Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
zeker
Trad climber
bishop
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:54am PT
|
My take on PCGI: As far as I know, PCGI board members, mentors, assessors, committees, etc are far from bolstered and never were bolstered with AMGA certified guides.
In my opinion, PCGI is not seeking to bolster itself and/or represent itself to the public as bolstered with AMGA certified guides. To the contrary, I think roughly only 4 AMGA Certified individuals of any level were from the birth of PCGI in any admin, teaching or other role within PCGI. The post I made before, showing the AMGA cert guides involved with PCGI was simply showing Tony/another poster who commented on the subject, what AMGA cert guides were actually originally involved with PCGI and what ones are still involved and/or becoming involved with PCGI now. My post clearly showed that over half of the original PCGI BOD were in fact not AMGA certified, or even AMGA trained. As far as I know, the current PCGI board of directors, education committee and technical committee is comprised of absolutely no AMGA certified guides.
To the best of my knowledge, the PCGI mentor/assessor pool currently has only 1-2 certified AMGA people involved. Again, far from bolstered with AMGA certified individuals.
Also, in viewing the PCGI web site, I think the only place the AMGA is even mentioned, is on the reciprocity page and when that program ends in Spring of 2011, I believe visitors to the PCGI web site will be hard pressed to find any mention of the AMGA on the PCGI site.
I don't believe PCGI would want to be viewed or represent itself as bolstered with AMGA certified guides. I believe the PCGI intention has been and will continue be one of standing on its own foundation and bolstered by sustainable high quality programming, donations to the 501c3 non-profit and last but far from least, bolstered by the future generations PCGI certified rock climbing guides!
Thanks for reading this long post.
Cheers,
Zeke Federman
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:02am PT
|
great analogy, pm330.
we just put our son through yale university. it was his choice and his scholarship that did most of that. i've studied at three different universities, and i always tell youngsters that you can get a great education starting at just about any decent junior college in the country and transferring to any decent university. what the ivy league gives you are elite connections that will last you all your life, and everything you need to justify being a "have" and not feel too sorry for the "have nots". we tried to discourage that as much as possible with our son, but he'll never escape it entirely.
yale still performs some of its commencement ceremonies in latin. i studied latin for five years and would be happy to translate climbing signals for the amga.
after a close look at yale, i have to agree with the british newspaper that recently ranked berkeley as the best university in the world. in many areas, yale is a lightweight. i don't see amga people here telling us what's so great about the amga, only spraying about an assumed superiority.
zeke--should be up in bishop soon and wouldn't mind revisiting your projects. they are gems, no other way to put it. but you'll have to break me of a lifelong habit--see what i had to say at the start of my crux-of-chingadera thread--if you want me to start doing FAs.
|
|
sethsquatch76
Trad climber
Joshua tree ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2010 - 12:37pm PT
|
Thank you for the compliment Ron!!!!! I fully understand your miss givings about the creation of the PCGI. Yourself and others have put many years of time and money into the AMGA program. I know you worked very hard for your Rock guide cert, burly program and exam. None of us at PCGI are trying to take anything away from that.
In fact I believe the creation of the PCGI and the PCIA are making the AMGA a better program. Couple months back I spent a evening researching back editions of the AMGA news letter. The progression in the tone of the articles is pretty noticeable. They are definitely opening up to their members in a way not seen before. Focus is shifting to more of a educators model. To me this is a good thing. Over the last 3 1/2 years we have been the hungry dogs. I think focus is shifting and now the AMGA is becoming hungry . This is good for everybody, but especially the foot soldier guides of the US, like my self.
Sorry you've had bad experiences with other PCGI certified guides.....All approved mentors involved with the PCGI are long term career guides with many years of field experience as well as formal training. Our mentors are the best of the best in their given discipline, grade 3 and under guided rock climbs.
Seth
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:17pm PT
|
Seth & Zeke, in this thread and previous ones similar to it, you have both stressed how you see the PCGI as serving a need of the outdoor/adventure education industry at the level of single-pitch or bottom-managed institutional climbing. You have also emphasized that you don't see the PCGI as a direct competitor to the AMGA per se; rather, that the PCGI is complementary to the needs of the outdoor/adventure education industry. (Feel free to correct as necessary.)
