JakeMartens Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Rooting out and getting the clubs that are violating their agreement with a USPSA to comply or get thrown out would be a good job for the new USPSA Club Coordinator. A good start would be a warning article in Front Sight. Pretty sure getting clubs thrown out is not what the job is about helping clubs overcome these types of hurdles and continue bringing in affiliated clubs is more of the direction but thanks for offering helpful suggestions Edited October 31, 2014 by JakeMartens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkeeler Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 You have USPSA matches at a range you attend. This range decides everyone must be a member of the range to shoot on their property. You tell them I don't have to join your range to shoot a USPSA match. What do you think will happen? Every range in the Country can go down this road if they decide to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Clubs that are knowingly violating their written agreements with USPSA have no room on the high moral ground. And which clubs are those? The ones that affiliated with USPSA but hold members only matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Rooting out and getting the clubs that are violating their agreement with a USPSA to comply or get thrown out would be a good job for the new USPSA Club Coordinator. A good start would be a warning article in Front Sight. Pretty sure getting clubs thrown out is not what the job is abouthelping clubs overcome these types of hurdles and continue bringing in affiliated clubs is more of the direction but thanks for offering helpful suggestions As a USPSA HQ paid employee, the Club Liason should be obligated to ensure USPSA rules and agreements are enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Rooting out and getting the clubs that are violating their agreement with a USPSA to comply or get thrown out would be a good job for the new USPSA Club Coordinator. A good start would be a warning article in Front Sight. Pretty sure getting clubs thrown out is not what the job is abouthelping clubs overcome these types of hurdles and continue bringing in affiliated clubs is more of the direction but thanks for offering helpful suggestions As a USPSA HQ paid employee, the Club Liason should be obligated to ensure USPSA rules and agreements are enforced. Yep. Because deciding that everything is black or white will definitely ensure the future survival of the organization...... Vlad's now been running a monthly club match (and involved in making another happen) for close to twice as long as I ran a monthly club match. I tend to pay attention to the folks actually doing the work, so that the rest of us can shoot on Sundays...... I also realize that there's a fair amount of grey in getting that job done. But hey, fewer clubs in USPSA might mean more outlaw matches...... And I for one don't think that's a good thing..... But I'm confident that either way, I'll have a place to shoot. I'd prefer that place to offer USPSA matches, but if that proves to not be feasible, I'll still support the folks who've put in the work..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkeeler Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Rooting out and getting the clubs that are violating their agreement with a USPSA to comply or get thrown out would be a good job for the new USPSA Club Coordinator. A good start would be a warning article in Front Sight. Pretty sure getting clubs thrown out is not what the job is abouthelping clubs overcome these types of hurdles and continue bringing in affiliated clubs is more of the direction but thanks for offering helpful suggestions As a USPSA HQ paid employee, the Club Liason should be obligated to ensure USPSA rules and agreements are enforced.Enforce to much on a host range and they will tell you to piss off.Having an outlaw match would be much easier to run, no classifiers to set up,no classifiers to send in and no money to send to USPSA either. Cost for a match could be reduced for the range as well. You do realize that you need a range to have USPSA matches right? Does USPSA own any ranges? Any range can become a "members only" range at anytime they choose. If you want USPSA to exist and grow I don't think that is a good path to follow. Edited October 31, 2014 by bkeeler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeMartens Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Rooting out and getting the clubs that are violating their agreement with a USPSA to comply or get thrown out would be a good job for the new USPSA Club Coordinator. A good start would be a warning article in Front Sight. Pretty sure getting clubs thrown out is not what the job is abouthelping clubs overcome these types of hurdles and continue bringing in affiliated clubs is more of the direction but thanks for offering helpful suggestions As a USPSA HQ paid employee, the Club Liason should be obligated to ensure USPSA rules and agreements are enforced. Thanks for pointing out what you think my obligations are, however I do not make or enforce the rules or bylaws, there is a BoD for that. I am concerned with keeping clubs affiliated, working with host ranges to get more clubs affiliated and providing services to the affiliated clubs around the activity credits that they have earned. I am especially interested in getting