Required Uspsa Membership?

[Crusher]

Control at the club level is maintained by the club members (at least in my neck of the woods) not USPSA guidelines. If you act like an A-O you get to take the long walk to the parking lot and are welcome to return when your attitude changes so thats a moot point. I'm quite sure we could round up a few local badge guys to escort you from the property.

As far as the rogue clubs and satalite clubs and their fees and paperwork are concerned does anyone really think that this will aid in "motivating" such clubs to "do the right thing"? Let alone herd them back into the fold? This happens to clubs all the time it IS the nature of changing demographics in a regional enviroment.

Horse pucky! you want to kill the functioning local clubs monthly match head count (and mission count fees for HQ) enact an un-enforcable and tolatarian edict like this and watch the $$$$$$$$ drain.

Part of the draw to new shooters is that they can come out plunk down a match entry fee and try their hand, if the stages are set up well, the match is adminstered well, they often times will be hooked on the sport and go from there. Most times when a new shooter is hooked they WANT to be classified and when the process is explained they GLADLY become members and from what I have seen over the years (at the local level based on member ID prefixes the TY and FY are the MOST POPULAR for new shooters)

Maybe some more thought should go into this one than that of the purchase of some "Good" (dry for now) flood plain real estate.

[EricW]

There are very legitimate reasons for making USPSA membership mandatory. There should also be a mechanism for a waiver for a *FIRST TIME SHOOTER*.

Now back to everyone's favorite family fun-time show of busting Bruce Gary's balls without having all the facts...

[Shooter Grrl]

There are very legitimate reasons for making USPSA membership mandatory. There should also be a mechanism for a waiver for a *FIRST TIME SHOOTER*.

Now back to everyone's favorite family fun-time show of busting Bruce Gary's balls without having all the facts...

Thanks Eric - you saved me from saying just that

My other point however, is RTR said "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."

It costs money to grow an organization. You can not just create something out of nothing, believe me - I've tried Go take a look at the last B.O.D. meeting minutes from 10-1-05, there's a full budget report.

[Crusher]

There are very legitimate reasons for making USPSA membership mandatory

After 20 years of not being manditory? what's the catch?

Either the policy was wrong from the begining and was allowed to contiunue being wrong for 20 years or there are "legitimate reasons" that have evolved and can NOT be handled in some other fashion.

Having been involved at the local match level for a few years now in the every capacity that the local level requires (MD/Stats/Stage design-constuction) and teaching new shooter seminars I can tell you first hand in this WILL HURT the club from a financial standpoint.

IMHO the classification proceedure for USPSA is enough to motivate those participants so inclined to become members.

I can only hope that the BOD CAREFULLY considers ALL the potential ramifications of this action.

[davidball]

IMHO the classification proceedure for USPSA is enough to motivate those participants so inclined to become members.

+1

. . . and participating in section / area matches where that classification allows us to compete against others of our skill level, as has been pointed out . . .

[Larry White]

Had I been forced to join USPSA before I shot a match or two I would not be here today. I would have missed a lot but never the less I wouldnt have been a member for the last 10 or so years. This will hurt us at the club level and what hurts localy hurts nationaly.------Larry

[Steve J]

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'm on the fence towards the main issue of this thread, but I just can't see how the situation you've quoted above can be happening. The Club President in conjunction with the Range Owner should be able to ban someone from a specific range for cause regardless of their membership status with USPSA. Now whether or not there is a provision to report this to USPSA for further action or not, I don't know. What I do know is that repeated safety violations or gross unsportsmanlike conduct should be grounds for banning someone from a range. Period. Regardless of the status of their USPSA membership. We have had to do this at our range. If the club/MD/range owner were to take this action for the safety and welfare of all, would USPSA revoke the club's membership? I would hope not.

On another issue you raised... if I went to what I thought was a USPSA match and found that my classifier wasn't getting submitted, I wouldn't return.

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.

