What's the point of the AAC?

skitch wrote:my guess is that it's just one more organization invented to provide a couple of people the opportunity to live and work in Boulder.

The club has been around for about a century, used to be based in NYC. Boulder living was certainly not behind it's inception.

A few people have balked at the insurance, can anyone tell me how it isn't legit? Do we have stories one way or another of it getting used/denied?

Domestically and internationally, it's paper tiger, even as a "service."

The Ranch is cool. I enjoy the club as it being a club, and fun to interact with others that I'd never meet otherwise. But, I could give a rats ass about that rescue deal.

Buff Johnson wrote:Domestically and internationally, it's paper tiger, even as a "service."

Ok, we can add one more person to the list saying that it's worthless, but still neither side has provided any evidence.

Nate C wrote: Ok, we can add one more person to the list saying that it's worthless, but still neither side has provided any evidence.

Here's a site where Lou Dawson discusses Gobal Rescue, among other options.
wildsnow.com/10177/accident…

Here's a discussion on trip advisor about global rescue
tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g…

JCM wrote: Although the AAC does good things, a strong argument can be made that the Access Fund does more. If one's main concern is climber advocacy, the Access Fund is probably a better per-dollar investment.

Support it all, as much as possible. The more organizations we have on our side, the better. The civil rights movement had the NAACP, SNCC, SCLC, CORE, NUL. The leaders of these groups sometimes cannibalized each other, but people at the grassroots ignored organizational boundaries and worked with any organization that advanced their interests.

Primarily, to record major ascents around the world.

The library alone is worth gold to those who establish, repeat, or attempt big routes on all fronts.

I appreciate having a resource that maintains order in recording history as it is made in the mountains.

lucander wrote: Support it all, as much as possible. The more organizations we have on our side, the better. The civil rights movement had the NAACP, SNCC, SCLC, CORE, NUL. The leaders of these groups sometimes cannibalized each other, but people at the grassroots ignored organizational boundaries and worked with any organization that advanced their interests.

As a recent past president of the AAC said a while ago, AAC does the good cop, Access Fund the bad cop. Lucander is right on target, NAACP/SNCC from this old guy around in the '60s.

ANAM provides acute analyses of accidents by those directly involved and is carefully edited. Much to be learned there, which is the point--contrast the internet, with very different norms and benefits.

If you can afford it, join the AAC and stop the free-loading. If it looks like you can't afford it, consider switching to cheap beer until you've saved enough. (For equivalent benefits--lodging, journals, but no insurance--the AAC is cheaper than the Canadian club.)

skitch wrote:I'm not trolling.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that your dismissive, self-centered, and sarcastic tone makes it seem like you're trolling.

It's fine by me if you don't see the value in an AAC membership and don't want to pay for one. But to dismiss their mission and the execution of their mission as pointless strikes me as a narrow.

To answer your question directly, the AAC in New Hampshire has provided valuable support to my local climbing organization (the RCA). They've helped us sort out plans for trail building, provided funding for long-term projects (like the RCA's wag bag program), and shared important technical expertise. They've also helped us foster a positive relationship with the USFS.

Because of the AAC (and the Access Fund, and the RCA, and the USFS), my local crag is cleaner, safer, and more well maintained than many.Not all of their events interest me, and the rescue insurance doesn't interest me either. That doesn't stop me from supporting their mission.

Skitch & jlp,

Why don't you two be the dynamic duo climbing team, and sign up for the "Live yer dreams grant." ????

It's the every mans/womens non elite one.

Oh yeah, free money to you is probably of no value...

You people ride on a high horse.

Skitch and JLP, you guy's aren't following Guideline #1: don't be a jerk.

This thread is blasphemy.

fossana wrote:The Global Rescue portion is not rescue insurance and smells to me like a for-profit scam. I'm not calling Global Rescue to coordinate my rescue and pay whatever exorbitant fees they charge beyond the $5k AAC coverage. If you bump up your coverage through GR (starting at mere $119 a week for short-term) it only kicks in at 160 miles from your place of residence, perfect for those living in Bishop or the Front Range, right? For rescue insurance, with a SPOT it's an additional $18 a year for up to $100K SAR coverage ($50K per incident with up two covered per year).

How is it NOT insurance? They cover any rescue whether done by Global Rescue or local SAR or whatever up to 5k. Where else are you going to get insurance like that? GEICO? Who else would you call if you needed rescue?

If you like what they do, join. If you don't, don't join. It's pretty simple.

Needlessly badmouthing an organization reflects more on you than the organization.

John Fatseas wrote:How is it NOT insurance?

The argument against it being insurance is that they do not pay to reimburse expenses incurred. You have to call them and have them coordinate the services beforehand. If you use the same vendor they'd have called, but call them after the fact, no payment.

