Put that way, I guess I can't. I'm paid up for the next several years, but if it's still just yet another charity looking for a donation when that's up, they can get in line.Pat McCoy wrote:Most of us "club shooters" and coaches should look at our dues as a donation to help the US team, andask not what USAS can do for us, but how we can help them in their mission.
Time to quit USAS?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
-
Nicole Hamilton
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:17 pm
- Location: Redmond, Washington, USA
- Contact:
Nicole, technically, USAS already limits entries to USAS members only. That statement must be included on the match programs we submit. But I know of many clubs that hold "club" matches at the same time as the sanctioned match and wht USAS does not know, won't hurt them.
I have to agree with a previous post that stated something to the affect that they considered their dues to be supporting Olympic shooting and so on.
I have lots of things to do on a Saturday other than holding matches for the few shooters that show up. Part of my reward is that a few of the fellows have attended one of my PTO's and then attended the Nationals, some doing well. I run the matches to give anyone interested in International shooting a place to shoot a match.
I have seen USAS make chnages in response to the fancy. They raised the match fees to $6 per event rather than the previous $6 per match no matter how many events the competitor fired. They have modified it in response to complaints to $5 for the first event and $2 for each there after.
The one week National schedule versus the old two week schedule was in part due to the suggestion of the fancy. I strongly believe the cost savings was also a huge factor.
And Mr. Pilkington, I like to do business with Pilkguns because I trust you, Warren, Wanda, and the rest of the folks. I have a good feeling about your little group.
When I talk to Kim Hardin and Patti Butterfield at USAS competitions. I get tremendous help. Two good people. But beyond those two, I just can not get the warm fuzzy feeling...
I have to agree with a previous post that stated something to the affect that they considered their dues to be supporting Olympic shooting and so on.
I have lots of things to do on a Saturday other than holding matches for the few shooters that show up. Part of my reward is that a few of the fellows have attended one of my PTO's and then attended the Nationals, some doing well. I run the matches to give anyone interested in International shooting a place to shoot a match.
I have seen USAS make chnages in response to the fancy. They raised the match fees to $6 per event rather than the previous $6 per match no matter how many events the competitor fired. They have modified it in response to complaints to $5 for the first event and $2 for each there after.
The one week National schedule versus the old two week schedule was in part due to the suggestion of the fancy. I strongly believe the cost savings was also a huge factor.
And Mr. Pilkington, I like to do business with Pilkguns because I trust you, Warren, Wanda, and the rest of the folks. I have a good feeling about your little group.
When I talk to Kim Hardin and Patti Butterfield at USAS competitions. I get tremendous help. Two good people. But beyond those two, I just can not get the warm fuzzy feeling...
-
PardiniGSP
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:42 pm
- Location: Boston
USAS
What a sad state of affairs. We older, non-Olympics-contending “club” shooters are seen as and treated simply as donors by USAS. And USAS seems to be letting us down at all levels.
A few months ago the man who runs a monthly USAS air pistol PTO asked the people in each relay to vote on whether he should stay with USAS or switch to NRA sponsorship. He said he was fed up with having to deal with USAS neglect and inefficiency - unanswered queries, sending the wrong forms, when forms were sent at all, etc., etc.
The majority, for whatever reasons, voted to stay with USAS. How long that will last remains to be seen.
It is also apparent that with all of USAS's computer woes and distain for the common folk, there is nothing wrong with their fundraising database and mailing system. It seems I get a plea for money every other week (I got two this week). I have been returning their forms and telling them that until their attitude toward and support for rank and file pistol shooters improves they will get no more donations from me.
I wonder how different things would be today if the NRA were still the OC/WC official organization in the US. I also wonder, since USAS is ignoring us, if we noncontenders should switch to NRA sponsored matches.
A few months ago the man who runs a monthly USAS air pistol PTO asked the people in each relay to vote on whether he should stay with USAS or switch to NRA sponsorship. He said he was fed up with having to deal with USAS neglect and inefficiency - unanswered queries, sending the wrong forms, when forms were sent at all, etc., etc.
The majority, for whatever reasons, voted to stay with USAS. How long that will last remains to be seen.
