Should we have a National Shooting Centre ?

entropy

Banana Man wrote:

What should be done is for all disciplines to agree that the association is NOT providing facilities suitable to ALL. Would you agree to that ?

Yip I would, but I know the ICPSA and the majority definietly rules, sure the disciplines can't even get on within themselves let alone amongst each other! So when it comes to the ICPSA it should read "Irish DTL and Sporting Shooting Association" thats the reality ....

target

There appears to be some great debate going on about the relative merits of Olympic Trap vs DTL and other shooting disciplines.

Thought I'd give a little scope to things without appearing to be favouring one over the other.

The ISSF shotgun disciplines name Olympic Trap, Double Trap and Olympic Skeet form the majority of the shotgun disciplines shot in many countries affiliated to the ISSF. Italy, Germany, Finland, Russia, Eastern Europe for example do not have established disciplines such as DTL and National Skeet etc. This may be due to historical emphasis placed on the fact that these disciplines do not feature in the Olympic games but the fact is that is how things have developed.

Within Ireland one cannot ignore the ground support that DTL and Sporting have and consequently their influence on the national governing body the ICPSA. While we have a strong and vibrant shooting community the disciplines which we shoot are not Olympic disciplines and there lies the crux of the problem.

The sports Council and the Dept. of Sport etc would love Ireland to bring back a clutch of Gold Medals from the next Olympics but with only Ashbourne, Lakelands (Currently under construction) and Bill Flynn's layout in Courtlough the opportunities to shoot Olypic Trap are very limited. If you wanted to shoot Olympic Skeet it would be even more limited with Balheary in Co. Dublin being the only facility I can think of. Double Trap is another discipline for which we appear to have a very "stop/start" attitude to and one which we should be promoting as it requires only three traps to implement.

So in order to obtain experience and to practice effectively the Olympic Trap competitors travel quite a bit which is financially hard and also time consuming. It would be great to be able to train within Ireland and host international events but the reality is that with the lack of facilities on hand people who begin shooting will gravitate towards Sporting and DTL and I can't blame them!

There is a lot to be said for developing the Olympic disciplines but it will take a mind change within Irish shooting which I don't see happening to quickly if at all ....

foresight

The rant is necessary and fully understood. I too think that the current tide of success may turn to tears.

Polite society groups people with guns into several distinct boxes with various levels of distain. Security Forces including snipers, Terrorists, Organised Crime, Nutters who dwell in the wantabe neverworld of Hollywood somewhere between Pulp Fiction Drive and Platoon Cresent. And of course, there are the Hunters, who are regarded as an unsavoury group who kill things for fun and then eat them.

The point is well made and note well nowhere above is the humble target shooter - no where! He or she does not even make base. Does not exist. But the others do.

Archery seems to have managed to get away from this sort of crap and to have attained the status of respectability in the public mind. I guess we should too.

gambaman

I think the point is been missed here.Is the icpsa at fault or is the shooters the ones that are the problem.The icpsa are been let run the company that is the icpsa as they see fit.The shooters are putting up no opposition to them on any level.Since these people have no competition to their positions they are doing what they want.Since the icpsa is a company that gives us the shooters the right to certain information.We can get a copy of the accounts filed to the C.R.O office and see where the monies recieved are going(executive expences).We can form a shooters union to represent the shooters at executive level.We can call for a motion of no confidence in any officer and replace them with someone that will do the job.These are just a example of somethings that can be done.If we can sort out the icpsa at the top, then we have some chance of makeing a bid for a national stadium for clay shooting and promoting the olympic disciplines across the country.

Sparks

Gamba, while I'm all for shooters taking a more active role in their associations (and their local clubs) - though perhaps not quite at the "burn them!" level - there are almost more associations than clubs in the country at the moment and a "shooters union" would just add to the list. And for every association with good people running it, there are always one or two little hitlers that crop up from nowhere, giving good people a bad name....

Far better, in my estimation, to help run your local club. I don't know of any Irish club that can honestly say that they have too much help, or even just enough!

Pull!theother1

I have been viewing all this with interest having only been introduced to this site last Friday and bear with me while I try to get the hang of this.
The ICPSA while not perfect is on the whole trying to do its best. Let us not forget that a camel is a horse designed by committee so it only makes sense that action on anything can be slow and cumbersome.
Failure to reply to correspondence is unforgivable, so why not write again pointing this out to the Executive if this is how you feel.
If more people "did" instead of "said" then things might get done. The ICPSA is run by volunteers in their spare time, and sometimes on not so spare time, so that anything gets done at all is sometimes a miricle.

