Required Uspsa Membership?

[rtr]

"Mandatory USPSA membership to compete in all USPSA matches? "

is listed on the uspsa web page for the agenda at this weekends board meeting.

Obviously its just up for discussion, but just curious how it might affect the sport if implemented. Curious how most clubs deal with this. I shot for over a year at monthly matches without a membership, when I got more serious, wanted to be classified and wanted to support the sport more I became a member. I fear that if it was required it might drive away some shooters that would never come back and become members.

[davidball]

"Mandatory USPSA membership to compete in all USPSA matches? "

is listed on the uspsa web page for the agenda at this weekends board meeting.

Obviously its just up for discussion, but just curious how it might affect the sport if implemented. Curious how most clubs deal with this. I shot for over a year at monthly matches without a membership, when I got more serious, wanted to be classified and wanted to support the sport more I became a member. I fear that if it was required it might drive away some shooters that would never come back and become members.

+1

[GeorgeInNePa]

"Mandatory USPSA membership to compete in all USPSA matches? "

is listed on the uspsa web page for the agenda at this weekends board meeting.

Obviously its just up for discussion, but just curious how it might affect the sport if implemented. Curious how most clubs deal with this. I shot for over a year at monthly matches without a membership, when I got more serious, wanted to be classified and wanted to support the sport more I became a member. I fear that if it was required it might drive away some shooters that would never come back and become members.

Membership should not be mandatory. Why make people buy a membership to try something they may or may not like, afford, or have the time for.

[Shooter Grrl]

I think it's a GREAT idea, and one that is used at ALL OTHER shooting sports! You get your first match as your mulligan - second match - become a member.

[GeorgeInNePa]

I think it's a GREAT idea, and one that is used at ALL OTHER shooting sports! You get your first match as your mulligan - second match - become a member.

You don't need a membership to shoot CMP, sporting clays, trap, skeet, etc.

[j2fast]

I'd have to say I don't like the idea of required membership for local matches. I kind of like what SG is saying but that requires the clubs to monitor attendence to determine who needs to buy a membership and who doesn't.

Edited March 3, 2006 by j2fast

[banjobart]

It is an unenforcable rule. Look at IDPA. They require membership for attendance after the first match. I would guess that half the IDPA match attendees in Michigan are not IDPA members. Most will join after their first season, not their first match.

This rule would just scare away new shooters and decrease membership overall if range nazis tried to enforce it. I for one am not going to go around and check ID's. Anyway, who is someone else to tell me I can't let a buddy throw some lead downrange at my home club ?

[ima45dv8]

I clearly remember when IDPA started, and their requirement for membership before a shooter could participate in their second match. That caused a lot of wailing and moaning, mostly by IPSC/USPSA shooters. I routinely heard comments like, "If they're going to *force* me to join, then I won't". It became a very sore sticking point for a lot of people.

I'd hate to see USPSA make the same error. If we can feature Bill Wilson in Front Sight, we can surely learn from his mistakes, too.

Edited March 3, 2006 by ima45dv8

[Ron Ankeny]

I thought USPSA made their money from activity fees, and those fees apply to both members and non-members. We have a small club and for whatever reason several of our regulars have not bothered to join USPSA. I don't understand why they haven't joined, but that's their business. Between the possible loss of club level shooters and the increased work load for headquarters (processing classifiers, etc.) I would think it would be a wash financially. Then again, I am not privy to the numbers.

I would like to see a requirement of Level II status for any match "billed" as a "state" match or higher. That would encourage folks to join if they want to shoot their state match and it might help ensure adherance to the tenants of freestyle, etc. at "larger" matches. Just my two cents worth.

[Crusher]

I am and have been a USPSA memebr since my first match, HOWEVER at the local level this would HURT MATCH ATTENDANCE BIG TIME. USPSA recieves mission count payments regardless of membership at the local level, and for level II and above matches membership is required so why enact a "mandate" that will hurt everyone involved.

If it ain't broke, don't break it just so you can fix it.

