NSRA consultation on membership

[RobF]

This could affect you no matter if you're a member or just a member of a club that's affiliated (including those insured) to the NSRA.

This could affect FT, HFT and any other type of club that's affiliated.

To remove any ambiguity, the proposal contained does mandate that all members of clubs who are affiliated take up Bronze membership. The reasons why are also explained.

This is a consultation so feel free to make your opinion known and what your position is (member, official, whatever). I can then send the NSRA a link to this thread. I'll also provide an email address tomorrow (hopefully) for those that wish to air their views more directly/privately.

Dropbox - Membership Transformation Presentation to Shooting Council November 2019 2.pptx - Simplify your life

[RobF]

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....58#post7782858

[Zomboid]

Very interesting.

*noted my error*

[Hemmers]

At Bisley the ranges next door/the NSRA have often threatened to "take" the sponsors range away so they can expand their own ranges.

I don't know what that means but I fear you may be confusing the NRA and NSRA.

[Jonjon79]

For me, I only shoot air rifles and, have no real interest of going FAC.
The majority of my shooting is done on permissions, for which I am a BASC member. I was a member of a local club but, because I can't get down there as often as I would like, I now just pay a day fee when I can go.

I'm certainly not interested in paying for a mandatory membership to NSRA - they may well be having financial difficulties but, that's for them to sort out, maybe new leadership will take them in a new direction so that they can attract new members.

[Zomboid]

I don't know what that means but I fear you may be confusing the NRA and NSRA.

You are right - I just realised this! I will amend my post.

[Frog]

I'd be interested to have a legal opinion on this proposal. Intuitively I doubt if requiring people to become members of an organisation could be enforced.
If imposed the result could be airgun clubs disaffliiating. I also doubt if other shooting insurance providers would be happy as they would doubtless loose business.

[Rutty]

I'd be interested to have a legal opinion on this proposal. Intuitively I doubt if requiring people to become members of an organisation could be enforced.
If imposed the result could be airgun clubs disaffliiating. I also doubt if other shooting insurance providers would be happy as they would doubtless loose business.

Nearly every other sport enforces it, shooting is a rare exception. If you don’t want to join you don’t have to, just leave and do your own thing.

Rutty

[Jesim1]

Perhaps NRSA should have it's own clubs?

I think it's wrong to force membership of it over and above your normal club fees, and think many people would have to question if having their club affiliated to NSRA is even necessary. In doing this I think they will simply loose a lot of clubs who will not want to force this on their members, in many cases effectively doubling their current fees. Individuals who want to support NRSA and be involved in it's shoots should have a choice to do so at their own expense.

I don't do FAC, just air rifles, and I'm a member of 2 clubs. The fact I don't even know if they are affiliated means I'd have no problem them cancelling any connection with NRSA.

I think NRSA need to stop trying to force membership and ask why people do not want to join - that would be the sensible thing to do - understand the problem, find the cause, address the cause, and review the results.

Make NRSA attractive and recruite new blood - that's what we do in the real world of business

[Unframed Dave]

Nearly every other sport enforces it, shooting is a rare exception. If you don’t want to join you don’t have to, just leave and do your own thing.

Rutty

Is that right, in the past I have played rugby, badminton, canoed, fished and others. Never had to join anything.

Dave

[Unframed Dave]

Also we appear to have 3 different threads on the same subject. That and a reluctance for some posters to declare their link to the NSRA.

I have to stress that all my dealings with them have been very positive, but this when balancing all 3 threads seems to be very unpopular.

Dave

[Frog]

Nearly every other sport enforces it, shooting is a rare exception. If you don’t want to join you don’t have to, just leave and do your own thing.

Rutty

What I'm saying is I'm already a member of a club and already have insurance. I can not see how the NSRA would make me pay them for membership and for their insurance. I would say they can not enforce it. The NSRA does not write law.
The only thing they could do is tell clubs you are not affiliated to us unless you require your members to pay us for membership and you can not take place in our comps unless your members pay up - i.e. they would have to have the club be their enforcers rather than enforce it themselves. Some clubs might say 'no thanks' and the whole thing could backfire.
They need to be really careful. The motivation for this appears to be they are a failing organisation in terms of membership and income. The long term answer to that is not to try to make people pay it is to do things people want to pay for and probably to cut waste. I'm a non NSRA member but belong to an affliated FT club (for insurance purposes I think).

[Powderfinger]

It is unfortunate that there are two threads running on this and that has stalled the debate.
Whilst it is true that in some sports, club membership requires organisational membership that is not always true. In the case of shooting, there are so many disciplines that there are several organisations and many shooters feel that NSRA only focusses on certain aspects and neglects others. Neglect of FT was one of NSRAs biggest mistakes.
This proposal has perturbed many club shooters because they feel they might suddenly have to pay fees to an organisation that does not cater for them and is using the fees to prop up a declining body. Volunteer club officials will have another admin burden and some tense meetings to explain this to members. I have always found the admin staff at NSRA to be helpful and their two ranges are good but I think it lost its way and the proposal is not the best way forward.

[T 20]

It is unfortunate that there are two threads running on this and that has stalled the debate.

With that in mind, both threads are now merged into this one with a redirect from the FT section directly to this thread.

Hope this helps ?



All the best Mick

[Unframed Dave]

True, the debate has stalled. I've lost interest as my request for people to identify their relationship with the NSRA has been ignored along with my comment above.

Reading everyone's comments it appears there's an awful lot of history and the financial problems of the NSRA are not the responsibility of the shooting public at large.

The comment that all other sports support a representing body is nonsense and the proposer of the suggestion hasn't replied with any argument to support it. I'm all for facts, but arguments being bandied about need to be accurate.

I'm out of the debate from here on in. It's a no from me and if it goes ahead someone, from one of the clubs will find alternative insurance arrangements and that will be the opening of the gate. I doubt this proposal will do much good for the financial position of the NSRA.

Also, bear in mind that the majority of people involved in the running of clubs are volunteers. We don't need any further administrative tasks imposed upon us.

Dave

Dave