ACA Stances??

There are ways to influence the industry without issuing liscences, per say. In fact, it involves increasing the symbolic value of the association name with government and insurance agencies. I am out of the industry for the most part, at least financially. We aren’t likely to see eye-to-eye on much but we don’t need to. The benefit of true associations is you can voice your opinions, vote and move on. Which I would be willing to do if I knew I was heard in a professional platform.

Dead horse, wasting time, traitor, complainer, ungrateful whipper-snapper etc etc etc …. To be honest, they are all weak insults that lack substance.

All that said, it will likely be time to move on. Rich has shown known no interest in actually engaging a thread that was initially intended to provide constructive feedback. Over time it became tangential and at moments personal, though by no means is Rich an innocent victim of that behavior. So what it boils down to is the fact that the ACA plans on remaining a monarchy issuing inflated currency. The hard skills are strong and worth a lot on their own. The rendezvous offer legal questions that remain unanswered, though a FOIA request and phone calls to Zion may answer them. The legal status of the ACA “non-profit” claim seems dubious at best right now. The legal status of permits needed to operate on public lands in the Cedar region has been questioned but not answered by a former employee (may turn into pure conjecture but the trend makes the line of questions worthwhile).

It may be a dead horse, but its got a pinnate-full of important goods and relevant questions lining its stomach.

Phillip

Phillip

— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Steven Jackson wrote:
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 wrote:
From: phil 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

> >