Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2010 - 12:05pm PT
|
Thanks to Apogee for laying that out.
I will only add to why guiding is such a tenuous career path in North America. So different from Europe, where there are 1300 guides in Chamonix alone. That's far more really than all the seriously working guides in the US.
Here's the crux: In Europe there's a strong tradition among the general population that if you go climbing of course you hire a guide. Here it's very different. Here we have a strongly independent spirit that says if I'm going to take up climbing I'll work my way into it on my own. Yeah, they might take a beginner class or even a few of them, but the general trajectory of a new climber is do-it-yourself. As a spirit of getting into it, that's a great thing. Self-sufficiency.
As a market for guides to draw from, though, it sucks. Until that changes, and I don't see that happening any decade soon, guiding will remain a fringe profession with more people wanting to be guides than there are customers to support. That supply-demand equation leads directly to the low wage scale and limited opportunity.
That's why the jokes about trustafarian guides. Their competence and professionalism can be stellar, but that doesn't equal a career.
|
|
Flanders!
Trad climber
June Lake, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2010 - 05:12pm PT
|
In checking the websites today I see the following:
AMGA SPI course: 440, assessment 230...........= 670 (fox mtn guides)
PCGI SPI course: 450, assessment 200............=650 ?
PCIA Base Managed: 525, assessment ? (allan jolley)
*Cost wise I'm not seeing a great benefit from the fringe groups (PCIA, PCGI)
*Add to that some wacky curriculum; i.e.
"PCGI created and provides the first and so far only "Learning Disabilities Program" for learning disabled students involved in professional climbing guide training, education and assessment standards. Currently PCGI is the only climbing guide training and assessment organization in the United States providing specialized programing for people with learning disabilities. PCGI students with learning disabilities are encouraged to supply their mentors or assessors with appropriate documentation of disability and also provide detailed accommodation suggestions from a professional in the field of learning disabilities. After this information is submitted and reviewed, many standard accommodations can be provided such as:
Quiet as possible and separate assessment areas.
One on one teaching of technical systems, separated from other students.
Extra/private tutoring during and after courses.
Adaptive and alternative teaching solutions.
Audio and/or video taped course and assessment sessions.
Breaking large amounts of information or instructions into smaller segments.
Alternative evaluation methods."
*As stated before, not everyone is cut out to be a guide ! Quiet as possible...one on one...breaking the info into smaller segments. Say What ? It's not always quiet out there ! It is common to have allot of people in the climbing area ! How small a segment ? Give me a break, there are some things to deal with in outdoors that are stressful, and challenging. It is a REQUIREMENT of the industry that a person in a leadership role be able to handle this in a functional manner.
Re: the client pool; A guide that only wants to facilitate top rope climbing can be busy for a few months each season. The guide that wants to lead short rock climbs has only a limited season. If you want to make a decent career out of this it is beneficial to diversify; rock in the summer, ice in the winter, ski in the spring, etc. Add to this teaching avalanche courses, map & compass, GPS, etc. A guide can be quite busy if they chose to diversify, adjust to the seasons, and this helps to keep the guide fresh, excited, motivated. It is a challenging way to make a living, but is there a career that doesn't require much effort ? If so, it may not be worth it !
Again, I make the point that the fringe groups have pretty much just copied the AMGA courses, curriculum and that THEY LEAD NO WHERE ! If a person will only instruct TR or Single Pitch Climbing at a church camp, college, Scout facility then the AMGA SPI course gives them the requisite tools at a reasonable price with an organization that has international credibility and connections.
Doug (the younger one, and the one with all his teeth)
|
|
billygoat
climber
Pees on beard to seek mates.
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2010 - 07:02pm PT
|
Not as if it's unusual for these parts, but this thread seems to be filled with arguments based on speculation and a general lack of first hand experience. Then there's Doug (DR, that is). Doug's pretty humble, so it's fair if some of you aren't aware of the extent of his experience and familiarity with the scene. That said, it's also fair to say he has a metaphorical doctorate in the subject of guiding.
But back to what I was saying, as in the above post:
"One day to learn the ropes and equipment (with self practice after) is usually all that's needed."
Care to substantiate what appears to be a bogus claim?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2010 - 01:55pm PT
|
Doug N, I'm a little confused about your position- can you clarify a couple of things...?:
Do you believe that rock climbing instructor programs that focus primarily on top rope/single pitch activities are useful to individuals and industry? Do you believe the AMGA's efforts to originally develop the TRSM program were well-founded?
