What's the point of the AAC?

Seems to me there are two reasons to belong to an organization- you want the perks, or you believe in the mission.

I follow these AAC threads when they pop up because I would like to find a reason to join. But I don't need or want the perks offered, and as far as I can tell, the mission is mostly preserving history and promoting climbing camaraderie. I couldn't care less about either.

Peter Jackson wrote: 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.

On the other hand, if the AAC in some useful way is protecting climbers' interests or helping broaden access, I do care. But honestly, it seems like that's more what the Access Fund is doing. In which case I'll just give the AF a bigger donation.

I'd be interested in hearing more about what the AAC does behind the scenes if I'm missing something.

Conservation AAC

or

Sustainable Summits

or

Empowering Climber Scientists

Read up bitches! (And you too Dixon!)

Another is the Ranch, or campgrounds.
The one being built in NY @ Gunks is a help to climbers (broaden access to a place to stay) working with the preserve & state...

I read the scientist page...as a scientist -- wtf are they saying on those last few bullet points??

Buff Johnson wrote:I read the scientist page...as a scientist -- wtf are they saying on those last few bullet points??

haha I thought the same thing -- sounds like they are trying to tell us that they support scientific research and preservation efforts in mountainous regions all around the globe, but their copy writer got carried away with their english. "achieve synergy" "protect vulnerable stakeholders" sounds very corporate and official. Maybe a grant writer crafted it?

Buff Johnson wrote:I read the scientist page...as a scientist -- wtf are they saying on those last few bullet points??

"Integrate research agendas to help scientists communicate and achieve synergies in field data collection"

My interpretation: Increase collaborative efforts and encourage sharing of field data (ie; I am going to be collecting data in this location, I can help you out by also collecting data for your project) - helps further multiple projects for less money/resources?

"Increase conservation efforts in underserved international mountain regions and assist vulnerable stakeholders striving towards sustainability"

My interpretation (this one is more vague): Encourage scientific efforts aimed at conservation in places where these studies would otherwise not happen (underserved, international) with a focus on long term continuation of these efforts?

I value my AAC membership a lot - I believe in the mission, the library and historical records they keep are incredible, and the community events are great. I have made some good friends and had opportunities to climb with some amazing people through AAC. It also can't hurt to have more voices at the table that support climbing/climbers when it comes to decisions around access, etc. I think AAC and AF both do a great job and seem to be working more closely together this past year (my perspective from the outside anyway).

that makes sense. Why didn't they just say so?

Jon Zucco wrote:that makes sense. Why didn't they just say so?

I think you already answered your own question...

"Maybe a grant writer wrote it?"

HAHA

Mark E Dixon wrote:I couldn't care less about either. On the other hand, if the AAC in some useful way is protecting climbers' interests or helping broaden access, I do care. But honestly, it seems like that's more what the Access Fund is doing. In which case I'll just give the AF a bigger donation. I'd be interested in hearing more about what the AAC does behind the scenes if I'm missing something.

The AF and the AAC sometimes have crossover. There's a good reason for that:

"The Access Fund was formed in 1989 by the American Alpine Club, at the recommendation of its Access Committee. The Access Committee had learned that some access problems would be resolved only by outright purchases of property or other direct intervention with money. The Access Fund's nascent purpose was to raise, hold and allocate funds for access support projects and resources."

The Access Fund is about keeping climbing areas in the US open. That's their mission.

"The American Alpine Club (AAC) is a climbing and advocacy group whose goal is to provide knowledge, inspiration, and logistical support for the climbing community."

That mission is somewhat different. If you care about access but not about knowledge, inspiration, and logistical support, then the path you should take is clear.

Many climbers support both. Some climbers care about one mission and not the other. Most climbers support neither (sadly). The important thing is that you have choice and opportunity.

One thing the AAC has done over the years is help take care of climbers shit.

Yeah shit as in funding a toilet on McKinley, Wag Bags at Indian Creek, etc.

Always loved their gatherings and was very proud to be the presenter when Mike Lewis was awarded the Brower for his work on the Conservation Committee of the AAC.

It was the AAC's domestic rescue benefit. How in the world could someone just pick up a phone and make a call at the time of a serious accident!

reviving a dead thread. I've been comparing the costs and benefits of AAC rescue + medical plan vs divers alert network rescue and medical plan. DAN covers all accidents, not just diving related.
DAN divers alert network provides $50,000 medical coverage worldwide, $100,000 evacuation and $50,000 search and rescue. Cost is $160/year.
AAC, if rescue and medical plans are added seems to cost about $450/year for similar coverage, and there is a deductible. It appears that the AAC coverage reimburse costs. DAN is accepted as insurance-at least for the medical part.
AAC insurance is overly expensive. Any new feedback?