It is also apparent that with all of USAS's computer woes and distain for the common folk, there is nothing wrong with their fundraising database and mailing system. It seems I get a plea for money every other week (I got two this week). I have been returning their forms and telling them that until their attitude toward and support for rank and file pistol shooters improves they will get no more donations from me.
I wonder how different things would be today if the NRA were still the OC/WC official organization in the US. I also wonder, since USAS is ignoring us, if we noncontenders should switch to NRA sponsored matches.
PardiniGSP, it's a thought.....
Personally, I think that USAS makes a TERRIBLE strategic error in ignoring "club" shooters.
Because they aren't "club" shooters, but serious competitors working their way up the ladder.
USAS strategy seems to be under the influence of the spandex sports model - get atheletes started early, train them VERY hard during childhood and early adulthood, and get them into the Olympic Games before their bodies wear out. Think about it...Gymnasts peak in their teens and early 20s. Figure skaters ditto. Runners peak at the same age, but last longer, all the way to their early 30s. Fencers can last into their early 40s, but they are the Old Men of the sporting world.
Shooters? At 30, a shooter isn't finishing his competitive career, he's STARTING it. Really becoming a serious top-flight shooter. Never forget that the oldest Olympic medalist was a shooter....and that he was 73.
The implications of this fact are enormous. USAS needs to break free of the spandex sport training model and adopt a longer view....with a youth program intended to get the kids started, but backed up by coaching clinics aimed straight at the 20 and 30-something "club" shooters who want to climb the ladder to the Big Dance.
And if you think this is imcompatible with being a top-flight shooter, you might want to talk to Bill Demarest.
Personally, I think that USAS makes a TERRIBLE strategic error in ignoring "club" shooters.
Because they aren't "club" shooters, but serious competitors working their way up the ladder.
USAS strategy seems to be under the influence of the spandex sports model - get atheletes started early, train them VERY hard during childhood and early adulthood, and get them into the Olympic Games before their bodies wear out. Think about it...Gymnasts peak in their teens and early 20s. Figure skaters ditto. Runners peak at the same age, but last longer, all the way to their early 30s. Fencers can last into their early 40s, but they are the Old Men of the sporting world.
Shooters? At 30, a shooter isn't finishing his competitive career, he's STARTING it. Really becoming a serious top-flight shooter. Never forget that the oldest Olympic medalist was a shooter....and that he was 73.
The implications of this fact are enormous. USAS needs to break free of the spandex sport training model and adopt a longer view....with a youth program intended to get the kids started, but backed up by coaching clinics aimed straight at the 20 and 30-something "club" shooters who want to climb the ladder to the Big Dance.
And if you think this is imcompatible with being a top-flight shooter, you might want to talk to Bill Demarest.
Re: USAS
The comments comparing the NRA and USAS are interesting to me. I don't think the NRA does any better USAS. They both have their problems.
I get probably 10 times more "gimme money" letters from the NRA than I do from USAS. I think the NRA spends my entire annual membership cost on mailings.
As for the responsiveness, I don't get any better service from the NRA. The web site for competitive shooters is lousy. The rules are not available electronically. Only about a year ago did the NRA actually start listing competitions. Prior to that the TSRA had the best listing. Even now it is just a copy of the printed version in SSUSA and not really searchable. Results are not posted, except for the National Matches and those are not up sometimes for days. Finally, when I have called or emailed to get clarification on the rules the response has been less than spectacular.
Please note, I am not bashing the NRA. I am a member and competitor and have been for years. I just don't think everything would be rosy if they were still the NGB. They have their own problems and priorities.
Lets face it. USAS is underfunded, understaffed and under-resourced. Of course they could do better, show me an organization that couldn't, but I see some good things happening. After many years of ignoring pistol shooting, the organizing bodies of our sport are doing something about it. PPP and the coaching clinics are a good start. Give it 10 or 20 years and we may have a crop of pistol shooters as successful as the current rifle and shotgun shooters. Unfortunately it takes that long to develop Olympic caliber athletes.
One more good sign is that after many years of fighting and/or ignoring each other, the NRA, CMP and USAS are working together to develop coaches and shooters. This is a GREAT thing! It gives me hope for the future of pistol shooting in the US.
