TargetTalk

I did a 5-year renewal six months ago. And have received nothing. No membership card, no publications.....not to mention a website that rivals the notorious NMCI system (the biggest disaster to befall the Navy since Pearl Harbor) for utter non-functionality.

Should I bother with giving them another chance, or just demand a refund?

The new system allows you to not only renew, but you can print off your new membership card. They no longer have to send out new membership cards if you renew online. If you upload a picture of yourself you can even put your own picture on your membership card.

The only benefit I see from membership at this point is that I'm allowed to shoot in USAS sanctioned matches. Beyond that? Zippo.

In terms of being a worthwhile recipient of what amounts to a non-reciprocal transfer of wealth, I think that at this point organizations which work towards preserving my shooting rights are more deserving.

The problem is that unless you're a member of USAS you're not going to know if they improve the content of their website, since you have to be a member to see the content.

Isn't that a good question! I also did a multi-year renewal and have been wondering why. That website is positively THE biggest mess ever. Did you notice that if you login, you can't get at the rulebook downloads? If you want the downloads, you have to NOT login. What?! And yes, that nonsense where you have to print your own membership card -- and it's not even a high-res PDF, just a grainy screenshot -- is absurd. Did you notice it doesn't even have your name on the front? What were they thinking?

But never mind the website, they've also cut back totally on basic services to any members who aren't royalty. If you aren't headed to the Olympics, they appear to think your only reason for being is to send them money to spend on programs for people who are going to the Olympics. For example, they will no longer sanction leagues. Why?? And they've made it much more difficult to sanction individual matches as well. If you're a basic "club-level" shooter, forget it. They want your money but that's it.

Good question! I will think about it! Indeed it is bad service !

You all have made so many good points, we should all quit USAS. They can go sit on their giant bags of money lighting cigars with $100 bills and we can go our own way.

We will have an extra few bucks in our pockets which we can spend on ... umm ok there must be something in this sport that cost less, I just can't think of it right now. One great advantage of this plan will be that we all get to continue to complain about how badly USA does in international competition. A double bonus.

Please, is a bad website a good reason to stop supporting our national athletes? If you have not heard from them, call them. Everytime I have called I have received the information I was looking for.

USA Shooting has a hard enough time making ends meet. Personally, I think I'll send them a little extra to help out.

Steve "just another low level shooter" Turner

The BIG QUESTION to ask "Are you really supporting our athletes with your membership"---outside of the "Big Shakeup" and massive "firings"---if it weren't for the USAMU and the Corps Teams---where are the "best shooters" coming from??? Try to find out who's on our "Olympic Pistol & Rifle Teams"---how many quota's have been earned, Gold Medals etc. This is one of the biggest messes ever foisted upon the USIOC. What we don't know for sure is when the USAS was officially declared dead. Our shooters basically rank no where in the world events---at least not in the top ten---God forbid on the podium. If I sound bitter I am beyond hoping and/or caring anymore---I support the Army and the Corps----

Thats kinda harsh, isn't the world air rifle record held by a young lady from Nebraska? Maybe its Idiots that just sit on there ass and just yell and hollar for change, but Dont even Do a Thing to change it. Get up and Do something if you Want things to cahnge. "If you want it right do it yourself" is the only way to go. Go get em chief.

"club-level shooter" Wow. Great generalazation. Is that like saying im white too?

AR TRGT SHOOTER. wrote:"club-level shooter" Wow. Great generalazation. Is that like saying im white too?

No, it does not mean that and I'm a little surprised both that you need to ask and that you feel the need to phrase the question the way you did.

What it means, at least in my case, is that I'm quite serious about shooting. I shoot about 3 matches/week and I like shooting in sanctioned matches where I can earn a classification. And I'm perfectly okay paying my fair share -- and then some, within reason -- for that privilege. But realistically, I'm a 56-yo woman with cataracts in both eyes and I started way too late to ever be a world-class shooter, even supposing I might ever have had it in me anyway, no matter when I started. If I need to win gold at the Olympics to be able to enjoy shooting, I should give it up right now because that is not going to happen.

Fortunately, I do not need to become an Olympic-level shooter to enjoy the sport. I just need (or at least, it helps :) to occasionally score a new PB to remind and encourage me that I can still get a little better over time. I can enjoy the social aspect of shooting against the same people at my club each week. I can enjoy being part of an organized sport. I can enjoy earning a classification; even if to you it's "only" a "B" or a "C", that can mean a lot to me if last season, all I turned in was a "C" or a "D".

But the real problem I see with USAS right now is this: If we'd like to produce some great shooters to represent us, it helps to first start with a lot of shooters, period. When you loose sight of that relationship and think it should be enough to focus just on the needs of the super elite shooters, you won't get them, either. No one starts outs world class. We all start out pretty bad, then get better, some get really good and a very small number become truly amazing. But before a new shooter's even picked up a gun for the very first time, I don't know how you predict what their future holds.

