Requiring Membership to Shoot Level 1

[lcs]

Why not? Provide new shooters with a "Try It" match a local club, maybe 2. but then after that why would they not join. If non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members at local matches that is not right.

With a partnership of gun manufactures, USPSA could provide marketing material with a "Free" club match for new shooters.

I don't get "non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members"????

Yes, In A8 there many matches if you don't sign up within minutes of sign up opening you are on a wait list.

Don't get me wrong we need new members, and we should bring more with us when we go to matches.

But the habit of "old Club" members that come to matches at the "home" club take all the slots and never pay USPSA Member dues and the club either does not send in scores because they cant afford to pay the fees to USPSA. as they had more non-members shoot (sometimes at a discounted rate) than paid USPSA members to make it worth while. Scores are on Practiscore go look, oh your a USPSA member and you shot a real good classifier.. Oh well.

Oh wait now we start to blend topical issues, like score reporting, match attendance, club affiliation renewal.....

Your right. If the club is saying they are USPSA afiliated and running classifiers, but not paying for or not submitting classifiers, contact your Area Director.

[lcs]

It amazes me that people think that a local problem is something that should be the national organization's problem to solve.

Seriously.

If a local club has SO MANY PEOPLE coming to shoot that the match fills---congrats! Solve it however you like. If that means preferential treatment to USPSA members, well, the rulebook doesn't say you can't. If you choose another way, as long as the rulebook doesn't say you can't, great. (Better yet, make changes so you can run more shooters. What a great problem to have!)

The idea that USPSA HQ should somehow instead make an everyone-must-follow-this rule about "you can't shoot more than one match without being a member" or some similar nonsense is precisely that, in my opinion--nonsense. What problem will it solve, exactly?

Seriously, what problem will that solve? The problem is matches being over-booked. The only solution to that is either making the matches able to handle more shooters, or reduce the number of shooters. How will requiring membership (as a USPSA rules) make the matches able to handle more shooters? It won't, right? Therefore, people voting for that apparently must think it'll reduce the number of shooters at matches.

Well, there's a unique way to build the sport.

How about instead, individual clubs handle it in whatever way is best for them while following the rulebook, instead of having HQ make a one-size-applied-to-all rule that may not solve any of the problems? I don't know, prioritize ROs, then USPSA members, then others? Include a lottery of 5 new shooters each time? First-come, first-served? Who knows---the optimal solution will probably be different for each club.

I'm pretty sure the solution will NEVER be "make 'em all be USPSA members." (Noting that for people saying that IDPA does this, far as I know, most local clubs pretty much ignore this rule since it is stupid, and will only lose you shooters since most people take some time to realize that being a member is worth doing.)

But the habit of "old Club" members that come to matches at the "home" club take all the slots and never pay USPSA Member dues and the club either does not send in scores because they cant afford to pay the fees to USPSA. as they had more non-members shoot (sometimes at a discounted rate) than paid USPSA members to make it worth while. Scores are on Practiscore go look, oh your a USPSA member and you shot a real good classifier.. Oh well.

I don't understand the part I bolded in the quote above. Clubs aren't smart enough to charge enough for a match to pay the $1.50 fee to USPSA? Clubs have non-members shoot at a discounted rate compared to members of USPSA for USPSA matches?

That's not a shooter numbers problem, that's a "stupidly-run club" problem. I mean, how can the club not be smart enough to charge enough to run the match plus the USPSA fee that they have to pay for members and non-members alike? Did they magically forget that USPSA clubs have fees they need to send in? (Why would a non-member get to shoot the match cheaper?)

....anyway: I really don't understand why this is a topic that anyone is asking USPSA HQ to solve in terms of a new rule.

Your right, we do not need new rules. The rules exist.

[shooterDrew]

It's interesting because locally I see IDPA matches are attracting 5-10 new shooters every time, while USPSA matches have 1-3 new shooters most of the time. It can be just a local thing, but still seems to be in contradiction with the deterrent theory. Maybe by allowing a max of 1 free match, people actually become more interested and are willing to come out and try it?

