we actually retained any of it, and we were not given a manual or even a sheet of paper to refer to when we got home. Not even a cheesy piece of paper certificate to hang on my wall. I did however get a very real dent in my wallet.

This was my disappointment with the ACA. I (naively) thought that I was going to get training from an organization of canyoneers, not a private business. I was also very surprised to find that this "association" did not have preferred methods to teach to beginners. They only had tools for the toolbox, and so many of them that very few of the tools were retained. IMHO it is better to teach beginners one way that works and make damn sure they know how to do it. Then, when those skills are retained you can build on the basics.

Finding out that the "association" was actually a private business run by one man was the final nail in the coffin for me. Granted, I probably could have found that out in advance, but I did not. If it was training from the American Canyoneering Company, then it would be a lot more honest to those that take people at their word. Yes, words do matter.

[ghawk]

Neither Phillip or Tom are being honest about the history of the association and they know it.

If anyone is interested: The ACA - An Unabashed History

I found this informative and interesting. I would be curious to see others share their version of things in as clear a way as Rich shared his view. As a side note I think it would be very difficult to put together an effective association, which has been the case it appears.

[ratagonia]

When I met Tom he had been canyoneering for around 3 years, but was already calling himself the emperor. I had already been canyoneering for 20+ years and guiding/teaching for 12.

I get the impression Tom doesn't want people to know he learned the overwhelming majority of his skills from me. Similarly, he didn't want people to know I started the Yahoo group. Shortly after I gave that group to him he removed the very first post -- the one in which I welcomed anyone who cared about canyoneering to participate.

A few of the "standards" Tom learned from the ACA:

• Helmets are a good idea.
• Working from a rope bag is more efficient than throwing a coil over your shoulder
• There are other ways to rig besides toss 'n go.

"I learned more ropework in 6 days with Rich than I learned in 25 years of climbing." --Tom Jones

"Thank you for introducing me to the world of canyoneering." --Tom Jones autograph in Rich's copy of Zion Canyoneering

Photo pre-ACA courses ...

Nice to see that when I participate in a fairly mild way in a thread, I am then subject to a personal attack.

The (ironic) name "Emperor" came directly from a conversation with you, Rich, therefore I doubt it was used before I met you.

I learned a great deal of my canyoneering European-style ropework skills from Rich. As my endorsement quote from the ACA site states: a statement I have not asked Rich to remove from the ACA site even though I loathe him, because it is true. I have never contested it.

There is a lot more to canyoneering than European-style ropework. I learned a lot of that from Ram, SteveeB, and many, many others. There is a lot more to guiding than European-style ropework. I learned that from Nick, Jonathan, Evan, Ramsay, Calvin, Sarah, Scott, Rob and Hank; and a few others.

Signing statements in books are meant to be flattering. While you did not introduce me to canyoneering, Rich, you did introduce me to modern canyoneering ropework. This is the kind of hedge often made in signing statements.

I don't remember removing the first Post from Yahoo Canyons - it does not sound like something I would do. I do not know why the first post on the Group is missing, but your activity at the beginning of its life is incontestable, and well-represented in the archive.

I started canyoneering in 1999, and did a course with you in 2001. So yes, two years actually.

Memory is a "flexible" medium, tends to adjust itself to the ideology and goals of the memory-holder.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Neither Phillip or Tom are being honest about the history of the association and they know it.

If anyone is interested: The ACA - An Unabashed History

Well, I guess we are in good company, Rich, because your memoire is rather "flexible" with the truth.

Sorry, don't have the time to counterpoint Rich's interesting memoire. Rebuttal seems a Quixotic quest anyway, and a deflection from the point of this thread.

Tom

[restrac2000]

I think Rich's "unabashed history" has many truths AND many outright omissions. Rich has created a beautiful mythology of his hard work and aspirations. Much of theme involves his efforts and reflects the loyalty to him that he expects. The mythology and multiple-perspective history don't disagree with how hard Rich works....that has always been well established. Unfortunately, to many of us who have worked with him directly, that hard work often translates in dictator like control. This seems to already be affecting the ACGA.

There has been one or two posts of mine that involved flourish and overconfidence. I can admit that, I fall for the temptation of "reply" without editing on occasion. I also seem to be in the minority in regards to those who believe a broad-based association is a beneficial direction. I think the heart of my points remain honest, as stated to Scott. Maybe most simplified,the ACA continues to benefit from an unethical market advantage that is directly related to his historic advertising and name choice. This involves the garnering of undue authority from means that have explicit expectations. Those expectations have rarely been fulfilled.

Some folks may not choose to see the broader implications of the ACA. That is fine, I guess my perspective could be so skewed as not to contain any merit. Nonetheless, there have been long term social tensions in the community originating from one organization and I firmly believe they are related to the issues I have presented. I may not always communicate those well or may do so with extra confidence.