I'm not trying to goad you on this- I'm genuinely unsure of your position, and value your perspective on the issue.
|
|
The Wedge
Boulder climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2010 - 02:36pm PT
|
Do you believe that rock climbing instructor programs that focus primarily on top rope/single pitch activities are useful to individuals and industry? Do you believe the AMGA's efforts to originally develop the TRSM program were well-founded?
Man I hate to get involved. After pursing the AMGA track and guiding for 13 years I am going back to school for nursing. Many changes have happen in the AMGA, some are positive some are negative.
I do not believe the RIC focus on TRing. There focus should be on guiding grade 1-3 routes, with some short-roping and route finding. I sure ANYONE, out there taking a course will walk away with other ideas and ways of doing certain task. With majority of the rock in the US being Grade 1-3 (mostly back east and college programs)it would make sense. The TRSM course( a was a provider and taught classes) was a first a good idea, many of the guides in the US were dealing with a lot of common Gym problems outside and that that it would make a good transition to keep all the guides on the same page. NOW though it seems that the AMGA is just a business out to make money at whatever cost. I am current not satisfied with the AMGA and the way they are handling thing.
But I agree with FLANDERS AND THE DR. on many of the topics...good luck.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2010 - 03:49pm PT
|
I'm about as old-time as they come on this site. And among other things, I did guide for several years, although in my case it was as a way to help finance graduate school in mathematics---I never thought of it as a viable full-time occupation. I was making $100--$120 a day for a day of cragging with a single client thirty years ago, which sounds about the same as what people are making now, indicating a substantial decline in the real value of guide's compensation over the years.
The requirements when I started guiding were the ability to have business cards printed up. Any one could declare themselves a guide, and did. There were highly competent people out there doing it, and there were complete turkeys---caveat emptor. Most of us saw some astonishing examples of incompetence, as well as encountering very good climbers who paid so little attention to their responsibilities as a guides as to be only a slightly less risky proposition than the turkey contingent.
I'm sympathetic to the concerns expressed by folks like Werner, and have no current knowledge about the inner workings and politics of the guide certifying industry, but you couldn't have been involved in guiding back when I was and not seen clearly the need for some kind of certifying process, both to protect the public and ultimately to protect the competent guides from the regulation backlash that would have inevitably resulted from the failures of the incompetent.
As for the profession itself, I found it both rewarding and exhausting. You have to love the process of imparting knowledge and be willing to devote real mental energy to thinking about how best to do it, otherwise you are definitely in the wrong job.
I was lucky enough to have a few clients who could climb hard stuff, enabling me to spend some of my days guiding 5.10's (which was a fairly high level thirty years ago). But the bulk of one's time is going to be spent with beginners and people who are not beginners but who are unlikely, for various perfectly good reasons, to progress very much. This means drudging up the same easy routes day after day, to the point where the climbing aspect of the job becomes routine and tedious. I can easily see how doing this for a long time would leave a person stuck in the guiding profession while hating climbing. There were certainly days that ended early for some reason when I could have gone climbing myself, but all I wanted to do was to get away from the cliffs and do something else.
I think it is critical for those contemplating a guiding life to be clear that it is the relationships with the client that are of primary interest to them, because it seems to me that the climbing itself will eventually recede in interest and attractiveness. I did enjoy these relationships, and after all I have a career as a professor which means I'm in the business of passing on knowledge, but I must say that on a personal level I rediscovered many of the aspects of climbing that originally drew me to it and continue, after more than fifty years, to engage me only after I gave up guiding and returned to being an amateur.
I met some aspirant guides in Red Rocks a few years ago when the AMGA was holding exams there. I don't think anyone who met these people could fail to be impressed with their commitment to their chosen profession, their incredible level of fitness and climbing skill, and their knowledge of specialized guiding techniques. There is no question in my mind that these people were way better guides than most of us were BITD, and this is surely in part a result of the high standards set by the certifying organizations.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2010 - 08:36pm PT
|
It is no mystery why a professional class of guides organically blossomed in Europe, especially in Western Europe, where mountain culture is so integral a part of the larger culture and, in some countries, the national identity. In the US, there is no such mountain culture shared on a national level (only regionally), so a professional class of guides never arose until the adventure sports revolution exploded in the 1970s, leading to the Extreme Sport movement of the 1990s and beyond.
The problem is that "extreme sports" such as climbing had no history or tradition of being embedded in the national culture. Ergo there was no history of real money being associated with climbing, as there was with other sports like football, baseball, etc, which have long been spectator sports and by virtue of all the media coverage, have long been part of popular culture - across the board.