The AMGA's organizational attitude towards entry-level guiding or instruction has changed over the years since their TRSM was originally developed, and eventually morphed into the SPI program. Resistance within the AMGA's 'old guard' has somewhat relented, and now the SPI program has gained wider acceptance & support within the AMGA itself.
Which means that, in effect, there are two (three, really, including the PCIA) professional certification programs serving the same market. Would you agree that the presence of several certification programs may dilute the overall efforts to establish credibility of such programs within the eyes of constituents such as land managers and the insurance industry? If so, do you think the best interests of the outdoor/adventure education industry are being served by having multiple certification programs in existence? If an effort was made by the AMGA to integrate with the PCGI, would you be open to it?
|
|
sethsquatch76
Trad climber
Joshua tree ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2010 - 08:12pm PT
|
Seth & Zeke, in this thread and previous ones similar to it, you have both stressed how you see the PCGI as serving a need of the outdoor/adventure education industry at the level of single-pitch or bottom-managed institutional climbing. You have also emphasized that you don't see the PCGI as a direct competitor to the AMGA per se; rather, that the PCGI is complementary to the needs of the outdoor/adventure education industry. (Feel free to correct as necessary.)
The AMGA's organizational attitude towards entry-level guiding or instruction has changed over the years since their TRSM was originally developed, and eventually morphed into the SPI program. Resistance within the AMGA's 'old guard' has somewhat relented, and now the SPI program has gained wider acceptance & support within the AMGA itself.
Which means that, in effect, there are two (three, really, including the PCIA) professional certification programs serving the same market. Would you agree that the presence of several certification programs may dilute the overall efforts to establish credibility of such programs within the eyes of constituents such as land managers and the insurance industry? If so, do you think the best interests of the outdoor/adventure education industry are being served by having multiple certification programs in existence? If an effort was made by the AMGA to integrate with the PCGI, would you be open to it?
Hey John,
Let me answer you one paragraph at a time. I can only answer from my perspective, not the view point of PCGI as a organization.
Paragraph 1: I have never said PCGI only serves the needs of the TR or single pitch guide/instructor. Our trainings go all the way to Multi-pitch guide, aka routes to grade 3. In a way we are a competitor with the AMGA;s rock program. But I also believe competition is a good thing......America, fck ya!!!!!!!Monopoles bad, period. As I previously stated I believe PCGI is using a educational model no one else in the industry is using, we empower via a adult educational model http://www.climbingguidesinstitute.org/site/content/view/17/35/
Paragraph 2: I believe the AMGA is fully backing their SPI program, good business move, as that is becoming the bread and butter of their programing. Getting rid of the TRSM, in my opinion, was a mistake.
Paragraph 3: I dont believe 3 organizations are diluting or confusing anybody. I dont want to be insured by anyone who cant grasp three different acronyms, LOL. I think the 5 year mark will be the point at which things settle down and people fully except the two newer groups. I believe you teach courses for WMA? Are you pissed at WMI or Asolo? No government agency has ever cared where my WFR came from..... To them a cert is a cert.
Integrating with the AMGA. Well I'm not against the concept, however there is some fundamental differences between both groups. I think reciprocity between the 3 groups is a more realistic possibility. That would be good for everyone!!!!!!!!
Hope this info answers your questions. John I have a lot of respect for your big brain, you are a asset to the guide/outdoor/adventure education world. thank you. Seth
|
|
zeker
Trad climber
bishop
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 02:22pm PT
|
John, (AKA Apogee)
Following are my personal thoughts and opinions and are not being said by or for PCGI.
Sorry for my late response, been out guiding and had some family/kid issues that needed my attention as well.
Excellent questions and a well stated post. Thank you very much for your post.