My suggestion is to give USAS support, give them suggestions, give them feedback and yes, give them some money. Run matches, promote the sport and coach a junior. That will make a difference.
Best regards,
Steve Turner
One more suggestion is to sign your posts. Personally I don't pay much attention to anonymous rants.
I get probably 10 times more "gimme money" letters from the NRA than I do from USAS. I think the NRA spends my entire annual membership cost on mailings.
As for the responsiveness, I don't get any better service from the NRA. The web site for competitive shooters is lousy. The rules are not available electronically. Only about a year ago did the NRA actually start listing competitions. Prior to that the TSRA had the best listing. Even now it is just a copy of the printed version in SSUSA and not really searchable. Results are not posted, except for the National Matches and those are not up sometimes for days. Finally, when I have called or emailed to get clarification on the rules the response has been less than spectacular.
Please note, I am not bashing the NRA. I am a member and competitor and have been for years. I just don't think everything would be rosy if they were still the NGB. They have their own problems and priorities.
Lets face it. USAS is underfunded, understaffed and under-resourced. Of course they could do better, show me an organization that couldn't, but I see some good things happening. After many years of ignoring pistol shooting, the organizing bodies of our sport are doing something about it. PPP and the coaching clinics are a good start. Give it 10 or 20 years and we may have a crop of pistol shooters as successful as the current rifle and shotgun shooters. Unfortunately it takes that long to develop Olympic caliber athletes.
One more good sign is that after many years of fighting and/or ignoring each other, the NRA, CMP and USAS are working together to develop coaches and shooters. This is a GREAT thing! It gives me hope for the future of pistol shooting in the US.
My suggestion is to give USAS support, give them suggestions, give them feedback and yes, give them some money. Run matches, promote the sport and coach a junior. That will make a difference.
Best regards,
Steve Turner
One more suggestion is to sign your posts. Personally I don't pay much attention to anonymous rants.
-
Guest 346
....."the future of pistol shooting in the US"
"The future of pistol shooting in the US"!!!
This is the great topic!
This is the great topic!
Re: ....."the future of pistol shooting in the US"
[quote="Guest 346"][b]"The future of pistol shooting in the US"!!![/b]
This is the great topic![/quote]
My guess is the large scale future of (precision competitive) pistol shooting in the US is clouded by the public and media general perception/image of action, defensive and paramilitary gun use i.e. spray and pray. Sadly the gun industry and market have bought into the perception and will perpetuate it. Sort of like shooting themselves in the precision competition foot.
Where oh where did the mainstream idea that guns were competition and sport equipment go?
This is the great topic![/quote]
My guess is the large scale future of (precision competitive) pistol shooting in the US is clouded by the public and media general perception/image of action, defensive and paramilitary gun use i.e. spray and pray. Sadly the gun industry and market have bought into the perception and will perpetuate it. Sort of like shooting themselves in the precision competition foot.
Where oh where did the mainstream idea that guns were competition and sport equipment go?
I wasn't going to say anything this time... but what the hey!
The question was, should we continue to be a part of USAS.
Some years ago I read the organizations controlling documentation. Something few competitors or organizers seem to have done. Much gets bandied about about how USAS's preoccupation with providing fodder for the Olympics should be their focus. They are the NGB for amateur international shooting, and their foundation and controlling documentation talks specifically about promoting and growing the sport. The magazine used to have the organization's objectives printed in each issue, one of which was to support the incompetent shooters who never will stand a chance of achieving Olympic Gold. That nasty reminder was removed when the publication went to its current slick format. The old web site used to have the bylaws available for anyone to read, but no more. You'll just have to take my word for the fact that they are supposed to be supporting all amateur international shooters, not just the Olympic team.
So, is USAS doing the job it was tasked to do? And if not, should you support them in that failure by continuing to send them money? I don't know. I have been wrestling with the question for some months now.
I do know that none of us organizers have received the promised answers on sanctioning fees, procedures, or web site fixes that were promised. None of our second quarter matches will be sanctioned because of that silence. Like many others in my position, I have surveyed our shooters and only 10% wanted to keep sanctioning PTO's. If things don't get a bit more fixed soon, third quarter matches may just be NRA matches. There's problems with their system too. But they have never lost a check or set of match results. They take memberships on the fly. They even send out classification cards as earned. Considering that only 1% of NRA members are competitors, and most if not all USAS members are, who is servicing their competitors better? And if we go with NRA sanctioning, why bother with USAS membership?
