Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂ
— On Wed, 9/7/11, phil Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> wrote:
From: phil Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances?? To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 11:40 AM
ÂÂ
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “mike_dallin”
>
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone”
I am looking forward to reading the lists of specifics. How much time, money and/or services did each of these people contribute to the ACA compared to the time, money and/or services I provided to each of them?
>
> Misery poker. http://on.wsj.com/s5ZZA
>
Eeeh, I have played a few too many hands in that game. The term wasn’t in my Lexicon until today but my wife and I have had conversations about how that very trend had escalated in our lifestyle and marriage. Takes hard work and communication skills to deal with it; hard but worthwhile effort.
Phillip
phil
Its is indeed. Who may this be? Have the courage to sign your name please.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “eastslide1” wrote:
Is this ‘Phillip’ the youth who was a Rich’s assistant on a Globe AZ class I took in early 2000’s? If so, he sure has grown up and is now trying to overthrow the king! The horror! An uppity youth? A thankless whipper snapper? What have we? Jeez. This group is coming like the other flame-a-riffic outdoor sites.
Who else can we despise? ahahhahahhahahha…canyon shmanyon, let’s light somebody on fire!
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “cardlaw22” wrote:
Huh. Corporate or association “oversight and bylaws” are quite meaningless in a negligence law suit if a person is injured while being guided. What matters is skill, competence and safety, etc. This comes down to your expert vs. my expert with 20/20 hindsight, (kinda like a formal and expensive yahoo debate, only different. ;-))
Hmmmmm. So far, seems the ACA is the only game in town when it comes to training and expertise that is in any way recognized, despite what the corporate status is or isn’t or how well the corporation is maintained or the color of Rich’s facial hair. Seems that despite what the gripes are, until there is some other entity, the ACA is THE game in town. What you bring up may be helpful in discrediting an expert with the ACA certification but not the techniques or skill. But then we are left with a certification vacuum. Then what? Again, start your own certification. Compete. Arguing on the internet will not give you ACA ownership nor will you take over the canyoneering world by bashing the ACA or Rich.
Perhaps a more productive discussion would be to ferret out what training is incorrect. How oversight would correct this errant training. I am still missing what is so bad about the ACA product. Is there a better training curriculum out there? Is there a better way to tie a biner block? Stone knot? Self rescue techniques? Where are the new skills, the new safety protocol? Who is teaching them? You? You got something better to offer? Just askin’.
Scott Card
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
I think most people who are familiar with most certs and accreditation in the industry would disagree there. First, the AMGA is a true association that provides oversight and committee analysis of its course content. The ACA lacks this element. Second, the AMGA is a governing agency of sorts that provides certs to third parties; the ACA is a private business with no oversight who ironically provides certs to competitors.
The value of the AMGA logo and name is much more than quality content. Its about oversight and community standards; this is inherently lacking in the ACA. They provide hard skills but can’t provide the same level of assurance without the all important by laws and oversight.
> Phillip
Steven Jackson
Government agencies issue licenses.  If this is one of your long term goals for the industry, please get out of the industry.  The government is already far to intrusive in our lives.  The last thing we need is a new government agency to police another private enterprise I.E. guides.  If you really think that’s the direction this industry should go in, then we are not likely to see eye to eye on much of anything. As for this thread I have been around enough dead animals specifically horses to know one when I beat one, so have fun on your own.
— On Wed, 9/7/11, phil Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> wrote:
From: phil Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances?? To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 11:19 PM
ÂÂ
Agree about perception, hence my use of the term symbolic currency. Also fully aware of the lack of legal requirements as you mention….though it is a long term goal to influence a change in that direction.
Where I diverge from many at this point is I feel it is my professional duty either to make sure the ACA lives up the expectations of training/certifying/accrediting associations or make sure dissent in constantly heard. Without the organizational elements mentioned than the accreditation and certs are socially over-valued. And at this point, I am going forward with the surveys of the privileges and permitting issues related to the ACA. Its unethical and problematic if they are being treated as something other than a private business.
Not sure why you even brought the personal/professional element into the conversation then. Seems unrelated and passive-aggressive.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
>
> I can’t explain it any better for you than this.  There is no License required for Climbing or Canyoneering guiding.  So regardless of the AMGA’s organizational set up, or corporate structure.  Their clout and authority are entirely based on perception, and I am very familiar with the AMGA as well as other cert’s and the industry in general.  The general public’s perception as well as most climber’s is what give’s them their clout.  I have friends who are AMGA certified who i will not climb with, i also have friends that have no cert’s and I will gladly go on the sharp end with them.  So sorry your Wrong it still is about perception in this industry regarding Guide’s credentials Period.
> I never said you didn’t keep your personal and professional relationship’s separate, I said maybe I was better at it, key word being Maybe.
>
> — On Wed, 9/7/11, phil wrote:
>
> From: phil
> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances??
> To: Yahoo Canyons Group
> Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 10:45 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ÂÂÂ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
>
>>An AMGA cert has credibility because they are perceived to provide the best TRAINING.  The ACA is in the same position when it come’s to canyoneering.