I think that perhaps your statement and/or question about the PCGI's primary focus being on bottom managed TR training and/or certs and/or SPI focus is not 100% accurate and is perhaps more of a PCIA perspective/focus. I have never stated or implied PCGI was primarily focused on such and I don't think PCGI has stated that either. I did see some statements like that from one PCGI student via a Super Topo post recently. I also think the AMGA sent some email news article in 2008, that said something about PCGI and/or PCIA being primarily focused on Top Rope oriented programs. I would like to refer to the PCGI web page for PCGI goals and mission, hopefully that will help clarify some things for you. Please see info via these links:
PCGI Mission: http://www.climbingguidesinstitute.org/site/content/view/16/33/
About PCGI: http://www.climbingguidesinstitute.org/site/content/view/14/32/
I would also like to point out that as far as I know, the most popular PCGI course thus far, over the past 3 years has been the "Lead Guide Course" which is not TR oriented and is quite a different standard compared to the AMGA SPI and/or PCIA SPI, or PCGI SPG.
I do agree with your point of view that PCGI is not really competing with the AMGA, or even the PCIA for that matter. This is due mostly to the fact that the philosophies and approaches are all very different and I think the 3 non-profit orgs will attract much different types of people, such as different colleges attract different people with different learning needs and/or goals.
I think having at least 3 orgs is a healthy thing for the guide/instructor training/cert industry. It drives innovation and allows students the choices that best fit individual educational interests, needs, perspective and goals.
As far as the AMGA taking over the PCGI or something of that regard. I would like to think that if the AMGA approached the PCGI BOD about it, PCGI would at the very least be willing to have dialog on the subject. However, I am fairly confident that all involved in PCGI believe that having multiple rock climbing guide/instructor training and cert organizations is quite valuable and important.
I hope I have answered all your questions and/or addressed any subjects you have brought up. Please again, keep in mind, I am speaking from my opinions and not for PCGI.
On another note: I think you have a lot of respect for Mr.Alan Jolley and he has just entered the PCGI mentor and assessor training program. You being such the veteran guide and well know wilderness medical teacher and outdoor educator, I would encourage you to get involved with PCGI, and work toward becoming a PCGI mentor/assessor as well and hence be able to offer PCGI course and assessments.
Thanks again for your post. I appreciate your perspective and all you have done and are doing for our industry!
Cheers,
Zeke Federman
|
|
Blondin
Mountain climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 03:40pm PT
|
Not really what the point of all this is to begin with but whatever the dude from Switz says is pretty funny - not really sure what you want to try "guiding" in Tessin anyways....LOL
As for the rest of those places good luck - people would be much better off sticking with a recognized guide (IFMGA/UIAGM)
I can assure you if you that if you are with someone who isn't a recognized guide (in Europe there are not 36 different types of standards or levels - just one IFMGA) you will probably be asked lots of questions and probably loads of hassles - for what reason???
It's kinda like going to a foreign country for surgery - why risk it? I mean really what's the point???
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 04:00pm PT
|
Apologies if I mischaracterized the PCGI's certification program offerings- as you both have described, there is clear overlap with the AMGA's program. Both the AMGA & PCGI offer programs targeted at bottom-managed (aka TRSM) climbing instruction, however, the PCGI has training programs for up to 3 pitch guiding, which is the highest level of training certification. By contrast, the AMGA entry level is the SPI, with the next jump to full Rock Instructor.
This statement seems somewhat contradictory, then:
"... PCGI is not really competing with the AMGA, or even the PCIA for that matter."
There is then very obvious overlap with the AMGA (& PCIA) in terms of program offerings, and therefore, clear competition. From the copy on PCGI's website, to the tone of your posts here, I have gained the impression that you don't see the PCGI as a competitor, yet clearly that is the case. Perhaps I missed something in the communication somewhere- please clarify.
It is my opinion that the AMGA took a long time to recognize the value of entry-level instruction programs, and develop them properly- there was an opportunity that was lost, and it comes as no surprise that other programs would step in to try and fill that void. Ultimately, it serves the best interests of the outdoor/adventure industry to have quality training options available, and as accessible as possible via location and reasonable costs.
There are certainly parallels between rock climbing certification programs and the wilderness medicine certification field- the competition that exists amongst the major wilderness medicine providers has likely resulted in improved programs. After 20 years of teaching such programs, and interacting with hundreds of programs across the country, I have regularly heard program managers express frustration that the various programs have differing content and certification standards. It is common to hear program managers state: 'Why can't those wilderness medicine programs develop some kind of standard?'