That's the reason why, even if I completely bought the idea that the sole point of USAS is to send top athletes to the Olympics, I would still disagree with the way they've dialed back on support for rank and file members. It's dysfunctional.

USAS has a difficult situation. Limited resources, limited funds and lots of folks with all kinds of dreams abut making it to the Olympics but having no clue what type of life chances they would have to make to even be in consideration. I have heard estimates of 30 hours per week for six years to be ready.

But for those of us who know we will not make those lifestyle changes and have enough realization of what that means and understand our limitations; USAS could not care less about us. Frankly, I see no reason to think that USAS thinks about people at all.

When I have spoken to team members, well, they are not treated all that well.

I have observed Bob Mitchell at the Nationals, and on my few visits to the OTC. He can quote and explain every decision on a budget basis. He can manage USAS on a budget basis and put together a finanical plan.

When it comes to biulding trusting, confident, persoanl relationships with human beings, whether employees, team members, match directors...I have not seen much.

AR TRGT SHOOTER. wrote:Thats kinda harsh, isn't the world air rifle record held by a young lady from Nebraska?

No

The world record for men's 50m prone is a perfect score of 600 and is held by several people, one of whom is Eric Uptagrafft. Eric has spent the last several years working as a civilian and in the Naval Reserves, living north of Denver. Although he had previously been in the army, his impressive success was achieved several years after he left. He was called up in January and is currently in the Middle East.

If you research, you'll probably find that the majority of USAS's funding is corporate in origin and corporate wants the elite high performing athletes.

I also live in Colorado north of Denver and observed USAS withdraw support from the resident pistol shooters at the end of last year. It was said that the decision was based on performance. They continue to support pistol shooters who live off of the complex, but they are no longer housing and feeding them.

At the same time, I heard that the coaches have been directed to focus on developing new shooters and juniors are being given a priority.

Doesn't this sound like they've reached some of the same conclusions you have and are taking action accordingly?

No, they're not perfect and yes there's plenty of room for improvement. But compare them to the Shooting Federation of Canada that is funded almost totally on membership (and they get both International and Bullseye sanctions) and the difference is monumental. National shooting team members pay $200 each year they make the team and buy their own uniform. Then, if they get to travel, all expenses except entry fees are paid by the athlete for World Cups and World Championships. Sometimes they'll get partial funding for lodging for CAT Games, Pan Am and Commonwealth Games. They still pay part of their flights for the Olympics. So maybe, marketing for corporate sponsors with the elite athletes should be looked at more gratefully.

R.M.

It's no worse than what we must do on the U.S. International Muzzle-Loading Team. Shooting at the World Championships last year cost me over $3k in out-of-pocket expenses. Our entry fees are paid, and some misclleaneous expenses, but travel and lodging are paid by the shooters.

My gripe is that USAS, with FAR more resources, can't get basic things right. You can argue over the need for a login at all....but if you have one, it had better work. And membership information needs to go out to the members.

It speaks volumes about USAS.....and all of it is bad.

My goodness, what a lot of ignorance is being expressed here. USA atheletes not being competitive? Where are you getting that information? I see them winning medals on the world stage on a regular basis, in the finals even more often. Pretty incredible really that we win as often as we do, when compared to atheletes from many places where their job is shooting, and a medal is a BIG incentive to a higher life. Granted most of the those top US performers have been in the Rifle or Shotgun disciplines, but as Robert Mumby mentioned the pistol program was just “pushed” lets say to make sure performance was an issue and not a given to be on the US Team.

Grassroots, have you heard of the 3P Air and Progressive Pistol programs? Both managed by USAS! What about coaching clinics? Have you applied for one? Get real people.

Yea, I will grant you the website is a mess, I keep waiting for it to get better but so far it has’nt…BUTTTTTTTTTTTTT being the owner of a largish website myself, I can sympathize….. People that do websites for a living are flakes…99% of them that is. Personally I have been through about 7 of them in the last 5 years, I have finally found one who is responsive and does what he says and the results are good. I know USAS has had similar troubles with various individuals and companies who have promised the moon. I also know numerous other small business owners who have had the same experiences and have the same opinions of web designers.

PETE S wrote:But for those of us who know we will not make those lifestyle changes and have enough realization of what that means and understand our limitations; USAS could not care less about us. Frankly, I see no reason to think that USAS thinks about people at all.