[JFD]

One of the main reasons I've never joined IDPA is because they are trying to force me to join. Of course our local club ignores that rule. I don't think they can do anything except ignore it, as our gun club prohibits any match where our members have to join an outside organization in order to participate.

By comparison, I joined USPSA before I ever shot a match, same thing for my wife. I had shot outlaw USPSA matches at the club, so it wasn't like I didn't know USPSA was awesome.

I personally like the idea that you should be a member to shoot matches because I believe in supporting the sport, but in reality it's a bad idea. I think the desire to be classified is reason enough for folks to eventually join anyway. I see very few long term non-member shooters around here.

[raz-0]

sounds like a bad idea. ANything that poses an obstical to someone showing up with what they own and being able to shoot is a bad idea for the sport IMO. (anything non-safety related anyway)

Not to mention the issue JFD brought up, which is that it may cause friction with clubs hosting USPSA matches. Which si extra bad.

SO less people who can show up to shoot, and less places to shoot. Brilliant plan for growing the sport.

[1911user]

At USPSA matches, you support USPSA through mission count payments whether or not you are a member. IDPA doesn't receive anything from a club match, only yearly fees.

This only has the potential to reduce participation and revenue.

Edited March 3, 2006 by 1911user

[Flexmoney]

Put me in the bad idea camp too. I probably wouldn't be shooting today if I had to join. My first season was...a little rough.

[chuckbradley]

Sounds good on the surface but bad idea. I know one club that USPSA would loose because the home club says any match held on their property has to be open to its members whether USPSA members or not.

How about another idea, make USPSA membership so desireable everybody will willingly join. This is alomost like governement. Instead of taking the responsibility to insure a desireable product that people will voluntarily participate they legislate mandatory participation.

AS it is now I believe you have ti be a member to participate in any match above level 1, including state matches.

[dogdoc]

That's the only reason that I've never shot a GSSF match because they require membership in their organization if you want your score to count (nevermind the fact I don't own a Glock, I could always borrow one)!!!

[stingerjg]

At my club ENGC we let new shooters shoot as long as they want w/o being members of USPSA. Members of USPSA get a discounted match entery fee that the non members dont get. Its in you best interest to join USPSA when you shoot at our club.

[Religious Shooter]

At the club level it's almost unenforceable by USPSA. What club-level MD is crazy enough to enforce such a rule? "No we don't want your money." "Your papers please." I don't see that happening no matter what the BOD decides.

I don't have an objection to it at the Area, Section, State and National level matches. At that point you should have a mandatory membership requirement.

[davidball]

At my club ENGC we let new shooters shoot as long as they want w/o being members of USPSA. Members of USPSA get a discounted match entery fee that the non members dont get. Its in you best interest to join USPSA when you shoot at our club.

How much of a discount? I had thought about this as an approach to encourage USPSA membership, but worried that the non USPSA members would feel like "second-class citizens".

Edited March 3, 2006 by davidball

[stingerjg]

At my club ENGC we let new shooters shoot as long as they want w/o being members of USPSA. Members of USPSA get a discounted match entery fee that the non members dont get. Its in you best interest to join USPSA when you shoot at our club.

How much of a discount? I had thought about this as an approach to encourage USPSA membership, but worried that the non USPSA members would feel like "second-class citizens".

Its like $5 cheaper if you are a USPSA member.

[BSeevers]

Worst idea in 10 years

[Bob Hostetter]

Forcing shooters to become USPSA members in order to compete at the club level will do nothing but hurt the local club's and in the long run, USPSA. Bad idea...........

[bgary]

Two things:

1) - it appears on the agenda as a *discussion* item, not as a decision. We (as an org) need to decide what our business model is, and our current business model has "more hole than donut". Forgive me while I digress from the *exact* topic at hand, but consider this... at present:

-- a person does not have to be a member to shoot a USPSA match.