I am really quite sad that we would even be considering this.
LArry
The question was, should we continue to be a part of USAS.
Some years ago I read the organizations controlling documentation. Something few competitors or organizers seem to have done. Much gets bandied about about how USAS's preoccupation with providing fodder for the Olympics should be their focus. They are the NGB for amateur international shooting, and their foundation and controlling documentation talks specifically about promoting and growing the sport. The magazine used to have the organization's objectives printed in each issue, one of which was to support the incompetent shooters who never will stand a chance of achieving Olympic Gold. That nasty reminder was removed when the publication went to its current slick format. The old web site used to have the bylaws available for anyone to read, but no more. You'll just have to take my word for the fact that they are supposed to be supporting all amateur international shooters, not just the Olympic team.
So, is USAS doing the job it was tasked to do? And if not, should you support them in that failure by continuing to send them money? I don't know. I have been wrestling with the question for some months now.
I do know that none of us organizers have received the promised answers on sanctioning fees, procedures, or web site fixes that were promised. None of our second quarter matches will be sanctioned because of that silence. Like many others in my position, I have surveyed our shooters and only 10% wanted to keep sanctioning PTO's. If things don't get a bit more fixed soon, third quarter matches may just be NRA matches. There's problems with their system too. But they have never lost a check or set of match results. They take memberships on the fly. They even send out classification cards as earned. Considering that only 1% of NRA members are competitors, and most if not all USAS members are, who is servicing their competitors better? And if we go with NRA sanctioning, why bother with USAS membership?
I am really quite sad that we would even be considering this.
LArry
I guess I'll weigh in too.
I enjoy talking to the competitions folks (Kim and her bunch), as well as Bob Foth who is in Martin's old job. I really like these folks. But there are only a few folks in that back office. There are lots of disciplines they have to keep track of.
I have some very good shooters who are the way they are, IMO, because of the clinics that Bob was able to put on. USAS does not allow him to do this anymore. To >me< that is a great disservice to the youth. It may not be a sore point inside of the building there, but to me and the shooters and coaches in my area it is.
USAS, except for the 3-P AR Junior Olympics, has given up all 3-Position Air Rifle sanctioning to the CMP .... and even on the JO part I don't see all that much involvement. The INTL AR JO's are the only event that most of the high school shooters need a USAS membership for, so most areas you will have only a few shooters that sign up for membership to send their scores in ($20 for membership and $15 match fee is kinda expensive for ladies only firing 40 shots ... guys get a better deal .... 60 shots ..... I guess they can get better a better "bang for the buck" if they enter the open matches as well ... the only real USAS sanctioned match they would probably shoot the entire year)
We have over 200 competitive air rifle shooters in NM, and only about 10% are USAS members (why .... for only 1 match???) ... half of those that are members are sporter air rifle shooters that USAS does not even break out in the competition. (Not totally true as some of those are smallbore shooters as well) It's very hard to justify the individual memberships, and even more the club membership ... I have no clue what we get for that. (access to the website?)
I'm a rifle coach, and I'd like to see them continue <more> involvement in rifle ... I see that the priorities have shifted. Not the way I'd like to see, but understandable. (I know I look at things from a "rifle" perspective)
Pistol, especially the PPP development is getting a lot of attention (I hope), as well as shotgun. I came into 4-H coaching because I like to shoot shotgun, but there was a need in the rifle area. My only issue with the shotgun emphasis is that there is not the infrastructure across the US.
(On the soapbox now for sure)
How many Olympic bunkers are there in the US to train on .... very few states ... Who shoots international skeet? ... very few states. Heck I live within 10 miles of two (american style) trap clubs, and both boards have no interest in (no ..... let me say "hostile to") skeet. If USAS is serious about developing youth early, heck .... more bunkers and more intl style competitions are required in more states.