>
>
>
> I think most people who are familiar with most certs and accreditation in the industry would disagree there. First, the AMGA is a true association that provides oversight and committee analysis of its course content. The ACA lacks this element. Second, the AMGA is a governing agency of sorts that provides certs to third parties; the ACA is a private business with no oversight who ironically provides certs to competitors.
>
>
>
> The value of the AMGA logo and name is much more than quality content. Its about oversight and community standards; this is inherently lacking in the ACA. They provide hard skills but can’t provide the same level of assurance without the all important by laws and oversight.
>
>
>
>>
>
Now here’s the dirty little secret. shhhh don’t tell.  Everyone in the canyoneering community particularly guides, including those that dislike and or hate Rich owe a great deal in terms of their knowledge to Rich and his training.  Now maybe that is why he is such a lightning rod.  Those that find they disagree with him in one way or another can’t if they are being intellectually honest divorce themselves from him or the ACA because of their training.  They have to face the fact that a lot of their expertise came from him, including you.  Yes I realize you gave him credit.  The fact is because of this, my concern about the ACA losing it’s clout as the king of bunker’s hill when it comes to being the best TRAINING organization out there is next to nill.  Moreover, maybe I’m just better at seperating my personal and professional live’s.  I have disagreement’s with Rich. I won’t let those get in the way of our professional
> relationship. ÂÂÂÂ
>
>
>
> I am not as deterministic as Shane about the inevitable disenfranchisement people have with the ACA. However, I think you once again oversimplify my feedback. If you read my responses, I think you will notice how well I was able to separate my professional and personal live with Rich. However, Rich seems to be unable to do so (you would know that if you read this thread thoroughly). Rich’s interpersonal skills affect his professional interactions on a regular basis. His interpersonal skills are not about personal relationships; in fact, most businesses succeed or fail due to such soft skills, not there proficiency with hard skills.
>
>
>
One final note.  I don’t know how to put this, but I’m kinda a big deal.  My name is all the clout I need in the canyoneering community.                                   Spidey
>
>
>
>
> I will assume you are being tongue-in-cheek. Your reputation precedes you. There is no doubt you have far exceeded my skill set; if you don’t know, I was kinda of a big deal…my name was “Risk Averse Ranger” on these forums years ago. But neither of our funny names matters in this conversation.
>
>
>
> Phillip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
eastslide1
Is this ‘Phillip’ the youth who was a Rich’s assistant on a Globe AZ class I took in early 2000’s? If so, he sure has grown up and is now trying to overthrow the king! The horror! An uppity youth? A thankless whipper snapper? What have we? Jeez. This group is coming like the other flame-a-riffic outdoor sites.
Who else can we despise? ahahhahahhahahha…canyon shmanyon, let’s light somebody on fire!
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “cardlaw22” wrote:
Huh. Corporate or association “oversight and bylaws” are quite meaningless in a negligence law suit if a person is injured while being guided. What matters is skill, competence and safety, etc. This comes down to your expert vs. my expert with 20/20 hindsight, (kinda like a formal and expensive yahoo debate, only different. ;-))
Hmmmmm. So far, seems the ACA is the only game in town when it comes to training and expertise that is in any way recognized, despite what the corporate status is or isn’t or how well the corporation is maintained or the color of Rich’s facial hair. Seems that despite what the gripes are, until there is some other entity, the ACA is THE game in town. What you bring up may be helpful in discrediting an expert with the ACA certification but not the techniques or skill. But then we are left with a certification vacuum. Then what? Again, start your own certification. Compete. Arguing on the internet will not give you ACA ownership nor will you take over the canyoneering world by bashing the ACA or Rich.
Perhaps a more productive discussion would be to ferret out what training is incorrect. How oversight would correct this errant training. I am still missing what is so bad about the ACA product. Is there a better training curriculum out there? Is there a better way to tie a biner block? Stone knot? Self rescue techniques? Where are the new skills, the new safety protocol? Who is teaching them? You? You got something better to offer? Just askin’.
Scott Card
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
> I think most people who are familiar with most certs and accreditation in the industry would disagree there. First, the AMGA is a true association that provides oversight and committee analysis of its course content. The ACA lacks this element. Second, the AMGA is a governing agency of sorts that provides certs to third parties; the ACA is a private business with no oversight who ironically provides certs to competitors.
The value of the AMGA logo and name is much more than quality content. Its about oversight and community standards; this is inherently lacking in the ACA. They provide hard skills but can’t provide the same level of assurance without the all important by laws and oversight.
