TargetTalk

Someone on here mentioned that we should cut USA Shooting some slack because they lack resources, but this might not necessarily be the case. I found a website (www.guidestar.org) that compared financials based on their IRS Form 990s and added some info from their website and my personal experience (where I had any). See how USA Shooting stacks up against a couple of the others.

Check this out:
International Handgun Metallic Silhouette Association
Date of Inception: 1976
Membership: unknown

Number of matches held nation-wide: Over 300
Revenue: $161,692
Expenses: $186,345
Assets: $246,543
Liabilities: $0
NOTE: They have matches and affiliated clubs all over the US and parts of Canada. The put on an annual week long "Internationals" match last held in Ohio.

United States Practical Shooting Association
Date of Inception: 1984
Membership: About 14,000
Number of matches held nation-wide: Well over a 1,000. Usually pretty easy to find at least one match a month within an hour or two drive.
Revenue: $1,104,563
Expenses: $1,206,217
Assets: $976,014
Liabilities: $806,107
NOTE: USPSA is the US governing body for the International Practical Shooting Confederation. IPSC, or practical shooting has been in existence since 1976 and now has affiliated governing bodies in over 60 different countries. USPSA holds at least one, and sometimes as many as three invitational championship matches drawing between 200 and 500 competitors each; competitors must win invitations to the Nationals, be sent by their affiliated club, or get one off a waiting list. In addition, several Area and State Championships are hosted by affiliated clubs. Hundreds of affiliated clubs hold monthly matches. USPSA also fields a National Team that competes every three years at the IPSC World Shoot.

USA Shooting
Date of Inception: 1994
Membership: More than 5,000
Number of matches held nation-wide: Under 250 for all disciplines.
Revenue: $3,552,097
Expenses: $3,260,289
Assets: $2,360,095
Liabilities: $247,938
National Governing Body for ISSF shooting disciplines in the US. Olympic shooting games have been around since the first modern Olympics in 1896. ISSF has affiliated governing bodies in about 130 different countries. USA Shooting has a National Team of 84 shooters and a National Development Team of 59 shooters. However, it is unclear how many of these team members are actually fielded for international competitions.

It was I who made the comment, butI was responding to Mike McDaniels comment, quoted here:
"...I get the distinct impression that USAS is a very top-heavy organization, with a lot of full-time officials."

What I wanted to emphasize is that USAS in not, IMHO, a very top-heavy organization, with a lot of full-time officials. Actually the full time staff is pretty small, and sending teams all around the world is not cheap. The other organizations USAS was compared to don't have that responsibility or that expense.

These numbers don't tell us much w/o a breakdown of direct (sending shooters to matches, practice, equipment, ammo, etc.) and indirect (staff, PPE, overhead, depreciation, etc.) spending.

Jose Rossy wrote:These numbers don't tell us much w/o a breakdown of direct (sending shooters to matches, practice, equipment, ammo, etc.) and indirect (staff, PPE, overhead, depreciation, etc.) spending.

Don't know for IHMSA, but USPSA doesn't provide equipment or ammo. Shooters practice on their own. I believe USPSA does subsidize travel, food, and lodging expenses for the National Team that represents the US at World Shoots.

If you check out the website, it doesn't have all the info that you mention, so obviously it's not perfect.

However, in regard to the cost of sending shooters abroad to shoot in events, if USA Shooting were to send 25 shooters (average is closer to 20) to each of the 8 World Cup events and the Olympics and spent $4000 per shooter, per competition on travel, food, lodging, and miscellaneous expenses, that only amounts to $900,000 in expenses.

I think the number of members and number of events tells much of the story.

I believe that many problems with USAS could be cured by better funding and more resources. The biggest majority of problems are the lack of grassroots and hence it is top heavy in that sense.

A total and absolute lack of any thought to the membershhip explains most of USAS problems.

The problem (or solution, as I look at it) is the NRA. The NRA provides a much easier, friendlier place to shoot for most people getting into shooting. There are far more matches at cheaper prices. Membership also gives you something in return. They are more organized. They run a tighter ship. That is not to say that the NRA couldn't use some improvements. But if USAS and NRA are in "competition" for membership, I feel that the NRA will win everytime.

For our national teams to prosper, the NRA should become involved again.

USAS mission is more to run the National team isn't it? The other organizations don't field a team all over the world and do not have their own OTC facilities. Any comparison is faulty.

That's kinda my point. The NRA does NOT currently do what USAS does - but if it did, I believe that it would be better. I am not old enough to remember what it was like when the NRA did run the national team - but people have told me that it was a better situation.

jackh wrote:USAS mission is more to run the National team isn't it? The other organizations don't field a team all over the world and do not have their own OTC facilities. Any comparison is faulty.