While I did not get an NRA Range Grant this year, in the previous year it went a LONG way to develop our Air Gun range. I am appreciative for that. CMP is very helpful in the clinics we put on with literature and such. The only thing I get from USAS are the passport program pins (and I pay for those)
I don't see (and maybe it's just that I have not looked too hard) american shotgun organizations putting in the required international style fields and equipment. I get to Whittington quite a bit (it's NRA I know), and they have a WONDERFUL set of <American> trap, skeet, 5-stand, and sporting clays fields, but when I asked them if they were going to build an Olympic style bunker, I get a blank stare. I don't expect the NRA to put in a field like that, but why not ATA??? If we are serious about developing youth for international events, then we need international fields.
(OK .... waaaaayyyyy off topic I guess ..... maybe off the soapbox too)
I guess waaaaaayyyyyyy too much coffee this morning.........
I enjoy talking to the competitions folks (Kim and her bunch), as well as Bob Foth who is in Martin's old job. I really like these folks. But there are only a few folks in that back office. There are lots of disciplines they have to keep track of.
I have some very good shooters who are the way they are, IMO, because of the clinics that Bob was able to put on. USAS does not allow him to do this anymore. To >me< that is a great disservice to the youth. It may not be a sore point inside of the building there, but to me and the shooters and coaches in my area it is.
USAS, except for the 3-P AR Junior Olympics, has given up all 3-Position Air Rifle sanctioning to the CMP .... and even on the JO part I don't see all that much involvement. The INTL AR JO's are the only event that most of the high school shooters need a USAS membership for, so most areas you will have only a few shooters that sign up for membership to send their scores in ($20 for membership and $15 match fee is kinda expensive for ladies only firing 40 shots ... guys get a better deal .... 60 shots ..... I guess they can get better a better "bang for the buck" if they enter the open matches as well ... the only real USAS sanctioned match they would probably shoot the entire year)
We have over 200 competitive air rifle shooters in NM, and only about 10% are USAS members (why .... for only 1 match???) ... half of those that are members are sporter air rifle shooters that USAS does not even break out in the competition. (Not totally true as some of those are smallbore shooters as well) It's very hard to justify the individual memberships, and even more the club membership ... I have no clue what we get for that. (access to the website?)
I'm a rifle coach, and I'd like to see them continue <more> involvement in rifle ... I see that the priorities have shifted. Not the way I'd like to see, but understandable. (I know I look at things from a "rifle" perspective)
Pistol, especially the PPP development is getting a lot of attention (I hope), as well as shotgun. I came into 4-H coaching because I like to shoot shotgun, but there was a need in the rifle area. My only issue with the shotgun emphasis is that there is not the infrastructure across the US.
(On the soapbox now for sure)
How many Olympic bunkers are there in the US to train on .... very few states ... Who shoots international skeet? ... very few states. Heck I live within 10 miles of two (american style) trap clubs, and both boards have no interest in (no ..... let me say "hostile to") skeet. If USAS is serious about developing youth early, heck .... more bunkers and more intl style competitions are required in more states.
While I did not get an NRA Range Grant this year, in the previous year it went a LONG way to develop our Air Gun range. I am appreciative for that. CMP is very helpful in the clinics we put on with literature and such. The only thing I get from USAS are the passport program pins (and I pay for those)
I don't see (and maybe it's just that I have not looked too hard) american shotgun organizations putting in the required international style fields and equipment. I get to Whittington quite a bit (it's NRA I know), and they have a WONDERFUL set of <American> trap, skeet, 5-stand, and sporting clays fields, but when I asked them if they were going to build an Olympic style bunker, I get a blank stare. I don't expect the NRA to put in a field like that, but why not ATA??? If we are serious about developing youth for international events, then we need international fields.
(OK .... waaaaayyyyy off topic I guess ..... maybe off the soapbox too)
I guess waaaaaayyyyyyy too much coffee this morning.........
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
Hijhmartin wrote:I guess I'll weigh in too.
....
I came into 4-H coaching because I like to shoot shotgun, but there was a need in the rifle area. My only issue with the shotgun emphasis is that there is not the infrastructure across the US.
(On the soapbox now for sure)
How many Olympic bunkers are there in the US to train on .... very few states ... Who shoots international skeet? ... very few states. Heck I live within 10 miles of two (american style) trap clubs, and both boards have no interest in (no ..... let me say "hostile to") skeet. If USAS is serious about developing youth early, heck .... more bunkers and more intl style competitions are required in more states.