I also think the practice is widespread although the IDPA rules state that your club affiliation will be revoked for not enforcing it... and it is the only IDPA as an organization has revenue. Enforcement is probably highly impractical as IDPA as an org is, from what I gather, a staff of 4 at Wilson Combat... but that's serious thread drift.

Edited March 4, 2006 by Steve J

[JD45]

Not only should USPSA not require membership, IDPA should go ahead and drop the idea. The end result would more than likely be a measurable increase in total membership.

I know of two local clubs that stopped having USPSA matches because of poor attendance. They need an idea to draw new shooters in, not to keep them away.

Which match do you think would have a chance of signing up more new members, a match with fifty shooters or one with only ten?

[kimel]

SteveJ: It can happen all too easily. Just trust me on this. If the range is on public land (a lot of ranges are on Forest Service or other public land) there is virtually no way to enforce a ban short of restraining orders.

Crusher: Did you miss the part about this being a discussion item only? Not an action item, a discussion item. That means they are going to talk about it. Any healthy organization takes a deep look at its internal policies now and then. I NPO I am on the board for regularly has a "disband the organization" topic on the board agenda every couple years. We talk about the state of the organization and whether or not we are still doing what we need to be doing or are we wasting our time and money. It is a healthy thing to do.

Oh and Bruce: 1) Thanks for giving some info and 2) can you please make a motion to include abstracts where appropriate in the agendas when they are published so people have more than 10 words to go on? Thanks!

[Crusher]

Crusher: Did you miss the part about this being a discussion item only?

Nope it's that the discussion may evolve to a decision that concerns me (and some others too) as the logic behind the discussion (somewhat less vague now) appears to be a result of some undesirable activities on the part of a minority that will have far reaching ramifications on the org as a whole, some that might otherwise not be considered is it were not for this thread.

Edited March 4, 2006 by Crusher

[Steve J]

SteveJ: It can happen all too easily. Just trust me on this. If the range is on public land (a lot of ranges are on Forest Service or other public land) there is virtually no way to enforce a ban short of restraining orders.

Yes, that would definitely be a much more difficult situation. All of our ranges are either privately owned businesses, on privately owned land, or belong to NFP shooting clubs. However, even in our case, if someone refuses to accept "you're not welcome back at this range" a restraining order would be in order. Fortunately we didn't have that problem.

[dpeters]

Some USPSA shooters are more serious and passionate then others. The serious shooters will want to be members. The recreational shooters just shoot as a hoppy and may not want to become members. I don't feel that enforcing manditory membership would benifit the recreational shooter or the clubs running local matches. And, as a match director, I would never want to turn any shooter away.

Doug

[Sam38]

+1 to everything Crusher and Banjo Bart said.

Sam Spiteri

[EricW]

Not that I think that common damned sense and the internet collide more than once in a billion years anymore, but I have actually spoken with Bruce Gary and one other USPSA official on this very issue, and I can tell you for a fact, they are not about to make a cavalier or capricious decision on this matter. They take it very seriously. It's a DISCUSSION item. The BOD should be able to have a DISCUSSION about how to run the organization without everyone on the freaking internet getting their panties in a bunch simultaneously.

Now onto the more important issue of busting Bruce's and aw hell, lets bust Mike Voigt (aka Mr. Teflon)'s balls while we're at it. He surely bears some culpability for permitting the BOD to have a...GASP!....DISCUSSION!!!

- I have the world's crappiest cheekweld and my rifle shooting showed it today. Mike Voigt, why did you not fly into GEG at your expense and coach me before I wasted all that ammunition? What the hell are my USPSA dollars going to? I'll bet you were out...GASP!...DISCUSSING!!!....something weren't you?!

- All my guns are dirty, oh and my truck's dirty, and Bruce Gary has not come over and personally cleaned any of them. I have it right here in my USPSA membership packet. Those lying, DISCUSSING! jerkweeks promised me free gun and truck cleaning. Jeez Mike! It's only a 250 mile drive! Get on the stick man! My trucks not getting any cleaner sitting in the driveway.