They don't call it insurance. It's a membership, which is less well-regulated.

americanalpineclub.org/p/gl…

I agree with you in principle, though, having such a plan in your pocket is insurance, insofar as it prevents you from incurring a loss you would otherwise not want to bear.

Peter Jackson wrote: The argument against it being insurance is that they do not pay to reimburse expenses incurred. You have to call them and have them coordinate the services beforehand. If you use the same vendor they'd have called, but call them after the fact, no payment. They don't call it insurance. It's a membership, which is less well-regulated. americanalpineclub.org/p/gl… I agree with you in principle, though, having such a plan in your pocket is insurance, insofar as it prevents you from incurring a loss you would otherwise not want to bear.

This is correct. Note though that AAC provides $5000 of true domestic rescue insurance AND $5000 of GRS services for domestic rescues. GRS are more like a AAA for rescues. As far as domestics rescue charges go, I have never heard of people being charged for their rescues. I have heard of people being fined and/or charged criminally for being negligent and requiring a rescue, but that is different and would not be covered by rescue insurance. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I have asked AAC representatives to supply actual statistics about rescue benefits that were paid and I have never received such information.

As far as international benefits go, $5000 is a joke. That'd be a drop in the bucket for a helicopter ride and rescue. The discount on GRS through the AAC is negligible. Like I said before, on a 30 day membership it saves you about $10. And I still don't like the idea of having to use GRS on an international rescue. I don't want to have to call GRS and have them decide if I need rescue services, and if I do then they need to coordinate the rescue process. I want to be able to call the appropriate local services and then worry about the bill. In case you didn't read the links provided up thread by Mark E Dixon, there are real world examples of GRS gone wrong. I'm sure they get it right lots of times too, but I would rather have true rescue insurance than this type of "rescue services".

clint helander wrote:Is that really a serious question? Yes aside from offering cheap places to stay like the Tetons and Hueco tanks they also catalog and publish every significant climb ever done for over 100 years. But above and beyond that they offer global rescue insurance, cheap health insurance, they have a tremendous grant program that funds tons and tons of expeditions every year to both the neofight Climber and the world's best. Even further, they work with local sections to build maintain and promote wilderness huts. They also work with a variety of organizations including the access fund to to protect and save our climbing areas weather they be local crags or access to wilderness. Going even further, they house a tremendous library where any member can check out books for free and have the books mailed to them again, for free. This includes guidebooks to nearly every climbing area in North America. Where else can you get that? Oh yeah, and they host climbers from all over the world to promote the sport in their home country and likewise they send North American climbers to places such as Turkey, Europe, South America, etc. Boy, I could keep going on and on and on but I have to get back to work. memberships are between $40 and $75 per year depending upon your age. So when you figure that you get a tremendous American Alpine Journal every year as well as accidents in North America you pretty much have already paid for your membership. And then when you think about what you were actually supporting and the good that they are doing behind the scenes, it really makes that insignificant amount of money seem like you're almost ripping them off. The American Alpine club is not just for mountaineers or extreme alpinists anymore. They have worked honestly to adapt to be useful to the Boulder, sport Climber, Travis Climber, Big Well Climber, all the way to those pushing the hardest Alpine style ascents. So in short, or not so short, join the AAC.

Well said. Although I do support them in my heart, I can't afford the cost of membership. Old timers, life time guys might be the main stay of the AAC by now..I think alot of new, younger sport climbers with no interest in alpine, mountaineering records or ascents see the Access Fund as their version of the AAC for the future. Let's see who takes care of all the great publications and information if the AAC goes away. Any takers got the interest, funds or time to do it? I don't think so.

The global rescue has paid off! I took nearly a hundered footer when the ice underneath me crumbled away on an attempt to climb a new ice route in Panthertown Valley! The money took about a year to pay, it is third party insurance, but it sure helped to offset my medical expences.

shannon stegg wrote:The global rescue has paid off! I took nearly a hundered footer when the ice underneath me crumbled away on an attempt to climb a new ice route in Panthertown Valley! The money took about a year to pay, it is third party insurance, but it sure helped to offset my medical expences.

Shannon, was this the AAC's domestic rescue benefit or was it in actually paid from GRS (trailhead rescue)? If it was from GRS, did you cal the GRS hotline at the time of the accident?

Mr. Farley,
Without you describing the courtesy issue..... What is the problem?

It seems this thread is one of those examples of "you can't make all of the people happy all of the time."

The AAC, (if you are a member or not) does things for you, and your community (climbers.)
Why would that not be a good thing? Same thing goes for the AF.
They both do good things for us. So where's the issue?

Oh yeah, I remember now! People need something to bitch about!

fossana wrote:I would have like to have seen AAC, or Access Fund, for that matter helping to negotiate post-flood climbing access on OSMP property.

Interesting point. How might AAC/AF involvement have changed the outcome? Do they have an ongoing, working relationship with OSMP?