Increasing participation

[Ultimo-Hombre]

Is seeking to increase participation in USPSA shooter numbers the right thing to do?

Are there enough outdoor ranges, existing and new to handle growth?

How close to "capacity" are you at your local range/club?

Do you think that Area matches are charging high entry fees because of high demand? ( selling out in hours)

how close to task saturation is your voulenteer match staff?

Our new El Prez very likely has the goal of increasing our membership numbers. But beyond just bringing new members into the sport what else should we be looking at?

Edited January 20, 2016 by Ultimo-Hombre

[DagoRed]

You have an excellent point. It is very common at my club to have squads with 12 guys, sometimes more. I don't think we ever have less than 60 shooters spread over five stages (unless there are other shoots happening locally the same day).

I think more Participating clubs is important in some areas. We have three clubs within an hour of me, the one I usually go to. That's great for me. I can think of one more that is big enough and setup in a way it could happen but they're private and it would take some discussions to make it happen. And lots of money. Maybe that is something the organization could do, help clubs that are interested w expertise and finance to start. (These are just outdoor by the way. We have two indoor ranges in town but I hate shooting indoors so don't consider it. I think one has IDPA)

I'm sure In other areas they need new shooting ranges, to even have the option of getting USPSA in there.

I do think introducing shooters to it is good, especially as when they see it they understand the fun and become supporters of our sport. I have taken three different friends, none of them have stuck with it. They all enjoyed it though.

And then there needs to be, in my opinion, a lot more women brought into it. I think my club lets them shoot free maybe. Or at least the first time? I just thing the sport would be better if we had more Tori's and Jessie's representing us.

As a dad I am glad they are doing more youth stuff and would love to see some organized pathways for getting kids into it the sport. My daughter is 9 (the older) and I'm going to try and get her started on steel challenge this spring

Red

[PatriotMRD]

I think bringing in women and youth in is the key. I'm in my mid 30s and there aren't many regular shooters around my age or younger. Bringing in more women to our sports can help. How many guys drop out after getting married and starting a family?

[Ultimo-Hombre]

You have an excellent point. It is very common at my club to have squads with 12 guys, sometimes more. I don't think we ever have less than 60 shooters spread over five stages (unless there are other shoots happening locally the same day).

I think more Participating clubs is important in some areas. We have three clubs within an hour of me, the one I usually go to. That's great for me. I can think of one more that is big enough and setup in a way it could happen but they're private and it would take some discussions to make it happen. And lots of money. Maybe that is something the organization could do, help clubs that are interested w expertise and finance to start. (These are just outdoor by the way. We have two indoor ranges in town but I hate shooting indoors so don't consider it. I think one has IDPA)

I'm sure In other areas they need new shooting ranges, to even have the option of getting USPSA in there.

I do think introducing shooters to it is good, especially as when they see it they understand the fun and become supporters of our sport. I have taken three different friends, none of them have stuck with it. They all enjoyed it though.

And then there needs to be, in my opinion, a lot more women brought into it. I think my club lets them shoot free maybe. Or at least the first time? I just thing the sport would be better if we had more Tori's and Jessie's representing us.

As a dad I am glad they are doing more youth stuff and would love to see some organized pathways for getting kids into it the sport. My daughter is 9 (the older) and I'm going to try and get her started on steel challenge this spring

Red

I'm not trying to make a point, I legitimately want to know how other guys feel about this.

I have my opinion, but want to hear others.

As for your thoughts on needing to get more women involved in the sport, interesting...

If girls want to shoot, great. do we need to seek them out any more than anyone else?

Should we welcome anyone regardless of gender, race, or whatever else, yes!

Do we need to target a specific group?

I'm not looking to step in the middle of a taboo subject, my focus is only on increasing new shooters in relation to our current capacity.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Ultimo-Hombre

[perttime]

Women for the public image of the sport.

[Chills1994]

Women for the public image of the sport.

Which requires real running water and real bathrooms with real flush toilets...that is if you want to get the women folk out to the range for 3 to 5 hours to shoot a match.