Perhaps the difficulties that accompany varying program content/names/standards is simply part and parcel of the reality of having several competing programs in the industry. But I do have empathy for bewildered program managers who have to consider certifications from a myriad of programs, with differing certification levels, content, and performance standards. In that important respect, I think fewer rather than more training options is in the better industry of the outdoor/adventure ed industry.
|
|
zeker
Trad climber
bishop
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 06:40pm PT
|
John,
I respect your right to voice your opinion. We clearly differ in our opinions, yet share the right to express them. My conversations with land managers prior to advent of PCGI and PCIA as well as recently have been quite different than yours seem to have been. Anyway, I am also respectfully exiting the thread, as I feel it has run its course and my time is running thin due to a full time guiding schedule and family responsibilities (3 kids and a wife) If you or anyone else has questions about PCGI I recommend visiting the PCGI web site www.climbingguidesinstitute.org and emailing PCGI directly. Thanks for your post and for al others posting. Until next time. I wish you all the best.
Cheers,
Zeke Federman
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 07:17pm PT
|
Seth and Zeke (on the off chance that Zeke sees this), I hope you do continue to monitor and participate in discussions regarding the guiding & certification industry.The topic of professional arises periodically, and usually engenders a pretty negative response from many, and misinformation is common. Besides the voice of the PCGI, it would be nice to see the management of the AMGA & PCIA chime in, too- hopefully a productive, respectful discussion can be maintained.
"My conversations with land managers prior to advent of PCGI and PCIA as well as recently have been quite different than yours seem to have been."
To clarify, Zeke, my last post was in regard to program managers, not land managers. Seth pointed out upthread that various land managers care not where the certifications come from (rock or wilderness medicine), and I agree that it's not really much of an issue with them- they have not the time nor inclination to try and figure out which program is more acceptable than another- they just want to know that outfitter/guides who are commercially permitted have some kind of medical or rock certification when it's appropriate.
My point was in regards to the managers of the many, many outdoor programs that exist in the US, and the frustration they experience in trying to differentiate the myriad of certifying agencies out there- for most, it's beyond their time and capability to do, and they have concerns about the liability implications of accepting a certification from a program they really don't know much about. This is an inherent problem of having multiple certifying programs in this industry- I've witnessed it repeatedly in regards to wilderness medicine; professional rock certification seems destined for the same fate.
|
|
Majid_S
Mountain climber
Bay Area , California
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 07:35pm PT
|
Unqualified guide in fatal accident
Amongst the many missions flown by the PGHM based in Chamonix on the 11th July was the recovery of the body of a Polish climber killed after falling in the couloir du Goûter. The Goûter is the normal route to the summit of Mont Blanc from St Gervais. The climber, aged in his thirties, was leading a group of three Australians at the time of the accident.
http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0992-unqualified-guide-in-fatal-accident/
|
|
zeker
Trad climber
bishop
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 09:12pm PT
|
John,
You pulled me back in for what will hopefully be my last post for a while!
Sorry, I misunderstood, thought you said "land managers". Regardless, I have spoken with many, "program managers" who think the complete opposite from what you just posted and they don't feel multiple training and/or cert orgs are a liability concern or problematic in any way. Case in point, the PCGI BOD members who are also managers of Southern Yosemite Mountain Guides (SYMG.com is perhaps the biggest non-river guide service in California) and owner/program manger from Devils Tower Climbing School (www.devilstowerclimbing.com) also on PCGI BOD, and the managing partner of Zion Adventure Company (www.zionadventures.com, one of the biggest guide services in Zion!) soon joining the PCGI BOD as well.
I have also been a guide since my early 20's, now 40 yrs old and have had a duel role of climbing program manager and guide since my early 30's. I have not experienced any of the issues you are describing. I have hired PCGI and AMGA cert guides in the past and would prob hire a PCIA one, if they ever applied (maybe not that many of those folks on the west coast, or not that many period, I don't know?).