> Phillip
>
cardlaw22
Huh. Corporate or association “oversight and bylaws” are quite meaningless in a negligence law suit if a person is injured while being guided. What matters is skill, competence and safety, etc. This comes down to your expert vs. my expert with 20/20 hindsight, (kinda like a formal and expensive yahoo debate, only different. ;-))
Hmmmmm. So far, seems the ACA is the only game in town when it comes to training and expertise that is in any way recognized, despite what the corporate status is or isn’t or how well the corporation is maintained or the color of Rich’s facial hair. Seems that despite what the gripes are, until there is some other entity, the ACA is THE game in town. What you bring up may be helpful in discrediting an expert with the ACA certification but not the techniques or skill. But then we are left with a certification vacuum. Then what? Again, start your own certification. Compete. Arguing on the internet will not give you ACA ownership nor will you take over the canyoneering world by bashing the ACA or Rich.
Perhaps a more productive discussion would be to ferret out what training is incorrect. How oversight would correct this errant training. I am still missing what is so bad about the ACA product. Is there a better training curriculum out there? Is there a better way to tie a biner block? Stone knot? Self rescue techniques? Where are the new skills, the new safety protocol? Who is teaching them? You? You got something better to offer? Just askin’.
Scott Card
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
I think most people who are familiar with most certs and accreditation in the industry would disagree there. First, the AMGA is a true association that provides oversight and committee analysis of its course content. The ACA lacks this element. Second, the AMGA is a governing agency of sorts that provides certs to third parties; the ACA is a private business with no oversight who ironically provides certs to competitors.
The value of the AMGA logo and name is much more than quality content. Its about oversight and community standards; this is inherently lacking in the ACA. They provide hard skills but can’t provide the same level of assurance without the all important by laws and oversight.
> Phillip >
phil
Agree about perception, hence my use of the term symbolic currency. Also fully aware of the lack of legal requirements as you mention….though it is a long term goal to influence a change in that direction.
Where I diverge from many at this point is I feel it is my professional duty either to make sure the ACA lives up the expectations of training/certifying/accrediting associations or make sure dissent in constantly heard. Without the organizational elements mentioned than the accreditation and certs are socially over-valued. And at this point, I am going forward with the surveys of the privileges and permitting issues related to the ACA. Its unethical and problematic if they are being treated as something other than a private business.
Not sure why you even brought the personal/professional element into the conversation then. Seems unrelated and passive-aggressive.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
I can’t explain it any better for you than this.  There is no License required for Climbing or Canyoneering guiding.  So regardless of the AMGA’s organizational set up, or corporate structure.  Their clout and authority are entirely based on perception, and I am very familiar with the AMGA as well as other cert’s and the industry in general.  The general public’s perception as well as most climber’s is what give’s them their clout.  I have friends who are AMGA certified who i will not climb with, i also have friends that have no cert’s and I will gladly go on the sharp end with them.  So sorry your Wrong it still is about perception in this industry regarding Guide’s credentials Period. > I never said you didn’t keep your personal and professional relationship’s separate, I said maybe I was better at it, key word being Maybe.
— On Wed, 9/7/11, phil wrote:
From: phil To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 10:45 PM
> ÂÂ
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
>>>An AMGA cert has credibility because they are perceived to provide the best TRAINING.  The ACA is in the same position when it come’s to canyoneering.
I think most people who are familiar with most certs and accreditation in the industry would disagree there. First, the AMGA is a true association that provides oversight and committee analysis of its course content. The ACA lacks this element. Second, the AMGA is a governing agency of sorts that provides certs to third parties; the ACA is a private business with no oversight who ironically provides certs to competitors.
The value of the AMGA logo and name is much more than quality content. Its about oversight and community standards; this is inherently lacking in the ACA. They provide hard skills but can’t provide the same level of assurance without the all important by laws and oversight.
>>
Now here’s the dirty little secret. shhhh don’t tell.  Everyone in the canyoneering community particularly guides, including those that dislike and or hate Rich owe a great deal in terms of their knowledge to Rich and his training.  Now maybe that is why he is such a lightning rod.  Those that find they disagree with him in one way or another can’t if they are being intellectually honest divorce themselves from him or the ACA because of their training.  They have to face the fact that a lot of their expertise came from him, including you.  Yes I realize you gave him credit.  The fact is because of this, my concern about the ACA losing it’s clout as the king of bunker’s hill when it comes to being the best TRAINING organization out there is next to nill.  Moreover, maybe I’m just better at seperating my personal and professional live’s.  I have disagreement’s with Rich. I won’t let those get in the way of our professional > relationship. ÂÂÂ
I am not as deterministic as Shane about the inevitable disenfranchisement people have with the ACA. However, I think you once again oversimplify my feedback. If you read my responses, I think you will notice how well I was able to separate my professional and personal live with Rich. However, Rich seems to be unable to do so (you would know that if you read this thread thoroughly). Rich’s interpersonal skills affect his professional interactions on a regular basis. His interpersonal skills are not about personal relationships; in fact, most businesses succeed or fail due to such soft skills, not there proficiency with hard skills.
> One final note.  I don’t know how to put this, but I’m kinda a big deal.  My name is all the clout I need in the canyoneering community.                                   Spidey
> I will assume you are being tongue-in-cheek. Your reputation precedes you. There is no doubt you have far exceeded my skill set; if you don’t know, I was kinda of a big deal…my name was “Risk Averse Ranger” on these forums years ago. But neither of our funny names matters in this conversation.