Could be commitment psychology. Could it be that IDPA is more "tactical" where as USPSA is more of a racing game?

I've noticed more new shooters at IDPA as well... But I definitely have not noticed that the overall #s have jumped up for local matches. So that tells me that they're able to draw some people in a little easier, but maybe not retaining them.. Not sure if that is related to the rule about membership or not, but it might be ...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MilkMyDuds]

HQ could help mitigating the overcrowding in certain local areas by getting more affiliations going. Maybe provide special incentives to attract clubs holding other shooting sport matches?

For example, in DFW area there are 3 clubs holding once-a-month USPSA matches, while there are 5 or 6 clubs holding IDPA weekly (some clubs hold up to 3 IDPA matches per week) matches. Can HQ figure out how to attract those clubs to also hold USPSA matches?

[ATLDave]

Why would we want to raise barriers to new participants? This is a difficult, expensive, and intimidating enough sport as it is.

[ATLDave]

Why would we want to raise barriers to new participants? This is a difficult, expensive, and intimidating enough sport as it is.

[motosapiens]

No. I think USPSA's model of not requiring membership to shoot L1 is better than the other shooting game that requires membership after your second match.

+ 1 million.

requiring membership is retarded and drives people away. It's the biggest reason that I don't shoot an IDPA match a couple times a year. I assume there are people out there that only want to shoot uspsa now and then too, but not enough to want to join. That's fine with me, and I want them to keep shooting now and then instead of quitting.

I can't think of a single positive benefit to requiring membership.

[motosapiens]

It's interesting because locally I see IDPA matches are attracting 5-10 new shooters every time, while USPSA matches have 1-3 new shooters most of the time. It can be just a local thing, but still seems to be in contradiction with the deterrent theory. Maybe by allowing a max of 1 free match, people actually become more interested and are willing to come out and try it?

you can shoot idpa with gear you already have, without practicing, and not feel old and slow. it's way more beginner friendly in that respect. for uspsa you need more gear, and the majority of shooters have fancier guns that most people don't already have.

[2MoreChains]

HQ could help mitigating the overcrowding in certain local areas by getting more affiliations going. Maybe provide special incentives to attract clubs holding other shooting sport matches?

For example, in DFW area there are 3 clubs holding once-a-month USPSA matches, while there are 5 or 6 clubs holding IDPA weekly (some clubs hold up to 3 IDPA matches per week) matches. Can HQ figure out how to attract those clubs to also hold USPSA matches?

I see this more as a local problem, maybe the SC could get involved in to provide advice and help out but I don't see this as HQ's role. If matches in a particular town/metro area are at or exceeding capacity but there are other clubs in the area that can host... Seems to me burden is on the local people who are affected by the over-capacity at the existing clubs to step up and try and get something going at one or more of the non-USPSA affiliated clubs.

If those IDPA clubs are willing to share equipment (target stands, props, steel) then most of the heavy lifting is already done. After that it's a matter of finding several people who will take the lead to run the matches, submit your affiliation paperwork, pay your fee and drive on. Now if it was a brand new club getting started that had to shell out $$ for targets, props, steel, storage, etc... Then I understand how it can be daunting, but it can be done. Saw it happen with 2 clubs in my section in the last 3-4 years where they went from zero to being able to host a section match.

When we hit capacity with our weekday outlaw steel match we started offering a second day during the week. That helped take the pressure off, but it doubled our staff requirement. Fortunately God loves a volunteer and we have them.

Grassroots man, lead up. Don't wait for the gubmint to provide a handout.

[fishsticks]

HQ could help mitigating the overcrowding in certain local areas by getting more affiliations going. Maybe provide special incentives to attract clubs holding other shooting sport matches?