I feel it is very simple to determine a legit rock climbing guide/instructor certification program from one that is inadequate. One clear reason being in the guide training/cert industry some Parks as you know require guide/instructor certification and they are explicit and specific as to which orgs are acceptable. In most cases that means PCGI, PCIA or AMGA. You might not have much respect for the land managers capability of telling what is a good certification program, (I personally think they do a pretty good job with it all) but that is not the point here. In the wild med or cpr and first aid realm no such/said organization specifics are required by the Parks, they simply require CPR and First Aid cert cards, so almost anyone or any org can give WFR, WFA, CPR and First aid certs out and the Parks will accept them (even ones from the internet, believe it or not!). Quite contrary to that which I stated about the WFA,WFR, CPR, etc, for the Parks to even review a rock climbing guide/instructor certification org, it is a daunting process. It takes roughly 2 years of review of the orgs certification processes by the Park and prior to that, at least another 2 years for program development by the org itself. Most of which time is unpaid or very little pay for program developers. So all in all about a minimum 4 year process to get reviewed and accepted as a rock climbing guide/instructor certification org by any of the National Parks. This involved, prolonged and somewhat costly in terms of man/people hours process will certainly prohibit the guide/instructor training/cert industry from growing into having as many cert/training orgs as the wild med field currently does. This is true simply because the development and acceptance work is difficult, time consuming and not financially rewarding during the process, or even very much after Park approval for that matter. Its a labor of love kinda thing. Furthermore, most parks like to see the 501c3 federal non-profit status and that is a a bit of a pain to get as well and typically takes about 12-18 months. It also takes alot of connections to companies and/or wealthy people who need tax deductions to fund a 501c3 as a start up non-profit and keep it supported over the years, plus be able to market and sell programs on top of it all. So, guide training/cert orgs that are not accepted by the Parks and don't also have all the aforementioned in place, unfortunately won't have all that much to stand on. Bottom line, the guide training and cert business it a tough industry to succeed in.
I also wanted to expand a bit on your Top Rope or Bottom managed comments and competitive issues comments. The fact is that the AMGA dropped its Top Rope program and now requires leading skills in all levels of AMGA programs. Contrary to that PCGI does offer a Top Rope Guide program:
http://www.climbingguidesinstitute.org/site/content/view/37/83/
where no lead climbing is required. PCGI also offers a host of other programs/standards, where leading is required. So in the top rope realm at least, the PCGI is perhaps competing with the PCIA, but it would be impossible to compete with the AMGA in the TR realm, as they don't even have that product/program anymore. PCGI also offers the " Lead Guide" program info via this link: http://www.climbingguidesinstitute.org/site/content/view/38/82/ which neither the AMGA or the PCIA have a comparable program for, so that is certainly not competing with either org. PCGI does offer Single-Pitch Guide http://www.climbingguidesinstitute.org/site/content/view/68/120/
and the Multi-Pitch Guide program:http://www.climbingguidesinstitute.org/site/content/view/39/81/
which would in theory compete with the AMGA and/or PCIA program offerings. So yes, I think you are right some level of competition does exist, but again, I view that as a positive thing for the industry and for the guides.
I am being as explanatory as I can be with the knowledge and experience I have. I hope you find this helpful or useful in some way.
Well, I gotta go and will try not to respond for a while, cause I am really shirking my responsibilities with all this posting. Thanks again to you John/Apogee and all the posters on this subject.
Cheers,
Zeke
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 09:31pm PT
|
i'll bet zeke'll be back again, especially if i say the wrong thing. "the eyes of pcgi are upon you".
:-)
anyway, to address that anecdote up there--looks like they're begging for qualified guides in the alps and the demand from the market is something they can't keep up with. the answer would be to liberalize their stringent standards just a tad. this fellow was qualified in poland--the tatras are pretty respectable mountains, though not quite like the alps--and he was also a geologist, whom you would hope would have some appreciation of the dangers of glaciers.
we lose some great certified guides once in awhile too--alan bard and craig luebben come to mind. the mountains are dangerous. if you really want to be safe, you're going to have to certify the mountains.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010 - 12:26pm PT
|
i'm developing a deserved reputation as the thread-killer of ST. no one can beat something to death the way i do. the only one i haven't been able to kill with due premeditation is the belief-in-god thread. rome wasn't built in a day.
i never got into guiding and i probably never will, although once in awhile the flirtation gets exciting. i really can't understand the need for land managers to regulate guiding. they don't regulate climbing--any fool can shag it out to just about any rock on public land and proceed to commit a glorified form of suicide. climbing begins with individual responsibility. hiring a guide, enrolling in a class--it's like buying a car. walk into a few showrooms, decide what you want to commit yourself to. land management has become way too much of brother's keepership. tell them to stick to forest fires. looks like they did a piss-poor job with the one in the san gabriels last year.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010 - 12:42pm PT
|
"i really can't understand the need for land managers to regulate guiding. they don't regulate climbing--..."