Phillip
>
Steven Jackson
I can’t explain it any better for you than this.  There is no License required for Climbing or Canyoneering guiding.  So regardless of the AMGA’s organizational set up, or corporate structure.  Their clout and authority are entirely based on perception, and I am very familiar with the AMGA as well as other cert’s and the industry in general.  The general public’s perception as well as most climber’s is what give’s them their clout.  I have friends who are AMGA certified who i will not climb with, i also have friends that have no cert’s and I will gladly go on the sharp end with them.  So sorry your Wrong it still is about perception in this industry regarding Guide’s credentials Period. I never said you didn’t keep your personal and professional relationship’s separate, I said maybe I was better at it, key word being Maybe.
— On Wed, 9/7/11, phil Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> wrote:
From: phil Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances?? To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 10:45 PM
ÂÂ
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
>>>An AMGA cert has credibility because they are perceived to provide the best TRAINING.  The ACA is in the same position when it come’s to canyoneering.
I think most people who are familiar with most certs and accreditation in the industry would disagree there. First, the AMGA is a true association that provides oversight and committee analysis of its course content. The ACA lacks this element. Second, the AMGA is a governing agency of sorts that provides certs to third parties; the ACA is a private business with no oversight who ironically provides certs to competitors.
The value of the AMGA logo and name is much more than quality content. Its about oversight and community standards; this is inherently lacking in the ACA. They provide hard skills but can’t provide the same level of assurance without the all important by laws and oversight.
>>>
> Now here’s the dirty little secret. shhhh don’t tell.  Everyone in the canyoneering community particularly guides, including those that dislike and or hate Rich owe a great deal in terms of their knowledge to Rich and his training.  Now maybe that is why he is such a lightning rod.  Those that find they disagree with him in one way or another can’t if they are being intellectually honest divorce themselves from him or the ACA because of their training.  They have to face the fact that a lot of their expertise came from him, including you.  Yes I realize you gave him credit.  The fact is because of this, my concern about the ACA losing it’s clout as the king of bunker’s hill when it comes to being the best TRAINING organization out there is next to nill.  Moreover, maybe I’m just better at seperating my personal and professional live’s.  I have disagreement’s with Rich. I won’t let those get in the way of our professional relationship. ÂÂÂ
I am not as deterministic as Shane about the inevitable disenfranchisement people have with the ACA. However, I think you once again oversimplify my feedback. If you read my responses, I think you will notice how well I was able to separate my professional and personal live with Rich. However, Rich seems to be unable to do so (you would know that if you read this thread thoroughly). Rich’s interpersonal skills affect his professional interactions on a regular basis. His interpersonal skills are not about personal relationships; in fact, most businesses succeed or fail due to such soft skills, not there proficiency with hard skills.
> One final note.  I don’t know how to put this, but I’m kinda a big deal.  My name is all the clout I need in the canyoneering community.                                   Spidey
>
I will assume you are being tongue-in-cheek. Your reputation precedes you. There is no doubt you have far exceeded my skill set; if you don’t know, I was kinda of a big deal…my name was “Risk Averse Ranger” on these forums years ago. But neither of our funny names matters in this conversation.
Phillip
phil
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote: >>>An AMGA cert has credibility because they are perceived to provide the best TRAINING.  The ACA is in the same position when it come’s to canyoneering.
I think most people who are familiar with most certs and accreditation in the industry would disagree there. First, the AMGA is a true association that provides oversight and committee analysis of its course content. The ACA lacks this element. Second, the AMGA is a governing agency of sorts that provides certs to third parties; the ACA is a private business with no oversight who ironically provides certs to competitors.
The value of the AMGA logo and name is much more than quality content. Its about oversight and community standards; this is inherently lacking in the ACA. They provide hard skills but can’t provide the same level of assurance without the all important by laws and oversight.
>>
Now here’s the dirty little secret. shhhh don’t tell.  Everyone in the canyoneering community particularly guides, including those that dislike and or hate Rich owe a great deal in terms of their knowledge to Rich and his training.  Now maybe that is why he is such a lightning rod.  Those that find they disagree with him in one way or another can’t if they are being intellectually honest divorce themselves from him or the ACA because of their training.  They have to face the fact that a lot of their expertise came from him, including you.  Yes I realize you gave him credit.  The fact is because of this, my concern about the ACA losing it’s clout as the king of bunker’s hill when it comes to being the best TRAINING organization out there is next to nill.  Moreover, maybe I’m just better at seperating my personal and professional live’s.  I have disagreement’s with Rich. I won’t let those get in the way of our professional relationship. ÂÂ
I am not as deterministic as Shane about the inevitable disenfranchisement people have with the ACA. However, I think you once again oversimplify my feedback. If you read my responses, I think you will notice how well I was able to separate my professional and personal live with Rich. However, Rich seems to be unable to do so (you would know that if you read this thread thoroughly). Rich’s interpersonal skills affect his professional interactions on a regular basis. His interpersonal skills are not about personal relationships; in fact, most businesses succeed or fail due to such soft skills, not there proficiency with hard skills.