more clubs affiliated that are currently running outlaw USPSA and Steel Challenge Matches not creating more of them, especially clubs that are using the names Steel Challenge and USPSA but are not affliated. Robert do you have any of those clubs by you that are running outlaw matches using the licensed name Steel Challenge? or USPSA? That would be a much bigger help if you could get me in contact with them instead of worrying about a club that is operating with in the by laws (4.8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The by laws and affiliation agreement need to be brought more in line with each other in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racegun9 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The by laws and affiliation agreement need to be brought more in line with each other in that case. 200 plus posts and allot of venom towards our club and it's pretty much came down to this. In the second sentance of the agreement there is the following. "We have read and understand the bylaws, rules, and regulations of USPSA and do agree to abide by them" But I agree the "open to all" sentance needs some cleaning up. Open to all at what price; zero, $5, $10, $40, a club membership??? Along with an addition of limited number of slots could be available at match's. Not "open to all" It's happening at the National Level now and I see it coming to the local level soon, if not already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 USPSA seems to be run largely on a wink a and a nod. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racegun9 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 USPSA seems to be run largely on a wink a and a nod. Sad. You act like you know how to fix it. The Presidents Chair is going to be wide open next time from what I hear. See if you can get all the clubs and members taken care of. So far seems like your best at tossing jabs from the computer. And you only care about some of the rules you like. If you don't like it its not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkeeler Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 USPSA seems to be run largely on a wink a and a nod. Sad. You act like you know how to fix it.The Presidents Chair is going to be wide open next time from what I hear. See if you can get all the clubs and members taken care of. So far seems like your best at tossing jabs from the computer. And you only care about some of the rules you like. If you don't like it its not true. Just remember USPSA owns USPSA not the host range. Without the host ranges you have no USPSA matches. Without USPSA the host range can still have matches! Hopefully you won't take that chair, if you do I don't think USPSA will be around very long! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 If USPSA rules are a hindrance to growth, then change the rules/agreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racegun9 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 If USPSA rules are a hindrance to growth, then change the rules/agreements. They are flexable enough for lots of growth around here. We have clubs and shooters but not enough Match Directors. Working with USPSA is pretty easy. Working with the host clubs and doing the planning for 1, 2, or 3 match's a month seems to be the problem around here at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b1gcountry Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 If USPSA rules are a hindrance to growth, then change the rules/agreements.They are flexable enough for lots of growth around here.We have clubs and shooters but not enough Match Directors. Working with USPSA is pretty easy. Working with the host clubs and doing the planning for 1, 2, or 3 match's a month seems to be the problem around here at least. Clubs that are knowingly violating their written agreements with USPSA have no room on the high moral ground.And which clubs are those?The ones that affiliated with USPSA but hold members only matches.We are not violating our affiliation agreement. Our agreement specifically mentions our club rules. I don't know why people can't accept that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkeeler Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) If USPSA rules are a hindrance to growth, then change the rules/agreements. Don't need to. Just need to get more ranges affiliated. Do you know of any ranges? Are you running any USPSA matches in your area? or we can change a rule: in order to be eligible to be a USPSA member you must run a match at your range for 1 year! YIKES! Edited October 31, 2014 by bkeeler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 or we can change a rule: in order to be eligible to be a USPSA member you must run a match at your range for 1 year! YIKES! Heck, year one is still fun. It is year 7 or 8 where it starts getting really annoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) "We are not violating our affiliation agreement. Our agreement specifically mentions our club rules. I don't know why people can't accept that..." I certainly can accept USPSA giving specific exemptions to normal rules and regulations in unusual and specific cases. But giving the option to individuals or clubs to decide which procedures and rules to follow and which to ignore means there are really no rules. Edited October 31, 2014 by rgkeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkeeler Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) or