Even with the explosion of outdoor education programs, the activities themselves are still considered recreational pursuits because unlike basketball or even surfing, there is no "professional class" of climbers who's exploits are covered in mainstream media as anything but periodic, human interest events. Attempts to integrate climbing into even specialized general media venues like the X Games failed in the end, and aside from photos on North Face and Patagonia hang tags, climbers are only bit players in the national culture and national consciousness.
The end result is that in the US, money is not associated with climbing, which is seen as a pursuit that even top end performers chase mainly for "fun." It's great that outdoor education has made learning the ropes easier and safer, but this has not changed the "value" of the activity in the culture's eyes.
For instance, if you were to get private basketball instruction from Kobe Bryant or LeBron James, $10,000 a day would not sound unreasonable since huge money is associated with basketball, and these two dudes are tops in the field. Real stars and gazillionairs. But charging $10,000 for a days guiding at Yosemite sounds preposterous because climbing has no such history or association with big dough. The perception is that the best performers are really just highly skilled nobodies, and the activity, though potentially fatal, is really just screwing around, people having fun.
The result is that the money is simply not there to get. You can make the guides the most professional in the world, charge them 100 grand to get certified, convince every mother and father that their child will surly perish if guided by anyone but the certified article (how irresponsible and heartless of dad to even think of doing such a thing, right?), but you will still not boost the standard fees above survival wages because the market is not there.
Like many others, I guided during my grad school days and thought it was one of the hardest, most underappreciated and vastly underpaid jobs on earth - a total rip off to a skilled climber and instructor. But that's just how it is here in America. The idea that by making the guides more professional will increase the money people are willing to pay is not something the market actually bears out to any meaningful degree.
JL
|
|
billygoat
climber
Pees on beard to seek mates.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2010 - 10:02pm PT
|
I agree, but want to point out that last month a winning bid of $2100 got a day of climbing with Chris Sharma for an access fund benifit. A second couple immediately matched that bid for their own day. Not $10,000, but certainly not pennies. And, considering the amount of money that gets thrown around in climbing compared to basketball, $2100 for a day climbing with a top climber is quite a figure to be so easily matched during these harsh economic times.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2010 - 10:32pm PT
|
Just somebody who was going to give to the access fund anyway. Bet Chris can't get $2000 on his own from anyone.
Even the wages Apogee posted earlier seem unreally high. It's actually the lower skilled guides who make more cause they teach classes where they get 60% of 8 people's money rather than high level private guides (yms style) who get 60% of $283 for a full day.
Peace
karl
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2010 - 10:51pm PT
|
Karl, at the low end of rock instruction (not truly 'guiding' in my book, but many refer to it that way anyway), compensation rates may vary according to their relationship with a program or employer. Some guide services pay their guides/instructors as Independent Contractors, and do so under a percentage arrangement such as you described. While they can do ok as long as the instructor:participant ratio is high, it is also common for lower ratios, and correspondingly lower compensation. As far as state labor laws are concerned, that person is not an employee, and is supposedly completely independent in how they provide their services. When programs provide the equipment for instruction, define the content of the instruction, and tell clients where/when to meet, it creates a stronger impression of an employer-employee relationship. The relevance of this relationship is related to compensation- theoretically, that person is also supposed to be providing the equipment, at their own cost.
In other programs, guides/instructors are paid as true employees, which means they are subject to the usual payroll taxes and worker's compensation (if the operational areas require it). These employees also tend to have much clearer coverage by the program's general liability policies. Under this structure, daily wages tend to be somewhat less.
Having said this, not all programs adhere strictly to these employer-employee or IC relationships, and in my experience, many programs don't truly understand the technicalities.
Daily rates can vary widely at the lower levels of technical instruction- programs that focus specifically on technical skills tend to compensate on the higher end of the $80-$200 range I described. Programs that are more experiential in nature (i.e. outdoor programs that provide services to schools), summer camps, etc. tend to compensate on the lower end.
|
|
billygoat
climber
Pees on beard to seek mates.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 12:37am PT
|
Karl, there's only one way to put that bet to the test, and it's not going to happen because of a tacostand thread. That said, I'm willing to bet you're wrong. At yesterdays UBC boulding comp in Baltimore, hundreds of people paid $20 a pop to watch the pro-finals. Packed house, sell out, could have sold more tickets if there'd been space. It's more the gym/urban crowd that's willing to shell out the bucks. The dirtbag and weekend warrior crowd tend to be in it for different reasons. Ever been in a crowded gym when Chris shows up? The atmosphere practically reeks of people ready to piss themselves, and the sense that people would be willing to shell out big bucks to hang with the star is very real.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 01:24am PT
|
Here's the thing goat bro. My guess is that if any of those folks offered Chris $1000 a day to climb with them, he'd jump at it, so why offer him $2100? Sure there's a few folks what would pay big bucks to climb with Sharma, but could he get it regularly? I doubt it.