No woman wants to use a port-a-john.

Get the moms out and the kids will follow.

[motosapiens]

I agree that more chick participation helps us avoid being confused with the bundy clan, and some of them are nice to look at (but so is ultimo-hombre, I think he was on one of those sexy firefighter calendars).

I suspect that where we are, we are going to run into some capacity issues this year. We've had tremendous growth over the last few years, and I'm seeing way more than the normal number of people at our winter matches, even tho the last one alternated between very slick and icy and very muddy. Fortunately, our club leadership has been pretty successful imho at spreading out the MD and stage design opportunities, which I think probably helps alot to avoid burnout.

we've been doing 4 field courses and 2 classifiers, but since no one likes to start on a classifier, we may need to consider adding a 5th field course so we can keep the squad size reasonable (12 at the very most).

[Chills1994]

As to the point about getting more new shooters out to matches...WHY?!

So what used to be a 2 hour match now takes four hours?

It would be a different story if USPSA HQ would somehow redistribute all that wealth they get from each shooter's activity and classifier fees.

EDIT: to expound upon that some more, let's say if a club reaches X particpation level for the year, they get some steel targets or props from HQ. If a club reaches Y level, then _____ _____ happens. So on and so forth. Those clubs get "attaboys" in the Front Sight magazine too. This would all be above and beyond the rationing out of national matches slots.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Chills1994

[motosapiens]

As to the point about getting more new shooters out to matches...WHY?!

uspsa and steel challenge (and probably idpa) have funded a tremendous amount of improvement and upgrades at our range over the last few years. But yeah, if you have to have 15-member squads, you don't need more people, you need more bays and more ranges and more matches.

[Chills1994]

As to the point about getting more new shooters out to matches...WHY?!

uspsa and steel challenge (and probably idpa) have funded a tremendous amount of improvement and upgrades at our range over the last few years. But yeah, if you have to have 15-member squads, you don't need more people, you need more bays and more ranges and more matches.

And eventually you're gonna need range protection laws.

[Sarge]

Is seeking to increase participation in USPSA shooter numbers the right thing to do?

NO. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST SEEKING ANYBODY. IF THEY ARE TRULY INTRRRSTED THEY WILL FIND IT.

Are there enough outdoor ranges, existing and new to handle growth?

NO. NOT NEARLY

How close to "capacity" are you at your local range/club?

IN MY OPINION THE FOUR NEAREST ME ARE MAXED OUT OR DAMN NEAR IT. ALL ARE ABOUT 5 HOUR ORDEALS

Do you think that Area matches are charging high entry fees because of high demand? ( selling out in hours)TOO MANY SHOOTERS, NOT ENOUGH MATCHES.

how close to task saturation is your voulenteer match staff? BURNED OUT

Our new El Prez very likely has the goal of increasing our membership numbers. But beyond just bringing new members into the sport what else should we be looking at?

RANGE DEVELOPMENT NATIONWIDE

[StealthyBlagga]

IMHO attracting new shooters and growing participation is a good thing for USPSA and club membership numbers (there IS strength in numbers), diversity and the future viability of the sport. We have to keep bringing in new and enthusiastic participants so that the next generation of MDs can build matches for us when we old guys are too infirm and senile to do it.

I can understand the fear that existing shooters might have of losing something, and how it could lead to a desire to "bar the doors Katie". Growth can be painful, but stagnation and exclusion of new participants will be to the long-term detriment of our sport.

I am optimistic that, if we can grow participation, the free market will respond to the increased demand by increasing the supply of matches. That is the way all economies work, and is exactly what we have seen at my local club, particularly when it comes to long-gun matches... 5 years ago, all we had was a monthly rifle-shotgun match, but now we have a 3-gun, a shotgun/PCC, a rifle-only, and subgun/PCC match every month, PLUS two tactical .22 carbine matches, PLUS numerous ad hoc practical long-gun events (example: we are running a special pistol-rifle match on the last Saturday this month, followed by a second subgun/PCC match on the Sunday). NONE of these new events in any way encroached on existing pistol matches, which are as vibrant as ever. We just get to shoot more and have more fun.