> One final note.  I don’t know how to put this, but I’m kinda a big deal.  My name is all the clout I need in the canyoneering community.                                   Spidey >
I will assume you are being tongue-in-cheek. Your reputation precedes you. There is no doubt you have far exceeded my skill set; if you don’t know, I was kinda of a big deal…my name was “Risk Averse Ranger” on these forums years ago. But neither of our funny names matters in this conversation.
Phillip
cardlaw22
Well I named you, Spidey, aka Spider Man. Does that give me any clout??? 😉 hahahahahaha
Scott Card, and still Scott Card since I haven’t been cool since the 80’s.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
> One final note.  I don’t know how to put this, but I’m kinda a big deal.  My name is all the clout I need in the canyoneering community.                                   Spidey
Steven Jackson
Well no I’m not concerned about the ACA’s legal status at all, or beef’s that other’s have with Rich.  If they have beef’s that’s between them and Rich.  I consider Tom a very good friend and would do anything I could for him if asked, but his and Rich’s problems are just that his and Rich’s.  As are your’s As for Certifications, well since guiding climbing or canyoneering is not a licensed enterprise in the U.S.A. it becomes all about perception.  So the only currency that carries any weight is that.  An AMGA cert has credibility because they are perceived to provide the best TRAINING.  The ACA is in the same position when it come’s to canyoneering.  So as soon as there is another organization out there that is perceived to provide better more comprehensive TRAINING than the ACA, thereby diminishing the ACA’s clout.  Then I might consider getting their Cert.  Not because I need it for my proficiency (I didn’t need the ACA’s for that) simply for the perception of the general public, including the general canyoneering public.  So no the legal status, or inner workings, or corporate officer’s, or office politic’s, nor ACA water cooler talk matter’s to me.  The only corporations legal status, or operations I am concerned with is my own, as should you be. Now here’s the dirty little secret. shhhh don’t tell.  Everyone in the canyoneering community particularly guides, including those that dislike and or hate Rich owe a great deal in terms of their knowledge to Rich and his training.  Now maybe that is why he is such a lightning rod.  Those that find they disagree with him in one way or another can’t if they are being intellectually honest divorce themselves from him or the ACA because of their training.  They have to face the fact that a lot of their expertise came from him, including you.  Yes I realize you gave him credit.  The fact is because of this, my concern about the ACA losing it’s clout as the king of bunker’s hill when it comes to being the best TRAINING organization out there is next to nill.  Moreover, maybe I’m just better at seperating my personal and professional live’s.  I have disagreement’s with Rich. I won’t let those get in the way of our professional relationship.  One final note.  I don’t know how to put this, but I’m kinda a big deal.  My name is all the clout I need in the canyoneering community.                                   Spidey
— On Wed, 9/7/11, phil Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> wrote:
From: phil Happyfeet00@Hotmail.com> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances?? To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 6:30 PM
ÂÂ
I have to ask, Steve. From someone who financially benefits from the ACA name aren’t you actually concerned when individuals, at this point multiple, who have worked with Rich articulate consistent feedback and criticism? You carry multiple certifications through the ACA that affect the boy scouts and your private guiding business “Dark Horse”. Certifications and accreditations are largely symbolic currency. Their worth, mostly in the form of advertising, is only as valuable as the name ACA. In this case, there is analysis that the name ACA is over-valued and therefor every accredited business and and guides cert. may be worth less (this may be inaccurate or short lived). It seems like that would be impetus enough to analyze the substance, the true content not the shallow summations thus far presented, of the ideas and criticisms.
How does the expired legal status and therefor false claims of the ACA affect these businesses? How does the continuous term of Rich Carlson and lack of outside input into the curriculums of the ACA affect the financial values of courses and certs? How do these same problems affect the long term content and safety of the hard skills taught? How have the interpersonal problems of Rich Carlson affected the market value of the name ACA in geographic regions like southern California, or for that matter Zion?
Thats just a few questions I think every business that carries the logo of the ACA would truly benefit asking. That said, I can truly understand not wanting these questions asked in such a public manner, but, as Shane mentioned, this entire thread started when Rich turned a compliment into a bucket of crap. No one had this thread mapped out in this way until then.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
>
> Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂÂ
>
>
Steven Jackson
Never said the questions or the answers were wrong, or that the thread was inappropriate for this a canyoneering forum Shane.  All I said was this is a horse that has been beat to death many times.  Maybe reading is just not your thing.
— On Wed, 9/7/11, Ice Shane@Climb-Utah.com> wrote:
From: Ice Shane@Climb-Utah.com> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances?? To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 5:15 PM
ÂÂ
If discussion on an organization that supposedly represents a large cross section of canyoneers is not appropriate for this, a canyoneering forum, I don’t know what is. Just because you personally don’t like the questions being asked or the answers to those questions doesn’t make it wrong.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
>
> Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂÂ
Steven Jackson
We can have a discussion around a campfire any time Tom I am always up for that.  speaking of which we haven’t been out together in quite a while so we should definitely do that.  You assume to much when you assume I am drinking any kool-aid, I am just sick of this thread and find it to be trivial and pointless.  I don’t have the kind of time to waste that you and phil apparently do.
