Committees ??

[rcwild]

One way for the ACA to pursue various issues and projects could be through committees. Here are a few possible ideas:

Professional-Technical Committee
Tasked with keeping current on techniques and skills by following international practices, evaluating accidents, etc. Communicates current best practices through instructors via courses and forums. Should consist of members with solid technical skills. Not sure how members would be selected.

Canyon Leader Committee
Already exists. Tasked with reviewing applications, organizing exams, coordinating mentoring, making decisions regarding advancement, etc. All members are ACA Canyon Leaders. Current members were selected by Board. Future members should be elected from among Canyon Leaders.

Access and Environmental Issues Committee
Tasked with identifying issues and coming up with ideas to address them. I believe most issues will come up at local/regional levels and should be addressed at local/regional levels. Sometimes issues come up in locations that are considered major destinations (i.e. Zion) and are of a concern to many more canyoneers. I would propose this committee consist of one member from each geographic area (chapters). We could solicit volunteers for this committee and let them select their own committee chairman. Or we could ask one volunteer to serve as the chairman and task him/her with soliciting volunteers and organizing the committee. This committee could look to the Access Fund (http://www.accessfund.org) for ideas, i.e. Adopt-a-Canyon.

Boy Scout Program Committee
Tasked with overseeing the Junior Canyon Leader program. Perhaps there should be Boy Scout specific chapters in areas like Salt Lake City that have very active canyoneering programs within Scouts.

University Program Committee
The ACA was a member of the Association for Outdoor Recreation Education (AORE) for a year. I didn't have time to get very involved, but we now have a number of universities in Utah, California, Oregon and Taiwan (so far) that are interested in programs affiliated with the ACA. All have recreational outdoor programs. Some have recreation management degree programs. Primary interest seems to be offering a Canyon Leader program to students. Perhaps each university should organize an ACA chapter. If this committee exists, it is obvious that it will need to be staffed by representatives from the universities.

Chapters
Not committees, per se, but groups formed on a local/regional basis that can provide venues for social functions, rendezvous, etc.

Your thoughts? Opinions and/or ideas regarding these proposed committees? Ideas for other committees? Willing to volunteer?

[Gertjan]

Even as I am not an American member of the ACA, I am very interested in what is going on in this association. As active European canyonist (the European canyoneer in almost only vertical technical water canyons) I am truly interested in which techniques are common used by the ACA and why. What is the way of thinking of the American canyoneers by doing this great sport. Hopefully I can follow soon a couple of Courses.

That's why I think a professional-technical committee and a canyon leader committee are good to have in the ACA. I am pro collaboration between international canyoneering and canyoning association. For the Dutch canyonists I have set up such a collaboration between the European associations (with French, Spanish, Germans, Italians and so on) but would be great to have also overseas contact to work together with American Canyoneering ass. to learn from you the techniques used and discuss and think about these to develope new, safer, better techniques to make this outdoorsport as safe as possibel on an enjoyable way.
I'm looking forward in the results of this poll.

[rcwild]

... work together with American Canyoneering ass.

That would be me. :spank: :D

Looking forward to meeting you, Gertjan. We are always interested in sharing ideas within the international community.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but our forums are open to members of other recognized associations, too. Intent is to encourage more exchange.

[dancrev]

I voted for the access and environmental issues committee but I don't think the ACA should get too involved in divisive politics. I see the committee as a way that the ACA can stay on top of what is going on in those political circles, and help make members and the public aware of what our local, state and federal government are doing... without spin! It might also work the other way around where a government agency may ask what the canyoneering community thinks about "A". The committee might respond that 80% of our members would agree with "A" and 20% would prefer "B" (for example). I also think it could take on functions of a service committee as well, and maybe outreach issues telling people, hey, this is who we are and this is what we do.

Universities can have clubs for just about everything! I think a student body at a university can choose to create an official club at that school, and then become a student branch of the local regional ACA chapter. Students tend to graduate, and if the requirement is that each chapter have at least two Canyon Leaders then it's possible all of the CL's could graduate leaving a university chapter in bad standing. Having it attached to a regional chapter might provide some stability.

[rcwild]

Universities can have clubs for just about everything! I think a student body at a university can choose to create an official club at that school, and then become a student branch of the local regional ACA chapter. Students tend to graduate, and if the requirement is that each chapter have at least two Canyon Leaders then it's possible all of the CL's could graduate leaving a university chapter in bad standing. Having it attached to a regional chapter might provide some stability.

At each university I have talked with so far, at least one member of the faculty has expressed interest in becoming a Canyon Leader.

[gas1]

I just wanted to clarify my voting on this poll. Hopefully it will help as number do not always tell the full story.

I think training is the most important thing that the ACA does and that should be the main focus. However I do believe that these other committees could be a good things given that there are enough members willing to give of their time and effort to make it happen without it taking away from the training aspect but it shouldn't be the ACA priority.

More specifically I would also like to addresses my opinion on the Environmental and Access Committee idea. I think all canyoneers probably do and should care about the environment issues but there are already organizations to address these issues. If members feel they need to do something to help then they should support one or more of these organizations. I don't think that the ACA needs to be involved other than promoting the idea of stewardship of our canyons while we enjoy them. Which I believe the ACA already does.

As for access issues this might be good for many canyoneers. Keeping and expanding the canyons that we can do. I would be willing to give of my time for this just let me know if there is anything I can do.

Let the members willing to step up to the plate and get these done do it. If there aren't enough members willing to get it done then oh well, training is the most important thing.

It might also help Rich if someone was willing to be a committee overseer. Basically to help the members organize the committees without it all sitting on Rich's shoulders. I don't know if that would really work - just an idea.

[mountain man]

Like the idea of a professional-technical committee, would volunteer but don’t think I'm qualified. Same with canyon leader committee, good idea but I'm currently not qualified.

I think the access committee is a good idea and it doesn't have to be too political for the ACA to get involved. I like what some of those Grand Canyon Canyoneers are doing with access working with the rangers. They are taking the rangers out on these long canyon trips. Exposes the rangers to a part of the park they've never seen. Rangers love it, want to do more of it and have spoken favorably during the current writing of its backcountry plan. Now there is a possibility that the park could close the door only wanting to preserve the fun for them, but I think working with access mangers nearly ends up better than fighting against. I hope this is the case.

Think all the committees are good ideas if there is enough support for it to function on its own.