Regarding Apogee's post, I was mostly questioning even guides at Doug's level getting $250 to $400 a day. At YMS, even an extreme day is only $317 of which the guide gets 60% (plus benefits) but if it's his own business, he has to pay his own overhead and benefits out of the fee. Big walls are $500 a day and practically no one is doing big walls as their weekly gig.
So the money is in classes.
Peace
karl
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 01:34am PT
|
So the money is in classes.
There it is .... it's all about the money.
That means .... they're ultimately not real guides.
A real guide will take you to where money can't go.
They're money men.
It's a business, now I'm guide show you to the top.
If it was the real top, why come back down?
Climbing is not a sport or business although 99.999999% think so.
Do you really know why you're doing it ....... ?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 01:56am PT
|
"So the money is in classes. "
I suppose that if compensation potential is simply based on effort/time exerted as related to compensation rate, that this statement is true. Teaching a beginning rock climbing class for 6 people in a 7 hour day is a whole lot less physically stressful than one very long day guiding Mendel Couloir for two clients. Doing the math, you'd certainly make more teaching beginning rock climbing at Iris Slab in Rock Creek.
However, any of the career guides/instructors I've ever encountered envisions themselves, and aspires to, something much grander. Teaching such beginner classes is mind-numbingly dull, and is nowhere near as stimulating (for guide & client) as a long route on a mountain.
It's worth keeping in mind, though, that almost no guide/instructor works 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year, pulling any of these salary ranges. Work is seasonal, and as others have mentioned, most guides/instructors have several other employers (or a completely different vocation) that fills out their working schedule.
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
sonora
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2010 - 02:18am PT
|
I took a friend of 10 years for his first climb outside on Friday.
Experiential learning:
First Munginella and then Selaginella. On Munginella he was slow but fine.
Later...
I think it took him at least an hour to second the first pitch of Selaginella.
Thats when I started counting the remaining hours of daylight.
By the time we walked back into Camp Four barefoot, and then the car, it had been dark for two hours. While seconding the final pitch, he dropped a cam onto a ledge that was ten feet below him. His eyes were dark circles. He was thirsty.
He was bug-eyed and out of his mind from exhaustion.
I felt fantastic.
The climb had totally blown his mind.
Coming down in the dark was fun. Sitting at the belays watching the light move on Half Dome was fun. He climbed for two hours on 165 feet of hand cracks, and supposed off-widths and chimneys. That was new to me. Actually, I had tried to forget how slowly I climbed when I first encountered Yosemite's cracks.
Every five minutes when I pulled a foot of rope through the belay I smiled lovingly at my auto-locker.
The traverse on the second to last pitch was perfect. A mini representation of the step-overs you find connecting the Valley's granite crack systems. Royal Arches. Serenity and Sons. The Rostrum. NEB of Higher Cathedral. Memories of these climbs flooded my mind while I waited patiently for my friend to find his way to the top of the wall.
I guess climbing doesn't always have to be fast. He had a learning experience about the fundamentals of climbing while I shuffled at the belay and lectured myself about finding the patience needed to enjoy sitting on a beautiful granite wall listening to a dumping waterfall while letting my mind get lost in the dark streaks that cover the face of Half Dome.
Yosemite is good.
selaginella watsoni
|
|
Flanders!
Trad climber
June Lake, CA
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 09:19am PT
|
Apogee, the program you refer to is The Single Pitch Instructor Course (formerly the Top Rope Site Managers Course) The TRSM was developed by Jon Tierney quite some time back to meet a population of instructors that the AMGA was missing at the time. This co-insided with a number of Outdoor Programs realizing that maybe they want something more in an instructor than just any guy with a rack. Jon did a good job of getting the concept up and running, against some nay sayers like me for one. It evolved into the SPI Course in recent years, has become even better, more accessible and affordable to many potential instructors.
All this to say, Yes, the SPI does have merit, does benefit a specific type of instructor who has
no interest in the Guide Track or IFMGA and clearly benefits a clientele with good education and
enhanced safety.