-- a club does not have to be affiliated to use USPSA rules, targets, ROs, etc

-- the whole revenue model is based on the idea that "Nationals slots are valuable" - if your members want a slot to the nationals, they will make sure the club sends in results (and fees), so that their "mission count" gets recorded, so they get slots they can hand out.... but... that whole model falls apart for the club (and arguably the member) that has no interest in going to Nationals. Take, for example, a small club out in the woods of wherever, where all they want to do is shoot "USPSA-like" matches. Why in the *world* would they send in their results and fees, other than out of a sense of honor? The thing they "get" in return for their fees has no effective value for them.

I personally know of at least a dozen clubs in Area-1 that have gone "off the radar" - they run USPSA matches in everything but name, and in doing so they "save" on their fees. As an aside, some of them actually claim they are providing a 'service' to the members that are interested in going to the Nationals... by not being an affiliated club, no classifiers ever get sent in, so shooters' classifications stay artificially low, which helps the odds of visiting a prize table early when they *do* go to a Nationals.

So, part of this discussion is about the revenue model. It costs money to run the operations of the org and to provide the benefits to shooters (whatever you may think of them, they do cost money to provide). How do we continue to be viable, in an environment where "volunteerism" and such seem to be declining commodities?

2) The other part of the conversation is a little more tactical. Right now, because there is no rule that requires USPSA membership, anyone can walk off the street and shoot a USPSA match. There are a number of places where there are individuals who have proven to be highly disruptive influences... and the clubs have no way to protect themselves - they *have* to let anyone shoot their match, according to the affiliation agreement. Even if a person's membership gets revoked by action of the Board, they can *still* show up, plunk down their money, and the club pretty much has to let them into the match. So... one of the facets of the conversation is whether or not requiring membership at club-level matches - as we already do at Area and higher matches - is "worth doing" from the standpoint of returning some control to the club. (Note that a possible alternative is to create a rule or bylaw that says somethign like: Clubs may, at their discretion, decline the entry of anyone whose membership has been terminated...)

I admit, I have not thought all the way through this, and the comments above are very helpful, but... my own personal bias is based on two things:

-- I have always wanted to be a contributing *part* of the sports in which I compete. If it is worth my time to play, it is worth a little bit of money to me to support the org that gives me a *place* to play.

-- we're not talking about a lot of money. An annual membership costs less than a couple matches worth of bullets and powder.

I agree we have to address the new-shooter issue, and there should be a way to balance "want to play the game" with "don't want to support the sport", but... the thing I keep coming back to is, if people (and clubs) keep "gaming" USPSA (e.g., finding ways to get all the benefits without contributing to the costs)... I frankly wonder what the long-term picture *is* for the org. I know that in my home section, clubs have dropped off-line because they can no longer find people who are willing to help set up matches.... I worry about what happens to the org, when we can no longer find people to support the things we provide.

$.02

Bruce

Edited March 3, 2006 by bgary

[Loves2Shoot]

Bruce, thanks for the info. Here in Bend it would hurt like hell. Since we are fairly isolated and most of our shooters just want to shoot and not travel, so they don't join. I still keep them on the books when I submit the activity report, and I pay the fee to USPSA, but most of them just see no reason to join.

I know we are "at the edge of the known universe" for those from Texas but we couldn't afford to have IPSC match if we forced people to join USPSA.

For a small club like ours, it would probably force us to go "under the radar" which would suck.

[rtr]

Bruce I understand the issues you've brought up, and they are valid.

However at least at my home club, even without a requirement for people to join we have a hard time recruiting new shooters who stay in it for the long run, despite giving them their first match free and doing everything we can to be nice to them and make it easy. IF we force new shooters to become members I believe it will reduce the number of new shooters and revenue will go down as a result of that as well.

Seems to me instead of creating artificial barriers in order to force people to become USPSA members, a better solution would be to provide more incentive for people to join. If the current set of incentives are not doing it then perhaps they should be reexamined. Bottom line forcing people to join is not as good a solution as making USPSA membership so useful that people cannot hold themselves back from joining.