Actually, USPSA does field a team, but they probably send people only once a year. They also have a headquarters building, but not a range facility. But they do all of what they do on 1/3 of the revenue that USA Shooting does. We're talking $2million dollars less! To put that in perspective, if USA shooting parcelled out their revenue to each USA Shooting member, it should come out to about $700 per shooter.

Does anyone feel they're even getting their $35 back out of their membership, much less anywhere close to a couple hundred bucks???

If it's going to be USAS' mission to just be a National Team booster club, then perhaps we should consider a new separate national governing body that is concerned about furthering the sport?

I find it is very interesting how frequently I hear or read discussions about a separate or different governing body versus USAS.

Is this because USAS is that much of a problem?

Who has the real interest & money & credentials to set up a new governing body?

PETE S wrote:Who has the real interest & money & credentials to set up a new governing body?

How about the NRA?! I think they have more than enough interest and money - as for the credentials, they have done it in the past.

HI

The problem I see with the USA Olympic shooting is that there is a near complete lack of entry leve shooters because:

1. The NRA doesn't sponsor International shooting, (big deal) BUT the NRA is the primary shooting organization in the USA, sponsoring most of the pistol and rifle matches. This means that the largest organization with the most people, money, ranges, and matches isn't even shooting YOUR SPORT. Same comment with the National Skeet Shooters Association, and Amature Trap Association. Most of the money, people and ranges aren't ever shooting Olympic style.

2. Olympic style shooting in pistol, rifle, and shotgun is enough different from NRA/ATA/NSSA shooting, that it costs a lot of money to start international shooting. Examples include the wobble trap for shotgun, the turning targets for Rapid Fire pistol, and the "required" electronic targets for air rifle and air pistol. Apparently, Olympic style shooting isn't available to the great unwashed due to the cost of the targets. I could probably shoot Rapid Fire with my .22LR Ruger Mark II, but I don't think that Bullseye Range will be putting in two of three turning targets for $20,000 any time soon.

3. The Olympics has a bad image in America. A poster on the US Highpower shooting site had an interesting put on the subject. On a thread asking about 300m International shooting, he stated that he didn't see any reason for anybody to want to shoot with for an organization that was so corrupt, and so bent on cheating. His examples were the bribery that took place to get the Olympics to Salt Lake City, and the Russians bribing the French Judges in Ice Skating. No one disagreed with him either.

Later

Mike
Wichita KS

I agree that the cost to convert ranges to a true "international" setup would be extremely expensive. However - I don't think that it is necessary for EVERY range in the US to be outfitted as such. Only nationals would require a range like that. Everyone else would be content shooting on their normal ranges. Mainly because not everyone has the skill to shoot at that level anyway. We are talking about grooming a larger base. So why would it be necessary for everyone getting into smallbore to shoot on electronic target systems? You could train using plain old targets, and when you get to that point in your career, you move on to a range that is outfitted properly. In any other sport, you would start in your backyard. When you became proficient in your sport, you would move on. If you were a diver - the local pool could only take you so far. If you were a rower, then you would need to be near the right kind of water all year round to get the most training. If you were a skiier...etc...

So it is not out of the question to expect people to start on their local range and progress to a nationally competitve level, where they would move to develop more on the proper setups. Anyone serious in any other sport does the same thing. Why should shooting be different? Because it is one of the few olympic sports that you can do competitively your whole life? Do you think that alot of people that are not nationally competitve even care if they shoot on electronic target systems? I don't. But for that group of guys (and girls) that are at that level, the NRA could support the availability of more than a couple ranges nationwide.

That's enough typing for now. Rant to be continued...

The problem I see with the USA Olympic shooting is that there is a near complete lack of entry level shooters because:

1. The NRA doesn't sponsor International shooting, (big deal) BUT the NRA is the primary shooting organization in the USA, sponsoring most of the pistol and rifle matches. This means that the largest organization with the most people, money, ranges, and matches isn't even shooting YOUR SPORT.

The NRA DOES sanction International shooting events; in fact they probably sanction more matches than does USAS. (Which may be part of USAS' problem; you do not have to be a NRA member to compete in a NRA sanctioned "Approved" match, but you MUST BE a USAS member to compete in any USAS sanctioned matches.) The NRA also sanctions collegiate International pistol events, the collegiate pistol championship, and recognizes collegiate All-Americans in the various events.

I think WE have to be the grassroots effort. WE have to work with and bring in new junior shooters to OUR sport. WE have to organize and host the matches to give the kids a place to shoot and prepare a few of them to go on to bigger and better things. From my standpoint, every kid should attend college and just about any college kid, if they wanted to badly enough, could compete in a collegiate rifle, pistol, or shotgun program if they wanted to badly enough. There is enough recognition at the collegiate level that would take the best on to international competition. It's getting them there that is the issue.

sparky wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:These numbers don't tell us much w/o a breakdown of direct (sending shooters to matches, practice, equipment, ammo, etc.) and indirect (staff, PPE, overhead, depreciation, etc.) spending.