Phillip

[Don]

... Bogley has no standards. ...

[mdd]

Thats an unusual response for you, Mike.

Not really unusual at all, I

[ratagonia]

To be honest the most effective work I’ve seen in the last few years is from Ram, who has taken the time to engage rangers near North Wash, and has built relationships through the years with other rangers, such as Bill Wolverton.

Um, yeah, kinda sorta. A good example of how the community works, when working together. The original connection to BLM Richfield office was via an ACA canyoneering conference, which I then nurtured and Ram picked up and ran with from there. Ram is much better at schmoozing than other players in the field.

Tom

[ratagonia]

This thread doesn’t appear to me to be about furthering our community interests. Instead I see a few vocal “leaders” jockeying for position as the king of the canyoneering universe.

M

Kinda sorta.

There is also a defensive position here.

Rich makes outrageous, just-barely-true statements that reflect poorly on individuals who take pride in what they have contributed to the community. Those individuals are drawn to correct the record, as these statements by Rich tend to become "true" if left uncontested. Thus we get into a lot of petty he-said-she-said kinda stuff.

Tom

[ratagonia]

I found this informative and interesting. I would be curious to see others share their version of things in as clear a way as Rich shared his view. As a side note I think it would be very difficult to put together an effective association, which has been the case it appears.

It is in Rich's best interest to promogulate the idea that it would be very difficult to put together an effective organization.

To me, the problem is that there is no compelling rallying purpose for an organization. The one we have (ACA) is based around the idea that there should be an organization, and Rich should be in charge. Not compelling to me.

Tom

[rcwild]

[QUOTE=mdd;474294]Not really unusual at all, I

[restrac2000]

Kinda sorta.

There is also a defensive position here.

Rich makes outrageous, just-barely-true statements that reflect poorly on individuals who take pride in what they have contributed to the community. Those individuals are drawn to correct the record, as these statements by Rich tend to become "true" if left uncontested. Thus we get into a lot of petty he-said-she-said kinda stuff.

Tom

I think this is the element I most struggle with. I can see how this may come across as a simple pissing match at times, that may be fair. But the occasional public power struggle can be beneficial. Is this one? Not sure. But I can observe that after a month's worth of internet dialog that Rich divested the professional side (kinda) from the ACA, structurally more so than he ever has in the past. The ACA also corrected some of the egregious advertising elements of its site....i.e. he took away some of the outright lies. I see this as good. That said, I see a benefit to undermining the social authority of the ACA until Rich makes further investments to create a true association. Tom and I may disagree with the need for an association, thats fair. I do see a need to either change the current one or protest its authority. I actually think constructing a second association is a worthy long term goal. But I think it would be unfortunate to that goal not to keep pressure on the ACA.

I also think its important to point out that I do contribute to tangental comments on this thread. I would also point out that Rich engages in highly successful yet highly questionable communication techniques. When we boil down many of these threads we see the trend of insult, character assassination and ego are fails consistent themes. I have participated. But it would be unfortunate to not highlight the ACA's consistent use of those communication tools to avoid the content of the threads. BS, crap, immature and the argument but "how ungrateful of them they are learned it from me" aren't cogent to the topic at hand. Ironically, it seems many of us who worked with him in the past aren't worth his time anymore. This seems solely related to public feedback. The ACA demands loyalty and ignores dissent.

I mean, no offense Shane, but Rich would rather answer your questions now than mine. Not the outcome I would have predicted 4 years ago ;^)

[restrac2000]

You're right, Mike. It doesn't really matter anymore what is true and what isn't. I know in my heart what I set out to accomplish and I know I failed. 'nuff said.

I think that is one of the most vulnerable and self-less statements I have seen from you Rich. I guess I still think a major course correction is possible for the ACA despite past failures. Do you not?

Edit: I will ignore the statement about truth for now.

[ghawk]

It is in Rich's best interest to promogulate the idea that it would be very difficult to put together an effective organization.

To me, the problem is that there is no compelling rallying purpose for an organization. The one we have (ACA) is based around the idea that there should be an organization, and Rich should be in charge. Not compelling to me.

Tom

I'm amateur and not interested in guiding, etc... to me the biggest advantage of an organization would be to push for access and limit restrictions. Sites like yahoo and bogley are great for getting the word out and letting people know their voice should be heard (recently many of us sent letters to push for pro-canyoneer policies for grand canyon access), but an association that represents the voices of potentially thousands of people can send one letter because its constituents already have shown their support and that message would hold a lot of weight potentially. It could also help in getting out new techniques and improving safety and stuff. I know guides and businesses would want other stuff, but to me that's what matters. Maybe a very limited and loose association for big issues like access? Anyway, this may all be rehashing old stuff. I'm relatively new to the community and haven't really even looked much at the ACA, mostly just pulled route descriptions from Tom and Shane, explored a little more lately, and recently shared trips and opinions on this site.