- I'm pretty sure that whenever MV and the USPSA BOD get together and...GASP!....DISCUSS!!! something that it causes crop circles. I'm referring all you to the USDA and the Discovery Channel for further investigation. Stop the madness!

There, now I feel better. I've made sure that whenever the USPSA BOD has a....GASP!.....DISCUSSION!...that they'll be sure to think twice and hopefully not do it in the future. Don't ask me how any issue that's relevant to growing the organization will get accomplished, but as long as nobody is GASP!....DISCUSSING!!....anything anywhere besides here - on the Internet -The Acme of Intelligent Discourse - I feel safer.

[Paul B]

I've heard this is a "discussion only" topic on the agenda,but we really should nip it in the bud. It will not be good for new members and will cause more that a few clubs to just go "off the books" rather than submit to more administrative activities and or turn away paying customers. I know a few clubs personally that would simply go their own way.

I've served on the board of a club in the past for over 8 years and we had a few situations in which we had to ban a person from the range. It can be done if need be - not always easily but it luckily does not come up often.

Totally agree that the advantages of membership have to be sold more. What we should do is sell subscriptions to the magazine and include a membership with the subscription. If you want to increase membership, make the magazine even better than it is already. There was another thread on these forums mourning the loss of GunGames and Front Sight could fill that void with a little work.

If anyone thinks shooting at the nationals will be an incentive of membership, think again. It's a very small percentage of shooters that would consider that a major advantage of membership. Even if 1000 different shooters go to the nationals (which they don't) that's way less than 5% of persons that will shoot at least one club match during a year. Most shooters just don't want to do it or can't do it till they get the religious zeal of practical shooting in their blood.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Not that I think that common damned sense and the internet collide more than once in a billion years anymore, but I have actually spoken with Bruce Gary and one other USPSA official on this very issue, and I can tell you for a fact, they are not about to make a cavalier or capricious decision on this matter. They take it very seriously. It's a DISCUSSION item. The BOD should be able to have a DISCUSSION about how to run the organization without everyone on the freaking internet getting their panties in a bunch simultaneously.

Now onto the more important issue of busting Bruce's and aw hell, lets bust Mike Voigt (aka Mr. Teflon)'s balls while we're at it. He surely bears some culpability for permitting the BOD to have a...GASP!....DISCUSSION!!!

- I have the world's crappiest cheekweld and my rifle shooting showed it today. Mike Voigt, why did you not fly into GEG at your expense and coach me before I wasted all that ammunition? What the hell are my USPSA dollars going to? I'll bet you were out...GASP!...DISCUSSING!!!....something weren't you?!

- All my guns are dirty, oh and my truck's dirty, and Bruce Gary has not come over and personally cleaned any of them. I have it right here in my USPSA membership packet. Those lying, DISCUSSING! jerkweeks promised me free gun and truck cleaning. Jeez Mike! It's only a 250 mile drive! Get on the stick man! My trucks not getting any cleaner sitting in the driveway.

- I'm pretty sure that whenever MV and the USPSA BOD get together and...GASP!....DISCUSS!!! something that it causes crop circles. I'm referring all you to the USDA and the Discovery Channel for further investigation. Stop the madness!

There, now I feel better. I've made sure that whenever the USPSA BOD has a....GASP!.....DISCUSSION!...that they'll be sure to think twice and hopefully not do it in the future. Don't ask me how any issue that's relevant to growing the organization will get accomplished, but as long as nobody is GASP!....DISCUSSING!!....anything anywhere besides here - on the Internet -The Acme of Intelligent Discourse - I feel safer.

You do realize this is a DISCUSSION forum, right?

[EricW]

You do realize this is a DISCUSSION forum, right?

Yeah, I figured I'd better nip the whole thing in the bud before it got out of hand. Wouldn't want anybody GASP!...DISCUSSING!!! anything.

Anybody up for outright mind control? Might as well prevent the BOD from GASP! THINKING! anything while we're all here.