— On Wed, 9/7/11, TomJones ratagonia@gmail.com> wrote:
From: TomJones ratagonia@gmail.com> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances?? To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 1:09 PM
ÂÂ
Calling the ACA an “Association” implies some form of membership governance. Implies, not claims. I was a big supporter of the ACA when it was an Association mainly of Rich, Charley, Hank and I. Rich was always the driver. We had a disagreement about vision, so Rich took the ACA somewhere else, and made it a private business. For a few years he more or less ran it as an association, perhaps as a benevolent sole proprietorship. I was a major supporter of this version of the ACA until Rich and I had another falling out.
Many will think he still runs it as a benevolent sole proprietorship, and I have no opinion on the matter, as I have no current involvement.
Calling it an “Association” is a bit misleading. It has a Board, but not a Board of Directors, who have responsibility, only a Board of Advisors, who do not have responsibility.
Those who are still on the “in”, who have not yet been alienated by the Prez, consider it a benevolent sole proprietorship. More power to you.
Those of us who have been alienated consider calling it an “Association” to be close to fraudulent. The main point of this thread is that the ACA is not an “Association”, it is business run by Rich under a Nevada, single-person non-profit corporation – and that members of the community should be aware of this distinction (although many probably don’t care) when they render money unto Rich.
The sub-text/sideshow is that people like Phil are pissed off because they put time, money, effort (call it “heart”) into the ACA, and they got back what they got back, which was less than they expected.
Mr. Steven Jackson – perhaps we will have this same discussion with you, around a campfire (more appropriate) a few years hence, but in the meantime, enjoy the Koolaid.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
>
> Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂÂ
>
> — On Wed, 9/7/11, phil wrote:
>
phil
I have to ask, Steve. From someone who financially benefits from the ACA name aren’t you actually concerned when individuals, at this point multiple, who have worked with Rich articulate consistent feedback and criticism? You carry multiple certifications through the ACA that affect the boy scouts and your private guiding business “Dark Horse”. Certifications and accreditations are largely symbolic currency. Their worth, mostly in the form of advertising, is only as valuable as the name ACA. In this case, there is analysis that the name ACA is over-valued and therefor every accredited business and and guides cert. may be worth less (this may be inaccurate or short lived). It seems like that would be impetus enough to analyze the substance, the true content not the shallow summations thus far presented, of the ideas and criticisms.
How does the expired legal status and therefor false claims of the ACA affect these businesses? How does the continuous term of Rich Carlson and lack of outside input into the curriculums of the ACA affect the financial values of courses and certs? How do these same problems affect the long term content and safety of the hard skills taught? How have the interpersonal problems of Rich Carlson affected the market value of the name ACA in geographic regions like southern California, or for that matter Zion?
Thats just a few questions I think every business that carries the logo of the ACA would truly benefit asking. That said, I can truly understand not wanting these questions asked in such a public manner, but, as Shane mentioned, this entire thread started when Rich turned a compliment into a bucket of crap. No one had this thread mapped out in this way until then.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂ
bruce silliman
Ram wrote: ” You have trained scout leaders, SAR personnel, Native Americans and others for free, I believe. ”
I for one am a recipient of ‘free’ training from Rich. From my initial ‘basic’ course in 2006 to the ‘individual rescue’ course in 2007 I was a member of the Bryce Canyon NP SAR team and Rich gave me the training for nothing. Rich did not differentiate from a park like Bryce where we had lots of training but very few actual call outs, to a park like Zion NP where their training is extensive and continuing, AND they perform many, many actual SAR situations annually.
DISCLAIMER: Any deficiencies in my canyoneering abilities are not the result of Rich’s training but a lack of applying the techniques that I have learned.
I will always give credit where due to my growth in this sport: — from Shane who gave me the opportunity to take my first trip into a canyon and taught me to rappel from the back of his pickup. — Rich for all the ACA training courses and his expertise in teaching them to someone who doesn’t always get it. — Ram who invited me to the North Wash with only the promise of “one canyon” but the possibility of more “if he felt I could handle it” — Tom, who when I asked how I could improve myself, told me I should “improve my wardrobe” — Tim while descending one of the ‘wives’ in capitol reef when someone asked if I could down climb the last rappel, succinctly said, “nope Bruce can’t do it” — To everyone and anyone else I have done a canyon with and who offered me advice on how to accomplish the particular task at hand. I always considered it a training exercise when given those helpful suggestions.
Have a great day and I am not getting enough ‘canyon days’ here in Las Vegas.
And definitely keep the discussions going!
bruce from bryce On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Ice Shane@climb-utah.com> wrote:
> **
> If discussion on an organization that supposedly represents a large cross > section of canyoneers is not appropriate for this, a canyoneering forum, I > don’t know what is. Just because you personally don’t like the questions > being asked or the answers to those questions doesn’t make it wrong.