When I have spoken to team members, well, they are not treated all that well.

not going to name names, but i've heard that too, direct from the horse's mouth, from a couple of different national and former national team members who shot internationally.

pilkguns wrote:Grassroots, have you heard of the 3P Air and Progressive Pistol programs? Both managed by USAS! What about coaching clinics? Have you applied for one? Get real people.

the 3-p air stuff is really run by the cmp in conjunction with usas, but it's mainly a cmp thing. i don't know about pistol. in my junior experience the closest thing i have seen to a grassroots program is junior olympics, and really that's not close to grass roots. usas could care less about you unless you send them a ton of money or can already shoot the lights out. true or not that's how it feels.

Since this is the major, if not the only board where us international shooters get together in the US, why wouldn't USAS check in to see what we all are saying? If they are, I don't believe they have sounded off about any of this.

It would be nice if USAS would listen to us on this forum as many of it's members obviously have complaints or issues.

I wonder...are they listening? If they are not, wouldn't that support the concept that they don't care about 'Joe Shooter'?
Just a thought.

pilkguns wrote:My goodness, what a lot of ignorance is being expressed here.

Okay, so help relieve the ignorance, please. What possible reason was there for discontinuing sanctions of all leagues, which is where a great many of us compete? Why are they now refusing to accept memberships concurrent with match participation? Why have they instituted monetary penalties for clubs that do business by check? Also, I've heard they will no longer allow a sanctioned match be run unless ALL participants are USAS members; is that true? Taken together, these changes pretty much spell the end of all sanctioned USAS competition for a great number of shooters. For me, that was the big reason to be a member.

So besides the magazine, what's left that I get for my membership dollars?

As of three days ago, the jury was still out regarding continuation of leagues. I was encouraged to believe that in a very short time the website would be changed to reflect the continuation of league shooting.

Nicole Hamilton wrote: But the real problem I see with USAS right now is this: If we'd like to produce some great shooters to represent us, it helps to first start with a lot of shooters, period. When you loose sight of that relationship and think it should be enough to focus just on the needs of the super elite shooters, you won't get them, either. No one starts outs world class. We all start out pretty bad, then get better, some get really good and a very small number become truly amazing. But before a new shooter's even picked up a gun for the very first time, I don't know how you predict what their future holds.

That's the reason why, even if I completely bought the idea that the sole point of USAS is to send top athletes to the Olympics, I would still disagree with the way they've dialed back on support for rank and file members. It's dysfunctional.

If you compare USAS (a non-governmental non-profit corporation) to the countries that support their shooters, I doubt that USAS is doing anything different in concept. Countries like China, Russia, and others identify promising young shooters, and give them tremendous support, while ignoring older "club" shooters, such as most of us weighing in here. Their goal, like the USAS goal, is Olympic medals, and the numbers from which they draw do not include shooters (like us) who clearly don't have Olympic potential.

The big difference is that USAS is asking us to support their efforts. The implied trade-off is some kind of concrete benefit for that support, and the concensus of this thread seems to be that there is little concrete benefit. I would add that the benefits to "club" shooters used to be significantly greater than they presently are, even as the USAS budget and corporate support have grown.

At a Masters Camp at the USOTC in, I think, 1996, I had a conversation with then-Director Bob Jursnick about this. First I profusely thanked him for offering the Masters Camp (and where have they gone to?), and then suggested that, even though many of us at the camp did not have Olympic potential, we helped create a culture of international shooting in the USA, which would help draw youngsters with Olympic potential into the fold. He completely agreed, and said they were going to step up efforts to support "club" shooting. A year or so later he was gone (I'm not at all suggesting he left over this issue, but he did leave).

The current USAS policy (?) of little support for "club" shooters may make sense to them given their limited resources and virtually single-minded goal of Olympic medals, but it doesn't make sense to us unless we consider ourselves simply as donors. I would also argue - for a slightly different reason than Nicole argued - that what USAS is doing is short-sighted in terms of developing a base. But then, doesn't that describe just about all modern corporations: short-sighted?

FredB

While 3P Air is now completely a CMP program, it was begun by USAS under Martin Edmondson, and run by them with some aid from CMP up until last year.

USAS is the sole operator of the Progressive Pistol Program, which should begin showing results in the next year or two. One of the top female shooters this year is only 16, but I don't know if she came through the PPP system.

As far as charging more for payments by check. many companies do the same , they just call it a discount for using eft, direct deposit, or credit card payments. It moves the need for someone to handle the money processing off site and saves money.

The charter of USAS is to produce Olympic medals, so it is reasonalbe to assume their time and money will go to those most likely to help fulfill the mission.

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.

I doubt any coach who has attended even one "Coaches College" in Colo Springs can honestly say USAS owes them anything (due to the low cost and grreat return). Seminars of this level in private industry run $695 plus for registration, and another $500 plus for lodgin and food.

While the USAS web page is among the worst I've ever seen, they are (s-l-o-w-l-y) getting it updated. I think they are doing the same as the rest of us - the best they can with the tools available.

Pat McCoy
USAS 584