Do we need/want a Canyoneering Association?

Be careful for what is asked for, and for what one suggests.

Generally I compliment overall “themes” re advocacy, but after watching and particpating in the evolution of canyoneering in Utah, and after particpating first hand in or with “advocacy groups” re Zion, Arches, N Wash and elsewhere, it’s a bit of an illusion to think that one association can validly look out for the constellation of interests that canyoneers (these days) have.

Personally I like the idea of a “coalition” of canyoneers, organized “in some loose fashion” for each state – and nothing larger. A separate “something” for Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington or elsewhere. I have never sensed a need for or wanted a national or (American)canyoneering association.

In the Intermountain West, most/many canyons are within Forest Service, BLM, Natural Recreation Area or Park Service boundaries. A universal “plea” that most often arises relates to user “access” and then within that access narrative is/are questions relating to suggested or mandated user limits, guiding, safety, resource protection and other issues.

I’ve been in rooms where (canyon)guides, school groups and “plain citizens” address wilderness issues, promotion, group sizes and resource protection and it’s always at very different angles that each group (most often) speaks. As to wilderness, there are supporters, opponents and a large apathetic crowd. As to access, one group wants access to anything and everything and others a more moderate approach. As to group size, some say skies the limit and others endorse govt suggested numbers. As to promotion, of activity and area, are numerous views too.

With groups, associations, organizations, there is always a need (by some) for CONTROL so that their interests, values and desires hold sway. Some individuals or “clans” don’t wish to give up control. And these days, if a group wants to have real (valid) clout, it needs to have a web site, be incorporated, have bylaws, officers, a board – and be diverse and synergetic. (and have a slipstream of money too)

But the kicker I guess is, what “voice” does a statewide canyon group offer when it comes to places like Zion, Arches, Glen Canyon, Grand Canyon or elsewhere? Maybe mini organizations that take a heightened interest in a geographical area? Otherwise, the field is too wide and diverse for “one advocacy group” (canyoneering assoc.) to speak for all the spectrum of interests? And when one or two try to or do speak, do they adequately or fairly (in their style, manner and sentiment)look out for the interests of “just what size of a group”?

I don’t wish to be a pessimist. And I certainly support advocacy groups and individuals that can offer passionate “representative” views to governmental interests. But play the “role” of a Park official (in Zion, Arches, Glen Cyn or Grand Cyn) and I know for a fact that some “canyon” voices would bellow, “Don’t dare limit canyoneers” and another group would follow with “Yes, you had better impose some limits, and in turn, some sort of a permit system (forthcomming in Arches, I’m sure).

*Do I love the permit system in Zion? Quite the opposite. Do I look forward to the “same” in Arches though? A foregone conclusion I think.

The global, the earth’s, the American….canyoneering association (and then divine, as we have, that’s it’s a sole proprietorship. Control, control, control….who wants control?; or are there some that can put down their swords and work for the interests of the greater good? Myself, I like smaller, regional, transparent organizations whose “actors” and “actions” are open, and are subject to critique and compliment. Can, should such statewide canyon groups arise? Frankly, I’m reticent to recommend.

— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “cyber_rager” wrote:

This is a great question.

I would say yes the community needs to be organized and I think for several reasons:

1) A single voice for the various government agencies to talk to when issues come up, could include access, conservation, volunteering, whatever

2) A single organization to provide support for rondys. i.e. advertising, a central place for people to learn of the various activities and such.

3) Training. A single organization provides a forum to discuss current best practices for what should be taught at a minimum level and what advanced techniques should be taught. Also provides a place for holding all the reports from rope testing to gear testing etc.

4) A place for people to bring a diverse viewpoints and discuss issues.

I kind of think that if there isn’t a single organization, then there probably will be many different ones with their own ideas, goals and viewpoints so the non-bolters can have their own group and the bolters can have their own group and then you can mix in the ATS and maybe we can finally have a good explanation of what the West Coast Canyoneering Method really is besides a marketing tool.

Watch out, this could be chaos, dogs dating cats….

Scott >