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has > association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely > enough to the definition of an association correct? Â So your upset over a > name or a definition as it were. Â SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you > can operate it by the strictest definition of that word. Â That or PLEASE > shut up. Â This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing. > Â Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it. Â Good grief.Â
>
phil
Professional beef (something like Kobe) and no coveting. But feel free to write this off as something much simpler than it truly is.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “cardlaw22” wrote:
Seems like the only ones wanting to continue this discussion and “get to the bottom of this” are those who have a personal beef with Rich and/or covet the name that is not theirs. Seriously…. start your own “association” or what ever you want to call it.
And no Kool Aid here, I don’t even have a cup at the table. No membership, no certification, no nothing other than I have met Rich a few times. However, I do know a thing or two about corporate organizations, and again…. seriously, start your own. It is easy. Running it and keeping up with it is another question entirely, but go ahead and get your own darn company and make yourself a ceo, a pres. a cfo or any other title. It is easy for sure. Is there not a better name than American Canyoneering Association? Can’t ya’lls come up with something and run it yourselves? It is the American way to compete. So please, just do it. Also, I have never thought that Rich or the ACA represented me. I never thought that if I joined he would represent me. I would join for training and for information. If he went out and lobbied and said it was for me I would revoke my membership if I didn’t like it. Simple enough.
Still scratching my head over the furor of this thread. Seems that some here think that if they buy a Dodge that entitles them ownership in the company and gives them a voice at the table. Ahhhh, no.
Back to work.
Scott Card
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Ice” wrote:
If discussion on an organization that supposedly represents a large cross section of canyoneers is not appropriate for this, a canyoneering forum, I don’t know what is. Just because you personally don’t like the questions being asked or the answers to those questions doesn’t make it wrong.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂ
>
cardlaw22
Seems like the only ones wanting to continue this discussion and “get to the bottom of this” are those who have a personal beef with Rich and/or covet the name that is not theirs. Seriously…. start your own “association” or what ever you want to call it.
And no Kool Aid here, I don’t even have a cup at the table. No membership, no certification, no nothing other than I have met Rich a few times. However, I do know a thing or two about corporate organizations, and again…. seriously, start your own. It is easy. Running it and keeping up with it is another question entirely, but go ahead and get your own darn company and make yourself a ceo, a pres. a cfo or any other title. It is easy for sure. Is there not a better name than American Canyoneering Association? Can’t ya’lls come up with something and run it yourselves? It is the American way to compete. So please, just do it. Also, I have never thought that Rich or the ACA represented me. I never thought that if I joined he would represent me. I would join for training and for information. If he went out and lobbied and said it was for me I would revoke my membership if I didn’t like it. Simple enough.
Still scratching my head over the furor of this thread. Seems that some here think that if they buy a Dodge that entitles them ownership in the company and gives them a voice at the table. Ahhhh, no.
Back to work.
Scott Card
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Ice” wrote:
If discussion on an organization that supposedly represents a large cross section of canyoneers is not appropriate for this, a canyoneering forum, I don’t know what is. Just because you personally don’t like the questions being asked or the answers to those questions doesn’t make it wrong.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief. >
Ice
If discussion on an organization that supposedly represents a large cross section of canyoneers is not appropriate for this, a canyoneering forum, I don’t know what is. Just because you personally don’t like the questions being asked or the answers to those questions doesn’t make it wrong.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂ
phil
I will add three things to Tom’s idea:
1) I obviously need to analyze my personal approach on this more as I think I have failed to communicate well. That said, I have to be vulnerable to the perception this is more personal than professional.
2) I have communicated these ideas late in the game compared to many folks. I like to think this is more professional than personal, could be wrong; need to be introspective about the topic.
3) The one difference I see is that I think the community needs another organization that actually represents it and follow the positive examples in the industry that already exists (AMGA, etc). In that context, I think people need to continue to put pressure on the ACA either to change and accept the obligations of its title or abandon the name and assumed authority. Rich could continue to make the same or more money with a name change as his direct product is of high quality. But it is inaccurate and unethical for Rich to reap the social rewards of the ACA, which seems to have honestly died several years ago. It is extremely problematic for one individual to control the ethical and practical authority of canyoneering and its related skill sets. It is a serious conflict of interest (which goes well beyond profits) for a single person to accredit and certify people without true committees and boards.
Who knows, it may be time to move not a different forum to analyze these issues. I think the next step for me is to FOIA the various agencies, especially the BLM and NPS, regarding their interactions with the ACA. I am professionally uncomfortable with the preferential treatment the ACA receives and I need concrete evidence of that to proceed.
Phillip
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
Calling the ACA an “Association” implies some form of membership governance. Implies, not claims. I was a big supporter of the ACA when it was an Association mainly of Rich, Charley, Hank and I. Rich was always the driver. We had a disagreement about vision, so Rich took the ACA somewhere else, and made it a private business. For a few years he more or less ran it as an association, perhaps as a benevolent sole proprietorship. I was a major supporter of this version of the ACA until Rich and I had another falling out.