For example, in DFW area there are 3 clubs holding once-a-month USPSA matches, while there are 5 or 6 clubs holding IDPA weekly (some clubs hold up to 3 IDPA matches per week) matches. Can HQ figure out how to attract those clubs to also hold USPSA matches?

Agreed. In my area there's one club that lost its affiliation over a stupid local rule. In fairness the SC and AD did battle with the club to try and get the rule overturned. But--this continues to be a lost opportunity as the club runs an action pistol match that could possibly with some work return to a sanctioned USPSA match.

That's what I'm talking about with reference to HQ helping to grow the sport. Not add shooters to oversubscribed matches or add more divisions. truly grow the sport through expansion. More clubs more matches = more money.

[L3324temp]

It should not be required. Our sport is tiny, there is no reason to turn anyone away.

I'm not a big fan of IDPA, but there is a weeknight match near me that I would shoot if they didn't require IDPA membership.

[Nik Habicht]

Why not? Provide new shooters with a "Try It" match a local club, maybe 2. but then after that why would they not join. If non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members at local matches that is not right.

With a partnership of gun manufactures, USPSA could provide marketing material with a "Free" club match for new shooters.

Really? We get a fair number of host club members who shoot USPSA once a month at their club only. They come out early to help set-up, they help to run squads through the match, they put stuff away, and when we need to bring an issue before the general membership they advocate for and vote with us.....

They're certainly not taking anything away from USPSA members, least of all slots. Without their participation, the sport would not exist in many places....

[jcc7x7]

It's interesting because locally I see IDPA matches are attracting 5-10 new shooters every time, while USPSA matches have 1-3 new shooters most of the time. It can be just a local thing, but still seems to be in contradiction with the deterrent theory. Maybe by allowing a max of 1 free match, people actually become more interested and are willing to come out and try it?

you can shoot idpa with gear you already have, without practicing, and not feel old and slow. it's way more beginner friendly in that respect. for uspsa you need more gear, and the majority of shooters have fancier guns that most people don't already have.

In my local area most new shooters "think" that USPSA is for the expert shooters and IDPA is for the regular guy! Mostly because as stated above the type of gear that is worn and the TechWear style shirts that a lot of the shooters wear. To them perception is reality.

My thought is "NO" mandatory membership forced on them. Let the local club do the pushing once the person is involved.

[ac4wordplay]

Agreed. In my area there's one club that lost its affiliation over a stupid local rule. In fairness the SC and AD did battle with the club to try and get the rule overturned. But--this continues to be a lost opportunity as the club runs an action pistol match that could possibly with some work return to a sanctioned USPSA match.

If you're referring to the club/facility that I think you are, both sides (the facility and USPSA) attempted to persuade the other to change position so that USPSA matches could continue at the facility. The club/facility was understandably concerned about certain liability issues. USPSA didn't offer any relief from the liability issues. The facility can (does) host (non-USPSA) matches even though USPSA has withdrawn affiliation. Yes, it's a loss to USPSA participants in the neighborhood (but limited to USPSA participants). If the club was shut down (due to a liability issue incident), all the club/facility members, and many discipline participants in the neighborhood would be negatively impacted. The club's effort to protect itself (and by extension, its members, and many discipline participants) could be a smart and safe thing to do, although it (regrettably) lost USPSA in the process.

Respectfully,

ac

[PatriotMRD]

Why not? Provide new shooters with a "Try It" match a local club, maybe 2. but then after that why would they not join. If non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members at local matches that is not right.

With a partnership of gun manufactures, USPSA could provide marketing material with a "Free" club match for new shooters.

I don't get "non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members"????

Maybe they cap the number of shooters per match? We get 60-70+ shooters almost every month and maybe 50% are members. Never had a problem.

[Sandbagger123]

Follow the money. IDPA gets it revenue from membership. Uspsa gets it from membership and classifiers. If idea did not require membership they would be out of biz real quick thus the requirement. Uspsa gets money no matter member or not.