we can change a rule: in order to be eligible to be a USPSA member you must run a match at your range for 1 year! YIKES! Heck, year one is still fun. It is year 7 or 8 where it starts getting really annoying Yes, I am finding that out! I run an outlaw match too in an indoor range. No, I have no interest in getting that range Afiliated we are to limited in the indoor setting. Edited October 31, 2014 by bkeeler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racegun9 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 or we can change a rule: in order to be eligible to be a USPSA member you must run a match at your range for 1 year! YIKES! Heck, year one is still fun. It is year 7 or 8 where it starts getting really annoying I'm at 15, and have had allot of help along the way, BUT I must need my head examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 USPSA seems to be run largely on a wink a and a nod. Sad. I'm going to ask -- have you participated in running USPSA? Because it's a volunteer sport, and we're always looking for folks...... Stage designers, match directors, statisticians, section coordinators, Board members, etc..... What have you done to improve the sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 or we can change a rule: in order to be eligible to be a USPSA member you must run a match at your range for 1 year! YIKES! Heck, year one is still fun. It is year 7 or 8 where it starts getting really annoying My year one was a bit different than yours........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 or we can change a rule: in order to be eligible to be a USPSA member you must run a match at your range for 1 year! YIKES! Heck, year one is still fun. It is year 7 or 8 where it starts getting really annoying I'm at 15, and have had allot of help along the way, BUT I must need my head examined. That's an impressive number. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Not to be all Clinton-ish, but define "open". Yes, seriously, define "open". In some respects "open" and actually shooting a USPSA match are two different things. I don't have the time right now to draw a Venn diagram. I'll try to explain it this way with this hypothetical situation. The front door to my house is wide open. Literally anyone can walk through it. However, very few people would actually be allowed or permitted to enter my house and occupy it, albeit temporarily. So the USPSA rules or bylaws, IMO, are poorly written. Maybe some other word like "eligible" could be used there instead of "open". Throw in a "must" or "shall" also and that whole spiel gets a little closer to being ironclad. However, realistically, USPSA HQ cares too much about the $3 per shooter, per match. If Arnold is averaging 52 shooters per over 10 USPSA matches, that's $1,560 per year, plus the re-affiliation fee. So HQ is never going to yank Arnold's affiliation. For the rest of you Arnold guys, look at the rest of the clubs in the area that host matches. Benchrest, the old Caseyville, Town and Country, and I would assume Effingham now, too, are all non-profit 501 c 3's just like Arnold, but somehow Arnold is the only one who forces regular match attendees to join at $250 per year. Why is that? (notice I specifically left off PASA Park because I am not so sure about its tax status) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racegun9 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Not to be all Clinton-ish, but define "open". Yes, seriously, define "open". In some respects "open" and actually shooting a USPSA match are two different things. I don't have the time right now to draw a Venn diagram. I'll try to explain it this way with this hypothetical situation. The front door to my house is wide open. Literally anyone can walk through it. However, very few people would actually be allowed or permitted to enter my house and occupy it, albeit temporarily. So the USPSA rules or bylaws, IMO, are poorly written. Maybe some other word like "eligible" could be used there instead of "open". Throw in a "must" or "shall" also and that whole spiel gets a little closer to being ironclad. However, realistically, USPSA HQ cares too much about the $3 per shooter, per match. If Arnold is averaging 52 shooters per over 10 USPSA matches, that's $1,560 per year, plus the re-affiliation fee. So HQ is never going to yank Arnold's affiliation. For the rest of you Arnold guys, look at the rest of the clubs in the area that host matches. Benchrest, the old Caseyville, Town and Country, and I would assume Effingham now, too, are all non-profit 501 c 3's just like Arnold, but somehow Arnold is the only one who forces regular match attendees to join at $250 per year. Why is that? (notice I specifically left off PASA Park because I am not so sure about its tax status) Because it's written in our clubs rules and the current BOD will not ignore it. Other clubs probably don't have a rule like it. Its not really a 501 c 3 thing as much as its whats in your clubs charter, bylaws, rules, etc. Ours was setup as a social club, based on memberships. And yes it can be changed with a different type of membership that we haven't been able to accomplish. A for profit range would never have something like that if they are looking for money. We have also seen several clubs that are "open" start up and shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now