That is exactly correct- land managers do not regulate guiding. They do, however, regulate the use of public lands by any user group. There is a difference.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
|
please, apogee--expand on that a bit.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010 - 01:25pm PT
|
Land managers are responsible for how public lands are used- while they may make decisions about the type of use, accessibility, and other related policies, they don't drill down into managing the details of the standards of practice that any individual user group might utilize.
In the case of climbing, the NP's create policies as to how commercial climbing can be conducted on public lands, but they don't have anything to do with specifying the techniques or certification process of the guides who provide those activities. The NP's have created such policies largely to help protect the resource, and to enhance enjoyment of the parks by users (this is consistent with the NPS mission). JTNP created their CUA policy for climbing activities based on the dramatic increase in climbing activity in the Park, and did so by considering other NP's where climbing is a central part of a Park's use (most notably Yosemite & Grand Teton NP's).
|
|
Steve L
Gym climber
SUR
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010 - 01:34pm PT
|
All these guide threads have got me wondering… How old are the oldest guides actively guiding out there??
Just wondering what the typical longevity is in this profession. Obviously, there is a high variable due to physical conditions, as there is in any job where there is a large amount of bodily stress. Just wondering what is "typical". Most of the guys I run into are pretty young still. If a lot of them bail on guiding for something more lucrative, does anyone start later in life, after they've made some coin? Side gig, or second career type thing?
|
|
John Mac
Trad climber
Littleton, CO
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010 - 02:46pm PT
|
Re the longitivity, I retired just short of 20 years full time guiding. I was 39. It wasn't the work that made me retire, I really enjoyed it and still miss it, but the travelling and being away from home for half the year became old. Being IFMGA qualified is key, it opens up a lot of doors and maximises your income potential.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010 - 02:48pm PT
|
i fail to see how regulation of guiding "protects the resource". if guides are threatening "the resource", they're subject to the same sanctions noncommercial climbers are subject to.
regulation has resulted in considerable restriction. in YNP it can be downright depressing, and i think it's fair to call it a cozy government-concessionaire monopoly of the most attractive climbing venue in the country. calling that "enhancement of enjoyment" is kinda like the "clean air act--not" or "every child left behind".
steve, that has been the thrust of my recent interest. i'm 62 and still active, though i live in fear of the dreaded "snap, crackle and pop" of key ligaments. i actually got better at climbing and skiing later in life. zeker here has been nothing but encouraging to me, but i still see too many hurdles for an old dog trying to get into a new trick. the programs are designed for youngsters. i began with a TRG class where none of the kids has been climbing more than a couple years. i was such an old fart that they didn't even want to camp with me and practice the skills in the evenings. maybe they were afraid of bad dope left over from the 60s.
i've taken a course from both zeke and seth here, and they are terrific guys to get to know, super enthusiastic and highly competent at the guiding trade, which each has been practicing successfully for years. but i've been climbing for more than 30 years, and i think i have qualities that would apply to this more than the average climber. both the AMGA and PCGI have an article on "the needs of the adult learner" in their guides manuals. it's there for the guide students, to learn to be sensitive to their adult clients, but i've told both zeke and seth that i think they ought to re-read it carefully with the needs of the occasional old fart like me in mind.
one of my fellow students in seth's class at josh last fall was nearly my age--frank sanders, a veteran of something like 29 el cap ascents, who has run a guide's service at devil's tower for the past 10 years. frank was such a super-pro with super-experience that i wondered why he was even taking the class. seems like he just never got around to getting that certification, something for the resume i guess. i'm sure seth would agree that he could as easily have been teaching the class as taking it. but such is the merry-go-round.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!