I my area we consider IDPA to be a feeder sport. It's rare that a new uspsa shooter just shows up one day without previous experience and just wants to shoot. Being a uspsa member really has nothing if one never intends to do a lv2 or higher match.

[Beastly]

Follow the money. IDPA gets it revenue from membership. Uspsa gets it from membership and classifiers. If idea did not require membership they would be out of biz real quick thus the requirement. Uspsa gets money no matter member or not.

I my area we consider IDPA to be a feeder sport. It's rare that a new uspsa shooter just shows up one day without previous experience and just wants to shoot. Being a uspsa member really has nothing if one never intends to do a lv2 or higher match.

It gets you access to the Classification system.

[Craig N]

I don't think it should be required. IDPA does this and I think it's a deterrent. But if you want to charge non-USPSA members a few dollars more per match, there would be some incentive for those in your area to join.

Do the local clubs enforce that rule much? They push it at our club but it's mostly because they started holding Major Matches there and wanted the numbers to look good.

[Reshoot]

NO !

[Forrest Halley]

It's cold out and I don't want to hang around freezing playing hiking stamp collector that happens to shoot for three minutes every six hours. Let them have my spot in a match. A match where I must preregister makes me think twice about shooting it. Sounds crowded, which sounds slow, which sounds like a day better spent practicing off the back porch where I can shoot for six to eight minutes and then go warm up.

As far as crashing an idpa match, come up with a five digit number over 45000 and put an A in front of it. Put down MM or SS in whatever division you want, say something tactical in passing, make a comment about shooting hollowpoints on the three and seven yard line at an indoor range. Cue circus music....?

[fishsticks]

Agreed. In my area there's one club that lost its affiliation over a stupid local rule. In fairness the SC and AD did battle with the club to try and get the rule overturned. But--this continues to be a lost opportunity as the club runs an action pistol match that could possibly with some work return to a sanctioned USPSA match.

If you're referring to the club/facility that I think you are, both sides (the facility and USPSA) attempted to persuade the other to change position so that USPSA matches could continue at the facility. The club/facility was understandably concerned about certain liability issues. USPSA didn't offer any relief from the liability issues. The facility can (does) host (non-USPSA) matches even though USPSA has withdrawn affiliation. Yes, it's a loss to USPSA participants in the neighborhood (but limited to USPSA participants). If the club was shut down (due to a liability issue incident), all the club/facility members, and many discipline participants in the neighborhood would be negatively impacted. The club's effort to protect itself (and by extension, its members, and many discipline participants) could be a smart and safe thing to do, although it (regrettably) lost USPSA in the process.

Respectfully,

ac

Yup, that range.

All I'm saying is that here is one example of a (lost) opportunity to increase participation.

IMHO before we add divisions and push for more participants we need more places to shoot.

[Bkreutz]

I know of one range that waives the match fee if the shooter is not a USPSA member and joins that day. The match fee is $22 so for a $3 outlay, the shooter gets a years membership. Kind of a win win situation. I don't know why people make joining such a arguing point. If you don't want to join the club (USPSA) why continue to shoot the matches. It's not like it's a lot of money especially in a sport like ours that isn't cheap anyway.

[Craig N]

It's interesting because locally I see IDPA matches are attracting 5-10 new shooters every time, while USPSA matches have 1-3 new shooters most of the time. It can be just a local thing, but still seems to be in contradiction with the deterrent theory. Maybe by allowing a max of 1 free match, people actually become more interested and are willing to come out and try it?

Could be commitment psychology. Could it be that IDPA is more "tactical" where as USPSA is more of a racing game?

From what I hear at IDPA matches is people want to work on their "CCW" stuff and don't have the extra mags/pouches for USPSA.

[PKT1106]

They can shoot Limited and even junk carry ala Gabe White with full mags. Nothing in the rules stopping them from coming on over.

[ES13Raven]

Should Level 1 matches require membership to participate?

IDPA "requires" membership after your first match. But clubs around here do not enforce that, and look the other way. About 1/4 of the shooters are actually IDPA members.