[restrac2000]

I'm amateur and not interested in guiding, etc... to me the biggest advantage of an organization would be to push for access and limit restrictions. Sites like yahoo and bogley are great for getting the word out and letting people know their voice should be heard (recently many of us sent letters to push for pro-canyoneer policies for grand canyon access), but an association that represents the voices of potentially thousands of people can send one letter because its constituents already have shown their support and that message would hold a lot of weight potentially. It could also help in getting out new techniques and improving safety and stuff. I know guides and businesses would want other stuff, but to me that's what matters. Maybe a very limited and loose association for big issues like access? Anyway, this may all be rehashing old stuff. I'm relatively new to the community and haven't really even looked much at the ACA, mostly just pulled route descriptions from Tom and Shane, explored a little more lately, and recently shared trips and opinions on this site.

I think many of us are in that boat, Gavin. I think the separation of the pro from recreational reflects the differences you highlighted (though they can be symbiotic). An association would also continue to legitimize us as individual stakeholders and a community (which can encompass the diversity of opinions of done right). On that previous note, it doesn't take an official organization to do so but it takes a lot more work without one. Many of the vocal people on this thread do lots of work behind the scenes to makes us more powerful and sanctified in the eyes of the all the agencies with have reciprocity with. Long road. If anything, an association would/could dilute some of the personal conflicts that have haunted us for the last decade (not all I guess).

Thanks for sharing.

Phillip

[reflection]

Years back I took a course "The Art of Negotiation" from a "certain" (State of Utah) university law professor; Five years later I took the course again, the memory of the sessions, generally never leaves me. The "art and style" of negotiation and the discussion of interests vs. "tired" bottom lines. Also the acceptance and awareness of subjective and biased leanings and the necessity (in negotiation circumstances) in having someone around to correct or balance bias.

Without first addressing the supposed substance of what has flowed (in four pages); it's interesting to note the frequent offering of vulgarity and the supposed "finality and moral right" this somehow lends to a certain parties argument. It's also interesting to see some "beat the matter with a feather" and not dare show any emotion or offer critique. Still others (some of them lawyers) badger writers for questioning the corporate and association grounding of ACA by simply offering - Oh go and start your own group or business. And then some of the key players - so defensive and direct at times (and frequent dodging too).

Some in this group are barely and others greatly, familiar with the trappings of ACA and what is and isn't. For over a decade - to trainees, businesses, public safety individuals and scout groups - ACA was perceived as a "viable" corporation and structured association. Hordes of canyoneers that participated in training sessions or retreats (most of them anyway) perceived ACA as "a structured corporation and balanced Association.

To the attorneys or business parties in the group. A Dejure (in law) business operation vs. a Defacto (in fact/perceived) operation. To most/many (even some Utah County lawyers), it does NOT matter that ACA in most recent years and for most intents and purposes, NEVER was and currently is not, anything but a sole proprietorship run by RC.

Go into a court/ hearing/meeting though, in front of a state court judge, a federal judge, a forensic accountant or band of attys and the actual trappings of a corporation and association matter. Corporations holding themselves out to the public, should be current, registered and have liability insurance connected to the business. A reported "association", in most eyes, would have a creation date, board, officers and regular meetings.

Questions that have come up in the past; Who and what is ACA? Who was/is it's board, where are the bylaws, officers; and what was/is the difference between the "business and association" sides? Who vested ACA with "certification authority" beyond a RC branded diploma? And how was/is this diploma any different than a beginner and (beyond that) advanced course, where skills and required learning/testing were taught at ZAC or Zion Rock in Springdale, or a course in Moab or Blanding (or wherever). And then if one were vested with an ACA canyon leader tag (and points), who (what orgainzation) authorized that person to then start re-teaching and charging for that persons own business courses?

When ACA was originally set up, it may well have envisioned an expansive and ubiquitous organization. Regardless, it's grounding and foundation, in recent years, is primarily one individual.

The clarity or transparency that some so loudly endorse would be benefit if the ACA moniker were retired and the RC training, course direction or rondy concept re-branded to match that of a private business, distinquishable from other like minded operations. And the ACG Assoc., if it wishes to start off anew, would benefit from establishing specific training standards/tests and operate independently from ACA. OR, let a new RC business operation, operate "any way it liked" when dealing with the new canyon guiding assoc./operation.

Does any of this matter? I think to most it doesn't. (many perceive it as a private "swat" against Rich, and in this context don't feel it's fair) The matter though does resonate and matter to many others. As to Phillip, whether one courts or disagrees with him, he offers a breathtaking view of a variety of concerns that "others" have (for years) offerered re ACA & RC. And TJ and SBurrows have (long term) perspectives too; and the "main player" RC, certainly has much at stake & more than a constellation of views to represent (and respond to) - as he's got part of his own reputation and identity to deal with.