I don't see (and maybe it's just that I have not looked too hard) american shotgun organizations putting in the required international style fields and equipment.
You're right, there is no interest in 90% of the American Trap shooters to shoot International Trap. There is also no interest in 90% of the American Skeet shooters to shoot International Skeet. Generally, neither wants to shoot the other sport either.
My local clubs, Kansas Trap Association (KTA) has 10 trap pairs and 3 practice traps. None are setup for International Trap. Next door to the KTA is the Ark Valley Skeet club where they have 5 skeet fields, one Trap house with thrower, and ONE wobble trap set up for International Trap. The club doesn't own it, one of the members owns it and there are still 3 other empty trap houses down the row. Our 4H shotgun shooters practice at Kansas Trap Assn. We had enough trouble in getting the shooters to even try skeet. In 4H state championships, they usually shoot 50 at the 16 yard line, 50 at the 20 (handicap), and then a round of Skeet. Many of the parents wouldn’t let their kids shoot skeet because "it would ruin their timing for Trap." We do have one boy who did spend some time at Colorado Springs in Shotgun and he shoots both. A few more families are allowing their kids to shoot both, but it's going very slowly. If memory serves, doesn't International Trap require a row (bunker?) of throwers? We have enough trouble in getting the land KEPT to shoot regular trap.
Mike
Wichita KS
Dunno .... maybe the reason is because INTL Skeet and Olympic (bunker) Trap are much harder than the american versions
(At least for me)
I used to travel to the DC area quite a bit and always took my shotgun to either the Bull Run fields in VA or the Prince George's County club over in Maryland.
When I shot trap a lot I was pretty much in the 98/100 area. The first time I went to PGC someone talked me into shooting a round of bunker (Warning me not to be too discouraged). 1st round of 25 .... I hit 3.
I still remember the feeling of "which way did they go ... which way did they go????) The best I ever got to was 16/25 ..... it's HARD.
Even now when I shoot skeet, I shoot it low gun .... I like the challenges.
To get to the nearest skeet field from where I live it's almost 50 miles one way. It's about impossible to get a kid skeet practice time ..... 100 miles driving and 3-4 rounds and the cost is pretty expensive these days. The kids that are doing well are the kids that "live" on or near the fields. Nothing wrong with that in itself. (I only wish I had a skeet field in my backyard..... :-). )
I keep telling my wife that dream, but she says in order to win the lottery, you have to buy a ticket. Can't get myself to step 1.
RE: 4-H ... To me skeet and trap are different. Almost like grouping the rifle and pistol event together. At least in the rifle & air rifle, while we may use different rifles, the techniques are pretty much the same.
My mental state in shooting the two different shotgun sports is totally different, so I can see the lack of real understanding between the two groups ....
(At least for me)
I used to travel to the DC area quite a bit and always took my shotgun to either the Bull Run fields in VA or the Prince George's County club over in Maryland.
When I shot trap a lot I was pretty much in the 98/100 area. The first time I went to PGC someone talked me into shooting a round of bunker (Warning me not to be too discouraged). 1st round of 25 .... I hit 3.
I still remember the feeling of "which way did they go ... which way did they go????) The best I ever got to was 16/25 ..... it's HARD.
Even now when I shoot skeet, I shoot it low gun .... I like the challenges.
To get to the nearest skeet field from where I live it's almost 50 miles one way. It's about impossible to get a kid skeet practice time ..... 100 miles driving and 3-4 rounds and the cost is pretty expensive these days. The kids that are doing well are the kids that "live" on or near the fields. Nothing wrong with that in itself. (I only wish I had a skeet field in my backyard..... :-). )
I keep telling my wife that dream, but she says in order to win the lottery, you have to buy a ticket. Can't get myself to step 1.
RE: 4-H ... To me skeet and trap are different. Almost like grouping the rifle and pistol event together. At least in the rifle & air rifle, while we may use different rifles, the techniques are pretty much the same.
My mental state in shooting the two different shotgun sports is totally different, so I can see the lack of real understanding between the two groups ....