Many will think he still runs it as a benevolent sole proprietorship, and I have no opinion on the matter, as I have no current involvement.
Calling it an “Association” is a bit misleading. It has a Board, but not a Board of Directors, who have responsibility, only a Board of Advisors, who do not have responsibility.
Those who are still on the “in”, who have not yet been alienated by the Prez, consider it a benevolent sole proprietorship. More power to you.
Those of us who have been alienated consider calling it an “Association” to be close to fraudulent. The main point of this thread is that the ACA is not an “Association”, it is business run by Rich under a Nevada, single-person non-profit corporation – and that members of the community should be aware of this distinction (although many probably don’t care) when they render money unto Rich.
The sub-text/sideshow is that people like Phil are pissed off because they put time, money, effort (call it “heart”) into the ACA, and they got back what they got back, which was less than they expected.
Mr. Steven Jackson – perhaps we will have this same discussion with you, around a campfire (more appropriate) a few years hence, but in the meantime, enjoy the Koolaid.
Tom
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂ
— On Wed, 9/7/11, phil wrote:
>
phil
Why so aggressive?
Its not the sole purpose or content of the thread; I am also not the only one keeping the thread alive so please don’t summarize it in such a simplistic and inaccurate manner.
A dead horse doesn’t antagonize and vocalize itself the way Rich has done over the past two weeks. This dead horse has tried to present itself as one of the healthiest studs in the ring.
I am sorry some folks don’t seem to care or believe that the manner in which the ACA has affected our community has its noticeable problems along with its oft applauded benefits. The business problems with an organization run by a single person controlling the moral and ethical authority of “good” canyoneering is important and I think needs more public analysis. Rich has received tons of authority from the manner in which he has presented the ACA, a manner which is inconsistent with its internal operations and public behavior. These situations aren’t solely based on the quality of the hard skills Rich teaches.
Once again, why does the ACA receive special treatment in one of the most rigidly permitted National Parks in the nation? Why has the ACA carried professional and moral superiority over other private businesses like ATS? What is the true business structure of the ACA in regards to specific laws? And is the ACA permitted properly on the lands it utilize? The answers are rooted in complex issues that have direct influences on our community.
I ask you not insult me and to honestly engage my ideas. Either that or ignore the thread, which in itself is fairly easy.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂ
— On Wed, 9/7/11, phil wrote:
From: phil To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 11:40 AM
> ÂÂ
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “mike_dallin” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone” wrote:
I am looking forward to reading the lists of specifics. How much time, money and/or services did each of these people contribute to the ACA compared to the time, money and/or services I provided to each of them?
Misery poker. http://on.wsj.com/s5ZZA
Eeeh, I have played a few too many hands in that game. The term wasn’t in my Lexicon until today but my wife and I have had conversations about how that very trend had escalated in our lifestyle and marriage. Takes hard work and communication skills to deal with it; hard but worthwhile effort.
Phillip
>
TomJones
Calling the ACA an “Association” implies some form of membership governance. Implies, not claims. I was a big supporter of the ACA when it was an Association mainly of Rich, Charley, Hank and I. Rich was always the driver. We had a disagreement about vision, so Rich took the ACA somewhere else, and made it a private business. For a few years he more or less ran it as an association, perhaps as a benevolent sole proprietorship. I was a major supporter of this version of the ACA until Rich and I had another falling out.
Many will think he still runs it as a benevolent sole proprietorship, and I have no opinion on the matter, as I have no current involvement.
Calling it an “Association” is a bit misleading. It has a Board, but not a Board of Directors, who have responsibility, only a Board of Advisors, who do not have responsibility.
Those who are still on the “in”, who have not yet been alienated by the Prez, consider it a benevolent sole proprietorship. More power to you.
Those of us who have been alienated consider calling it an “Association” to be close to fraudulent. The main point of this thread is that the ACA is not an “Association”, it is business run by Rich under a Nevada, single-person non-profit corporation – and that members of the community should be aware of this distinction (although many probably don’t care) when they render money unto Rich.
The sub-text/sideshow is that people like Phil are pissed off because they put time, money, effort (call it “heart”) into the ACA, and they got back what they got back, which was less than they expected.
Mr. Steven Jackson – perhaps we will have this same discussion with you, around a campfire (more appropriate) a few years hence, but in the meantime, enjoy the Koolaid.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
Phil, you seem to be mainly upset by the fact that the ACA has association in their name, and according to you doesn’t operate closely enough to the definition of an association correct?  So your upset over a name or a definition as it were.  SO START YOUR OWN ASSOCIATION, then you can operate it by the strictest definition of that word.  That or PLEASE shut up.  This thread is a bad joke that you seem hell bent on continuing.  Can’t you recognize a dead horse while your beating it.  Good grief.ÂÂ
— On Wed, 9/7/11, phil wrote: >