The money: It is true that a YMS guide does well w/ 6 students in a Basic Classic at Swan Slab,
that same guide does well w/ 2 clients on Stoner's Highway or 2 on a Wall Route. Clearly there
is some output differential between Swan Slab and 4 days on a Wall, but it is nice to have the
variety. It would get old if all you did guiding was walk up and down the Disappointment Clever on Mt. Rainier.
You would expect an apprentice guide NOT to be out on the harder/longer routes. Most employers want to see some experience under a guides belt before they cut them loose on the Rostrum, The Trip, OZ, or Plastic Exploding with a client. Like most careers, there is an entry level and as someone stays with it, improves their skill and knowledge, they move up thru the
ranks and upper levels.
Doug
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 10:00am PT
|
Doug is correct in pointing out that Jon Tierney helped develop the AMGA course he is recommending.
But then Jon became frustrated with the AMGA course for not emphasizing the teaching component of teaching climbing. Todd Vogel was similarly disappointed, and so was Alan Jolley. They were disturbed enough with the direction the AMGA was taking, after serving on its board of directors and its technical committee, to go off and start the PCIA so they could move the teaching of climbing teachers in a direction they felt made more sense.
This was a slap in the face of the AMGA, but one many of us felt was necessary to correct its drift in the direction of mere technique, of what I call "rope tricks."
Many of the course developments Flanders mentions came quite recently and in response to the real threat to the AMGA posed by the PCIA courses. Without having seen both courses up close, I am convinced that the PCIA courses are better, simply based on my huge respect for both Jon Tierney and Todd Vogel.
I'm convinced that better teaching skills make more difference for newbie climbers than the construction of anchors -- which is an easier thing to learn, and more like a pre-requisite to becoming a good teacher.
I too had become dissatisfied with that emphasis of the AMGA (though not with everything in their program), even though I was its first President.
Doug Robinson
(the other Doug)
|
|
The Wedge
Boulder climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 11:07am PT
|
Dr. I did not know that you were the first president of the AMGA. Interesting.
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 11:44am PT
|
I recommend the PCIA courses over the AMGA courses in the limited sphere of turning out good top rope instructors.
I recommend them because I am wholehearted in my admiration for Todd Vogel and Jon Tierney as guides and as top rope instructors and as mentors to future top rope instructors. And because I am sympathetic with their frustration with the AMGA on those subjects.
The AMGA scorned them when, for many years, they worked from within it, then scrambled to play catch-up when the PCIA offered an alternative which threatened the AMGA. Not their finest hour as an organization.
I still support many other aspects of the AMGA's program, including being the official national body recognized by the IFMGA that is working hard to give reciprocal guiding opportunities to IFMGA guides from around the world. In the US, that is really difficult. Far more difficult than anywhere else in the world.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2010 - 02:42pm PT
|
"...where in God's name does an up and coming young buck guide in training, come up with the time and money to get all these AMGA pre-courses completed and then the certs?"
I wonder that too, Chief- a TRSM/SPI (or similar) course runs $600-$700, and many/most guide services require a WFR, which is another $600-$800- it's a lot of money to shell out in order to earn the wages that are typical for bottom-managed climbing activities. I don't think this is evidence of any profit-driven conspiracy, though- it's just evidence of a profession that has been developing, and a number of committed people who have established programs to serve specific training/cert needs. The sum total, however, is quite significant.
Thanks for your elaboration, Doug N. I had incorrectly assumed you were against the entire concept of TRSM/SPI levels of training at all. I have known Jon for many years, first via our shared interest in another discipline of outdoor education, then via his efforts to establish the TRSM with the AMGA. Like Doug R, I have great confidence that the PCIA can more effectively serve the needs of entry-level guide/instructors, largely because of my knowledge of Jon's experience, combined with Todd Vogel's exceptional experience and professional history. That said, Adam Fox is also making great efforts to serve those needs, and the AMGA's SPI training is also quite satisfactory to me, in spite of the conflicts that have existed there over the years. I have been least impressed with the PCGI thusfar.
AMGA's SPI program (curriculum, trainer/examiner development, administrative support) is refined and developed, which is a primary benefit. The widespread recognition of the AMGA is also a great value. It remains to be seen if the new upstart organizations can sustain themselves, though. It's one thing to start a professional certification & association; it's quite another to grow it effectively.
Having multiple cert programs available is not necessarily a bad thing in my book, though three is a little much. More training opportunities is a good thing- it increases accessibility to those that need them, and makes the providers competitive with each other, and less complacent. We will just have to wait and see how each of these organizations respond to the needs of the industry.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!