So long as competitors still have to declare only ONE division for score, and MDs limit re-entries to keep the total numbers manageable, I am struggling to see any downside to growing participation. Sure, some folks could imagine all sorts of horrific potential outcomes, but I really don't see any of them being a problem that could not be managed within the existing rules and match practices.

Edited January 20, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[ChuckS]

Is seeking to increase participation in USPSA shooter numbers the right thing to do?

- Not from a SoCal perspective

Are there enough outdoor ranges, existing and new to handle growth?

- Our ranges are pretty much saturated with the various disciplines

How close to "capacity" are you at your local range/club?

- At or Over

Do you think that Area matches are charging high entry fees because of high demand? ( selling out in hours minutes )

- It costs a lot to do a large multi-day match. You can argue the prize table but that is another discussion.

how close to task saturation is your volunteer match staff?

- The only fully-volunteer content in our matches is squad ROs. Set up is compensated at some level (Entry fee to hourly wage)

Our new El Prez very likely has the goal of increasing our membership numbers. But beyond just bringing new members into the sport what else should we be looking at?

- I am pretty sure things could be more equitable for the masses but doing activity credit based funding would get a lot of clubs pissed off about clubs like Rio Salado who has a USPSA match starting about every 5 minutes. The monthly clubs would be left in the dust.

(Flush toilets would be nice, though!)

Edited January 20, 2016 by ChuckS

[perttime]

Women for the public image of the sport.

Which requires real running water and real bathrooms with real flush toilets......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet

[motosapiens]

Do you think that Area matches are charging high entry fees because of high demand? ( selling out in hours)

I think high-ish entry fees allow the MD to do the best job possible. Personally I am ok with paying $200 for a 2-3 day area match with great stages. Compared to my travel and preparation costs, $200 is not much. I have extra appreciation for being able to just show up and shoot a major match because I usually work the majors in my area.

[PatJones]

As to the point about getting more new shooters out to matches...WHY?!

So what used to be a 2 hour match now takes four hours?

2 hour match? It takes that long to set up a field stage.

My favorite match in our area regularly has 75 people spread over 4 squads in nice weather. More shooters means more competition at all levels of the match. I get to the range at 7am to set up a stage and I don't expect to leave until after 2pm. You can't judge the quality of the match by your watch.

Edited January 20, 2016 by PatJones

[motosapiens]

My favorite match in our area regularly has 75 people spread over 4 squads in nice weather.

18-19 people per squad sounds like an awful lot. Do you just have a limited number of bays you can use, or what is the reason for such a ginormous squad?

[Chills1994]

As to the point about getting more new shooters out to matches...WHY?!

So what used to be a 2 hour match now takes four hours?

2 hour match? It takes that long to set up a field stage.

My favorite match in our area regularly has 75 people spread over 4 squads in nice weather. More shooters means more competition at all levels of the match. I get to the range at 7am to set up a stage and I don't expect to leave until after 2pm. You can't judge the quality of the match by your watch.

I meant say just two hours to shoot it, ASSuming all the stages are set up and ready to be run. Pay your match fee at 9AM. You're turning in your scoresheet or otherwise packing up the car and driving away at 11AM.

I used to set up during the week before a Saturday match. It was me and most likely just one other guy. I don't think we ever spent two hours on any one stage (four man hours total) as far as setting up goes.

Drawing them on the computer in order to produce a WSB/stage diagram was a total bitch. It got to the point where I would bring my laptop with me after we set up the stage, and drew the WSB picture from that.

I originally did it the other way, where I drew the picture first, and then at the range, tried to set the stage up just like it. I always wound up going back into the computer and editing the WSB's. Argghhh....

[Chills1994]

My favorite match in our area regularly has 75 people spread over 4 squads in nice weather.

18-19 people per squad sounds like an awful lot. Do you just have a limited number of bays you can use, or what is the reason for such a ginormous squad?