-
isuguncoach
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:49 pm
- Location: central illinois
- Contact:
Could all of these changes also be a reflection of the three sanctioning bodies(CMP, USAS, and NRA) all finally getting together and realizing that with everyone trying to sponsor broadbased "grass roots" programs to develop shooters is a duplication of effort and waste of money????
The NRA Competitive Shooting and CMP have excellent programs for new and developing shooters, why should USAS duplicate that. Why can"t the three programs build on their strengths CMP and NRA developing new shooters to the level of truly internationally competitve standards, and USAS taking over from that point. They wouldn't be wasting time, effort, and money, and the clubs and teams would have a better understanding of just what is going on with USAS.
Joe
The NRA Competitive Shooting and CMP have excellent programs for new and developing shooters, why should USAS duplicate that. Why can"t the three programs build on their strengths CMP and NRA developing new shooters to the level of truly internationally competitve standards, and USAS taking over from that point. They wouldn't be wasting time, effort, and money, and the clubs and teams would have a better understanding of just what is going on with USAS.
Joe
-
Nicole Hamilton
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:17 pm
- Location: Redmond, Washington, USA
- Contact:
No, I don't think it's that. For starters, there isn't any duplication, both because:isuguncoach wrote:Could all of these changes also be a reflection of ... everyone trying to sponsor broadbased "grass roots" programs to develop shooters is a duplication of effort and waste of money???? ... Why can"t the three programs build on their strengths CMP and NRA developing new shooters to the level of truly internationally competitve standards, and USAS taking over from that point.
a) NRA/CMP and international events are just plain different. NRA .22 BE and international SP are as similar as they get but differ in pretty much every way imaginable: sights, trigger weight, target (size of the black and scoring rings), time allowed for slow fire, starting position for timed and rapid, scoring (X's in BE, none in SP), range commands, classification systems and miscellaneous stuff like when you load your magazines. What's left? If you've been shooting Expert in BE but only BE and only with a red-dot, who knows how you'll do the first time you try SP.
a) USAS doesn't appear to be putting any effort or money into "grass roots" programs anyway, which is the whole point being made here.
But also, let's suppose that what you propose makes sense, that USAS should focus on just the needs of Olympic-level shooters and the NRA and CMP will take care of the rest. Great! Knowing that makes it very simple because now I know for sure that I never have to send another dime to USAS.
The problem with focusing on the Olympic-level shooters is that you don't grow any more of them. Yes, you will always have a few people who will seek out their opportunity to go to the Big Dance, but even those few won't do well....not without the advice and coaching that can cut years off the time needed to work up to medal contention.
But back to my original point.....USAS can get away with a lot, IF they handle basics competently. Keeping a website that works. Getting membership materials out. Approving matches promptly. All the administrative nitty-gritty that is the hallmark of a competently run NGB. Do that, and the rank-and-file members will be moderately satisfied. Botch it the way that USAS is doing, and you won't see memberships getting renewed.
But back to my original point.....USAS can get away with a lot, IF they handle basics competently. Keeping a website that works. Getting membership materials out. Approving matches promptly. All the administrative nitty-gritty that is the hallmark of a competently run NGB. Do that, and the rank-and-file members will be moderately satisfied. Botch it the way that USAS is doing, and you won't see memberships getting renewed.
Nicole makes a very good point in that all of these disciplines under the sport "Shooting" vary widely. Part of the problem with having a sport with a wide set of disciplines is that it is very tough for one sanctioning body to administer.
It's almost be like having an NGB like "USA Winter Sports".
It can be done I guess ... look at Track & Field. They would probably be a good model, but they have the history and community thought behind them.
From my simple perspective, the USAS, NRA, CMP overlap comes as much from political realities here in the US as anything else. T&F does not have to have a lobbying body to keep it legal for people to racewalk.
It's almost be like having an NGB like "USA Winter Sports".
It can be done I guess ... look at Track & Field. They would probably be a good model, but they have the history and community thought behind them.
From my simple perspective, the USAS, NRA, CMP overlap comes as much from political realities here in the US as anything else. T&F does not have to have a lobbying body to keep it legal for people to racewalk.