A new guiding service organization and the intended continuation of ACA (certifying people) as it's always been? If organization A and group B are both married to ACA does this matter, or should there be some distance? And if someone is or wants to be a professional guide - and join the new group - who says they have to be tethered to ACA? (they possibly or probably don't?)

Control, some folk seek to have it, and once they do, never let it go. Under some/many business models, this is acceptable practice. I have NO PROBLEM in letting or allowing RC to put his "brand" on his busines operation, and there, run his outfit as he sees fit. By way of NEW disclosure though, maybe, "ACA a RC sole proprietorship entity". OR, the disbanding of the ACA moniker and the creation or emphasis on the RC sole proprietorship, under a new "brand". When public safety or scout or other groups walk in, they can/will SEE and UNDERSTAND this is an RC operation (not ACA); the same as they would see and understand if they went to a private business in Springdale, Moab or Blanding for canyoneering training. (Each of those does/would have a private owner as head of a business operation).

And none of these private businesses reach, teach or proselytize beyond their own boundary. They are not the ACA "one true" (church) organization; but they are more than adequate (secular) highways leading canyoneers toward "safe canyons" (salvation). Yo! it's Conference time, Hallelujah! Beware of false preachers, false prophets, soiled emporers and kings. A prayer or mercy on us all? (Those with passion and relevant purpose, play - preach - on)

[Scott Card]

I am offended that I was referred to as "a Utah County lawyer", not "Scott Card, THE Utah County Lawyer"....

I get the corporate gripes and the corporate naming gripes. I know what happens in court (remember???? Utah County Lawyer?) I guess I am most concerned about the product, the safety, the quality of training, the material, the guidelines for becoming a "certified" guide. Seems to me there was only one game in town, until recently with the ACGA being created. What is wrong with Rich's product? What else is there? What is wrong with the guide certification check list and testing? What else is there? What is so wrong with Rich teaching and being a technical director? Seriously, Seems some want the ACA, yea, even covet the name. I believe most want to gripe but very, very few people are willing to put the time and effort into doing anything, including creating something else. Very few are willing to do service or rather will in fact participate in a service project.

Thanks to Rich for all he has done for the community which has not been a small contribution by any means. Thanks to Ram for all he has done for the community, again no small contribution. Thanks to Tom for all he has done for the community and the community gear needs/wants, thanks to Shane for all he as done for the community with really good beta, and thanks to all who are responsible canyoneers and for all they do for the community. I consider all of the above named "leaders" my friends -- bickering friends at present but my friends none the less.

I still don't see anyone stepping up to the plate to organize us canyoneers....... and I don't see it happening anytime soon. And if someone does, please use and start with all the really good stuff the ACA has.

[restrac2000]

What else is there? What is wrong with the guide certification check list and testing? What else is there? What is so wrong with Rich teaching and being a technical director? Seriously, Seems some want the ACA, yea, even covet the name. I believe most want to gripe but very, very few people are willing to put the time and effort into doing anything, including creating something else. Very few are willing to do service or rather will in fact participate in a service project.

I know of more canyoneers who have committed time developing programs, training others and dispersing information than not. I actually believe very few people enjoy "griping". You could ask my wife, the time I have spent on these threads has been unsettling. Its not pleasant or easy to confront a previous mentor in public.

I do think you still simplify the issue, i.e. it has nothing to do with "coveting". For me, it has to do with honoring and protecting the limited importance the name carries. There are fundamental elements to its concept that leave me unable to accept the status quo. We differ there. I firmly believe the process is as important as the outcome, in regards to standards of practice. We seem to differ there. So it goes.

Phillip

Phillip

[xxnitsuaxx]

I don't get this. You get in your car with some friends after work on Friday. You drive down some dirt roads and throw a sleeping bag on the ground. You wake up, slide down some ropes, bury some stuff in the dirt, swim around in some water, and walk back to the same damned place you started from. Most people don't know what canyoneering is and most people wouldn't care if they did. How the hell can such a ridiculous activity (because it's sure as hell not a sport!) generate the countless wasted man-hours that have been spent on whatever the hell it is we're talking about. (7 years of school and I can't understand what everyone is yelling about.) I almost miss the assholes I was in law school with

[Spidey]

that hard work often translates in dictator like control. This seems to already be affecting the ACGA.
Phillip

This statement is truly comical! Clark Myself and other's that are now members of the ACGA are so prone to and fond of Dictatorial control over us. I could be wrong, but you seem to make the assumption that because we support the ACA, or the ACGA dare I say it, might even be friends with Rich that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves.

You have at least got me figured out. I is just to darn dumb to think for myself, all my friends already know that though.