However, in regard to the cost of sending shooters abroad to shoot in events, if USA Shooting were to send 25 shooters (average is closer to 20) to each of the 8 World Cup events and the Olympics and spent $4000 per shooter, per competition on travel, food, lodging, and miscellaneous expenses, that only amounts to $900,000 in expenses.

With Sparky's help I was able to navigate through the Guidestar site and download USAS 2003 Form 990. USAS EIN is 84-1263863 for those interested. It provides some interesting facts-

Salaries and Wages for program services- $391.444
Salaries and Wages for Management- $55,568
Salaries and Wages for Fundraising $57,117

Number of employees receiving over $50,000 in compensation- one (1).

Of the three functional expense categories, Fundraising was the biggest surprise to me, $918,864, which represents ~25% of revenue. Of that total, $508,522 was for printing and postage.

So in response to Mike McDaniel, I don't think they are a top heavy organization. Management costs are about 6% of the budget, so I don't think there's much room to manuever there.

At approximately $500,000 in total salaries---this cannot be the place to develop a golden parachute or hope to retire on any sort of income. As far as a "top heavy" organization---I don't think so---not for that kind of bucks. I am also a Life Member NRA and there is an organization with a hell of a lot more funds going for salaries et al. But let's face it, WE NEED BOTH---without the NRA we would be holding spit ball events at 3 feet. Without the USAS we wouldn't have any teams for International Competition---the old NRA system didn't work at all. We (USA) got hosed each and every time we went into "International" competition---guys like Don Nygord were the only "white" hope for the USA in shooting. The USOTC is our first attempt to provide year round facilities for training---but it ain't cheap to maintain, staff and provide facilities and services. International shooting consists of many difficult disciplines that NRA style shooting does not support. The range of guns, subsidiary equipment is a large factor in that if you don't have there latest, you have zero, zilch, niente, nada etc. Let's continue to support the NRA without question and USAS likewise---you and I MUST support both these organizations without the second guessing and usual crap we see posted.

Jose Rossy wrote:These numbers don't tell us much w/o a breakdown of direct (sending shooters to matches, practice, equipment, ammo, etc.) and indirect (staff, PPE, overhead, depreciation, etc.) spending.

The entire form is 17 pages; it should tell you what you want to know.

USAS has a charter and a mission statement; a role to play.

NRA has a different charter and a mission statement; a role to play.

Do *either* of them do much to support the problem we have been talking about- supporting shooter development- the "grass roots stuff?

Is either of them responsible for that?

How do we get the NRA and USAS to *collaborate* to make sure that the air gaps between "supporting the team" and "supporting activities to grow team members before they are on the team" (shooter development) no longer exist?

'Cause right now, they do. Well, in Pistol, at least. Rifle has wa-a-a-ay more infrastructure with respect to shooter development than pistol. But somewhere, somehow, shooter development *must* be covered by *someone.*

There is a big gap between teh "shooter development" that the NRA does (focused mainly on Bullseye) and the "talent recognition and team selection" that the USAS does.

And so far- N'ere the Twain Shall Meet.

IMNSHO- I see USAS as *only* focusing on "harvesting X" and the NRA *mainly* focusing on "Planting Y."

Steve Swartz

Perhaps we need an entirely new organization that is focused on planting "x". An organization whose entire mission will be the promotion of ISSF shooting events in the US.
Personally, I think it might be too much for one organization. What if we were to have three separate organizations (rifle, pistol, shotgun) to promote ISSF shooting events?

I hesitated to get into this subject, but found myself itching to say something. One of the problems is that both organizations seem to work at ignoring or dismissing the people who have been around awhile and know a lot about the game and have experience, but they chose to ignore it and do everything they can to disuade a person from helping or doing anything.
Coaching program: This is one area that I am familiar with having been on the National Staff and being a Coach School Instructor for several years. Now, I am just an "Appointed Coach" because of certain people at NRA going back on their word when the coach program was changed a few years ago. Because of this, I can not apply to the ISSF Coaches Schools that are held every so often. The sad thing is that I probably know as much or more than some of the coaches running around now with the certification.
But, I have moved on and if I want to coach someone, I coach them. I do not need any certification from anyone to do that and more of you need to do the same thing. If you know more than the shooter(s) you are working with, then coach and teach them and build a good base of shooters in all disciplines. Unless you do it yourself, very little will most likely be done. Thanks for letting me rant.