Did you read his post? he was talking about PROGRAMs not disciplinesNicole Hamilton wrote:No, I don't think it's that. For starters, there isn't any duplication, both because:isuguncoach wrote:Could all of these changes also be a reflection of ... everyone trying to sponsor broadbased "grass roots" programs to develop shooters is a duplication of effort and waste of money???? ... Why can"t the three programs build on their strengths CMP and NRA developing new shooters to the level of truly internationally competitve standards, and USAS taking over from that point.
This makes me wonder whether or not you reading the other threads in this post. The point has already been made that this statement is in error because there are grassroots efforts that USAS is responsible for. Both now in orginiatiing and turning over a successful program to another organization and now doing the same thing with pistol. besides hosting coaching clinics, JOs, national championships in Bowling Green they are also helping the program out by selling Tau Jrs at cost to programs. I know they have been actively looking for similar situation with .22s but there isn't much out there in terms of accuracy, size and costNicole Hamilton wrote:[
a) USAS doesn't appear to be putting any effort or money into "grass roots" programs anyway, which is the whole point being made here.
It was just reported a few weeks ago about training Native Americans in Oklahoma that wanted to get a program going that was USAS ran and sponsored.
USAS is also helping by helping create incentives for shooters, BULLSEYE shooters in this case, (which is the grassroots background most of the names I see in this thread would most relate too I think) to attend the USASNC. A good number took them up on that last year causing record attendance, and will do so again this year
-
Nicole Hamilton
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:17 pm
- Location: Redmond, Washington, USA
- Contact:
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
Hi Scottpilkguns wrote: USAS is also helping by helping create incentives for shooters, BULLSEYE shooters in this case, (which is the grassroots background most of the names I see in this thread would most relate too I think) to attend the USASNC. A good number took them up on that last year causing record attendance, and will do so again this year
Unfortunately, that highlights one of their failings, publicity. I'm a bullseye shooter, (a bad one) and I haven't heard about it. I don't read the USA Shooting website that much, and it hasn't been on Bullseye-L. I would bet that my local club doesn't know about it either. I'll look on both USA Shooting and Kansas State Rifle Association to see if there is anything.
Later
Mike
Wichita KS
-
Nicole Hamilton
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:17 pm
- Location: Redmond, Washington, USA
- Contact:
Thank you. Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. The NRA and USAS have very different constituencies and different missions. Consider, e.g., the pre-qual proficiency demonstration required of anyone considering certification as an NRA Basic Pistol Instructor:jhmartin wrote:... all of these disciplines under the sport "Shooting" vary widely.
This makes perfect sense for the NRA, since a fair amount of their overall agenda both politically and in their educational programs is RKBA for personal protection. But is there anyone here who believes any of this would be appropriate as a pre-qual for someone teaching, say, air pistol or free pistol?Required EquipmentSafety Skills Test
- * Semi-automatic pistol, 9mm or larger, 100 cartridges
* Double-action revolver, .38 or larger, 100 cartridges (4" barrel recommended)
Before class starts, you will be asked to explain and demonstrate (as if to a student) the correct techniques for loading, unloading and shooting both revolver and semi-automatic pistols, in both right and left hands.
Shooting Skills Test
The target will be a plain piece of paper at seven yards. The target will be replaced every set of fifteen shots. All shots must fall within a ten inch circle. Each five-shot string of fire must be completed within fifteen seconds.
- 1. semi-automatic pistol in dominant hand, engage the target from a standing unsupported position:
2. semi-automatic pistol in non-dominant hand, engage the target from a standing unsupported position:
- * two-handed isosceles stance, five shots
* two-handed Weaver, or modified Weaver, stance, five shots
* one hand only, five shots3. revolver in dominant hand, engage the target from a standing unsupported position:
- * two-handed isosceles stance, five shots
* two-handed Weaver, or modified Weaver, stance, five shots
* one hand only, five shots4. revolver in non-dominant hand, engage the target from a standing unsupported position:
- * two-handed isosceles stance, five shots
* two-handed Weaver, or modified Weaver, stance, five shots
* one hand only, five shots
- * two-handed isosceles stance, five shots
* two-handed Weaver, or modified Weaver, stance, five shots
* one hand only, five shots
-
pilk