In reply to Damo:
Here's the other part:
> There is nothing in the list of 'guides' on their site to indicate that they can provide anything like the experience and training of the kind that is standard for UIAGM / IFMGA qualifications. If they want to offer an equivalent standard of training they need to show that they have the right people - if they do.
I've never said that I want to provide training to IFMGA levels. My goal has never been to replicate the AMGA. I would like to provide the best possible entry to mid-level guide training possible.
You are correct in asserting that I need to update the "Our Guides" section of my website to better reflect the capabilities of my company and instructors. I need to update many parts of my website. As director, I've been a bit remiss in this department and will get to it in the next few weeks.
> Some of the old US guides were good in certain ways (rock, bigwall etc) - some very good. Many were not. Almost none had the breadth of expertise across disciplines that most European guides have.
Sorry, but all three of these are overly generalizing. There are good and bad guides in every system, and all guides have their strengths and weaknesses. I could just as well argue that most IFMGA guides don't have the same breadth and depth of experience that I have, because I've run 29 expeditions of 6 weeks or longer. It doesn't mean anything other than guides who excel at rock climbing should stick to rock climbing, and the ones who excel at skiing should stick to skiing, and the ones who excel at expedition mountaineering with climbs no harder than 6c should stick to expedition mountaineering with climbs no harder than 6c. That I can't climb 7c doesn't make me a less competent instructor or guide. My ability to manage risks, lead my students, teach skills, and make reasonable judgments is completely independent of the grade that I climb.
>The argument was always that being a 'qualified' Guide did not necessarily mean that you were good with people and had the 'soft' skills necessary for a truly good guide, but it did mean you were technically competent, well-trained and examined. Maybe you were an asshole, maybe not. That was not really the priority. Keeping people alive, and successful, in that order, was more like it.
I would argue conversely that the ability to relate to your clients in a positive and supportive manner is a critical part of risk management, safety, and judgement. Being an asshole does matter.
> Thing like NZ glacier guides are irrelevant
This is an NZMGA certification.
>as is Antarctic 'experience'. I've climbed a lot in Antarctica and known a few different heads of rescue programs - some would be great for a program like this, some not so much.
You're correct that some people would be good for a program like ours, and some wouldn't. But the exact same could be said of any guide, IFMGA or otherwise. As you noted above, there are many IFMGA guides who would be less than ideal teachers, and many others who would not thrive in a remote expedition environment. Everyone must be evaluated on their overall merits, not just their resume.
>If the organisation does have IFMGA personnel they should put them up front, it would do wonders for their credibility. The rest is just lightweight marketing guff.
I absolutely agree that I should update my website to get all of my current staff on. Fair enough. But why should one assume that an IFMGA certification is a ticket to infinite knowledge, an incredible ability to teach, and the ability to thrive in an extended expedition environment? Technical ability is only one piece of that puzzle (albeit a very important one), and the onus is on me, as program director, to staff my school so that all areas of competence are covered. I've found a well rounded staff, from a variety of backgrounds, is more able to do this.
> Basic first aid and environmental-sounding 'qualifications' are a whole other kettle of fish and should not be mixed up with genuine mountain Guide training.
Strong first aid knowledge is a critical skill for a guide, especially given that I work in an extremely remote and challenging environment. As I've said numerous times, technical ability is only a part of what makes a good "Mountain Guide." And, yeah, preserving the environment in which I'm privileged to work is a high priority of mine.
>Changing the names of genuinely internationlly recognized things like WFR to make them 'easier' for the ignorant is weird and stupid.
No it's not. It's playing to your audience. As a different example, when teaching WFR to recreational users(yes, I'm a certified WFR instructor for WMA), I don't talk about the mandible or patella. I talk about the jaw and kneecap. It makes the processing of information easier. When I teach doctors, I use the technical names. Same goes here.
As a side note, thank you for your well thought out and polite comments and thoughts. I'm quite happy to have a rational discourse on the merits (and weaknesses) of my program. While I don't necessarily expect that you'll agree with me, I hope that you'll at least have a better understanding of where I and my program are coming from.