My recommendation(s) would be:

A. don't have dedicated squads with a dedicated start time. just put it out there in an email or on the club's website that sign up is between 7AM and 9AM, and shooting can start any time after 8AM. So 5, 6, or 7 buddies can all text each other during the week and figure out that they will squad together, so they all car pool together or they show up at the same time. Then let these UNformal squads float from whatever open or empty stage, or whatever stage has the shortest line, to the next stage which is either unoccupied or has the shortest line. People are like electricity, they will pick the path of least resistance on their own

Or.

B. Have two separate start times...heck, have a morning group and an afternoon group....one starts sign up at 8 AM, is all formally squaded together and ready to shoot at 9AM. The next group has sign up start at noon, and their formal squads are together and ready to shoot at 1 PM

of course, if you have electronic scoring instead of paper score sheets, then Option A might not be viable alternative.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Chills1994

[Racinready300ex]

The club I shoot at has 65-75 shooters and that's about the limit of what they can handle. That's 15 to a squad and a pretty long day. I know a few guys who think it looks fun but feel the matches are to long. There is another club a little farther away that will typically have over 15 to a squad. If these clubs get many more shooters they will have to start turning people away. Online registration will start to fill up fast at that point.

I think we need more matches, not more shooters. When we can handle more shooters then it's time to try to grow the sport.

[motosapiens]

My recommendation(s) would be:

A. don't have dedicated squads with a dedicated start time. just put it out there in an email or on the club's website that sign up is between 7AM and 9AM, and shooting can start any time after 8AM. So 5, 6, or 7 buddies can all text each other during the week and figure out that they will squad together, so they all car pool together or they show up at the same time. Then let these UNformal squads float from whatever open or empty stage, or whatever stage has the shortest line, to the next stage which is either unoccupied or has the shortest line. People are like electricity, they will pick the path of least resistance on their own

we have open squadding for our weeknight steel matches, and people invariably seem to pile up at one stage at the same time and not be aware that other stages with much less wait are available. I predict the same would happen in the system you describe.

It's not really an issue for us in uspsa locally (yet) because we have 6 bays, so we are capable of handling 60-70 people with reasonable squad sizes and it usually takes about 4 hours to do the shooting. not too bad for 6 stages imho.

It might not be unreasonable tho to have 1 squad start early on one of the field courses while we finish setting up the last 1 or 2 stages. That would let us add a squad without making them start on the classifier.

And of course we can always raise the price (which is already cheap) and comp entries for anyone that shows up early to set up.

[Strick]

And the last few posts shows the issue. Instead of a blind push to "grow the sport" for the sake of numbers USPSA should first examine ways to make things better at our current levels (both numbers of shooters and level of growth). Increasing numbers with the same problems we run into with current numbers is what really causes issues.

[Ultimo-Hombre]

And the last few posts shows the issue. Instead of a blind push to "grow the sport" for the sake of numbers USPSA should first examine ways to make things better at our current levels (both numbers of shooters and level of growth). Increasing numbers with the same problems we run into with current numbers is what really causes issues.

Anyone have Foley's email?

Edited January 20, 2016 by Ultimo-Hombre

[Chills1994]

And the last few posts shows the issue. Instead of a blind push to "grow the sport" for the sake of numbers USPSA should first examine ways to make things better at our current levels (both numbers of shooters and level of growth). Increasing numbers with the same problems we run into with current numbers is what really causes issues.

It's the same $hit I have been saying for at least 4 to 6 years already. I guess I am chopped liver, and nobody listens to me.

[Ultimo-Hombre]

And the last few posts shows the issue. Instead of a blind push to "grow the sport" for the sake of numbers USPSA should first examine ways to make things better at our current levels (both numbers of shooters and level of growth). Increasing numbers with the same problems we run into with current numbers is what really causes issues.

It's the same $hit I have been saying for at least 4 to 6 years already. I guess I am chopped liver, and nobody listens to me.

New prez amigo.

I am sure he wants to succeed, let's give him good Intel to do so with!