[Flatland Shooter]

It would be interesting to see the reasons new shooters decide to not return to a USPSA match. I doubt it was due to pressure to join USPSA.

At our club matches, we never pressured anyone into joining USPSA. We spent our time making the newcomers feel welcomed and let them know that we are all there to have fun. By the end of their first club match, they had a much better understanding of what we were doing, how we were able to do this safely. Everyone of us started as a beginner.

And we didn't limit our efforts to those that signed up for the match. If someone walked over from the rifle range, we had someone there to greet them, answer their questions and invite them to join the fun.

Once they shot a match or three, they were asking us how to join USPSA. Leaving a few copies of "Front Sight" laying around didn't hurt.

[Ron Ankeny]

And I thought I was wound up tighter than a cheap watch.

[AikiDale]

Would someone in Spokane please give Eric a Valium? Thank you.

Now back to the discussion....

[Ron Ankeny]

I think Eric is just frustrated by folks being so quick to criticize but so slow to praise, and even slower to trust. Thanks for the info Bruce and keep up the good work. You have my vote of confidence and I trust you will act in the best interest of the organization.

PS

I better see your name on the ballot the next go around. Broad shoulders and thick skin are in short supply.

[EricW]

Well guys, I have a better idea for y'all to...GASP!...DISCUSS!!:

What's Bruce's motivation to continue to serve so ably, when he puts a simple discussion item on the agenda and has to endure these internet blowups over it?

All Bruce is trying to do is HELP the clubs in his area. And bless his peapicking heart for it.

For what it's worth, "Required membership" won't happen. It's just a heading on a piece of paper that represents the worst-case scenario out of a broader discussion. I forsee a compromise occurring that gives more empowerment to local clubs without banning non-members...if anything comes out of the discussion at all. I hope that empowerment is the outcome.

It's a discussion that NEEDS to occur. And I can't believe that anybody has the chutzpa to inform the BOD of what topics they are and are not allowed to discuss. Incroyable...

FWIW, I don't always agree with Bruce (and the converse is most certainly true). But never, EVER have I ever lost respect or confidence with Bruce Gary. He (and the BOD) most certainly do not need to be treated like Kindergartners and informed of what topics they are and are not allowed to discuss at board meetings.

And that (unbelievably enough) is everything I have to say.

[omnia1911]

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

Has USPSA/IPSC reached a point of no longer being relevant? Targets, the scoring program, and rule book can be acquired by anyone. Arguing about the right of anyone to use these items is useless. It is what it is today.

Volunteerism has shifted from a localized community atmosphere to one that is geared to maintaining a centralized disembodied entity that requires more and more money to satisfy its existence. Centralized governance seems counter intuitive to the shooting sport culture. Volunteerism is about passion, it's personal, it's local.

If USPSA were to disappear tomorrow I suspect that action pistol matches would still be taking place, much as they did years ago. It is a great game after all.

IPods and FREE file sharing has thrown a big wrench into the music industry's business model. They are now fighting for their existence. It is what it is today.

Is USPSA in any different of a situation? Has its fate been similarly sealed?

[SteveZ]

PS

I better see your name on the ballot the next go around. Broad shoulders and thick skin are in short supply.

If he doesn't.....my goal will be to harrass Bruce every week with a new observation about the rule book until he cries uncle and re-submits his name for A1AD! That's my promise to you Bruce!

[Jim Norman]

OK,

At our club we have signed up probably 40 or more new USPSA members in the last two years. We did this by allowing them to shoot, not forcing them to join. In the Mid-Atlantic Section we have a rule that you can join USPSA at a match and shoot that match for free.

Really costs the club nothing more than a few pasters. It is a welcoming way to build the membership. Many of these people have gone on to become active club members as well as active USPSA shooters. Some have joined and never been back. As a generalization however most remain at least moderately active.

Try it. It is non confrontational and it is not a take it or leave it option as the join or leave is.

Jim Norman

Edited March 4, 2006 by Jim Norman