Pull!theother1

If people are worried about ICPSA executive expenses, for 18 cents a mile how many meetings would you cross the country to attend and this includes feeding yourself as well as the car.
Submissions are ongoing for Abbotstown but not only must any facilities be self financing but they must also be multi purpose. Any printable suggestions for a trench or skeet layouts alternate use when shooting is not taking place?
The Executive is selected by and answerable to the members through the Provinces and clubs. Why are all these desenting voices not doing their bit at the AGMs?
For my sins of being an avid shooter I have attempted to help my sport through attempts at adminstration etc. I would love to be in the position where I could step back and just shoot due to there being sufficient competent help at the helm.
If you feel that there is a lack of information, contact our secretary and say so. Not everyone reads bullitin boards and before last Friday I did not even know of their existance. Any suggestions? Tell us in a way we can hear them!

entropy

Pull!theother1 wrote:

run by volunteers in their spare time, and sometimes on not so spare time, so that anything gets done at all is sometimes a miricle.

Whats this about the secretary getting paid to do the job, its in the one page handout of accounts that was shown at the last agm, Im with gambaman send in the auditors

entropy

Sparks wrote:

there are almost more associations than clubs in the country at the moment and a "shooters union" would just add to the list.

Hold on boys, this is the icpsa were talkin about. The icpsa is a strange organisation at the best of times but even stranger in its election process and who has the say.

Gambaman is quite right in what hes saying. The ordinary members have no say whatsoever, at the agm only "clubs" have a vote. so a club with 300 members can be out voted by two other clubs made up of a hanfull of members each. wheres the democracy in all that. Worse still if your not in a club you go unheard.

What happened to one man one vote, works in the real world of democracy, then again the icpsa would no nothin about that.

why not a shooters union, probably the only way we can find out what goes on in the executive

entropy

Pull!theother1 wrote:

If you feel that there is a lack of information, contact our secretary and say so. Not everyone reads bullitin boards and before last Friday I did not even know of their existance. Any suggestions? Tell us in a way we can hear them!

do we have a secretary? heard he was out of action with health problems

heard the only thing thats gets the icpsa attention at the mo is a solicitors letter so dont waste the ink unless it is one

face the music guys theres a lot wrong with the icpsa and the dogs in the street know it, look at all the grounds closing down (thurles, new ross) and what is been done about it? what is been done about he under 16 ban?

entropy

Pull!theother1 wrote:

Submissions are ongoing for Abbotstown but not only must any facilities be self financing but they must also be multi purpose. Any printable suggestions for a trench or skeet layouts alternate use when shooting is not taking place?

Any chance of a few dtl layouts?

target

Pull!theother1 wrote:

Submissions are ongoing for Abbotstown but not only must any facilities be self financing but they must also be multi purpose. Any printable suggestions for a trench or skeet layouts alternate use when shooting is not taking place?

Multi-purpose uses sounds like a fop from Campus Ireland, a majority of sports require specific equipment and facilities so other than track and field; the term multi-purpose becomes unviable.

With the current emphasis from the Minister for Sport, the Olympic Council of Ireland and the Sports Council on targeting minority sports which real medal prospects I think this particular "multi-purpose" rider could be put to one side and certainly should not become the focus of any submissions by the ICPSA.

Any chance we might get to see the submissions and offer some input before it goes in?

Sparks

On the multi-purpose front, I did make the point to the Campus Ireland people at their last presentation that any shooting facility would necessarily have to be single-purpose because of factors like lead pollution and the expense of electronic targets, and they seemed willing to accomodate us...

And there isn't a submission yet - or if there is, I haven't seen it, and I'd be one of the first people who'd know, at least from the NTSA side of things.

Pull!theother1

True, members do not get to vote at the ICPSA AGM because as you should know shooters are members of their provincial associations who are in turn affiliated to the ICPSA. Only clubs and provincial delegates have votes at this event but anyone can attend and have their say.
At provincial AGMs all members have a vote and a say and if they are not happy it is here the process of change begins.
I am not a member of a club and do not feel the worse for it.
The ICPSA accounts are independently audited and registered annualy and available for inspection so how can some think that something is amiss? If you know something the rest of us do not, well heres your chance....
We do have a secretary and he assures me he is now well and hearty (pardon the pun) so feel free to contact him. He was surprised to know he was employed by the Association and thought that out of pocket expenses were just that?
Please do send loads and loads of solicitors letters, and then in next years accounts you will have a better idea of where some of YOUR money goes, legal fees.....
In campus Ireland duality of function does not in their minds mean being used for trench and skeet and DTL etc but should be used for multiple seperate sports.
I am delighted to see that people are discussing what they see as faults withing their associations, yes YOUR associations, but how about putting talk in to action? The AGMs will be starting soon so get to work, which is where I must return to now.

civdef

In campus Ireland duality of function does not in their minds mean being used for trench and skeet and DTL etc but should be used for multiple seperate sports.

I suppose discus competitors could be substituted for automatic traps...

Sparks

On the point of taking part in associations and letting them know how you feel, a question arises:

How many people have written in to the Department of Justice with their comments on amendments to the Firearms Acts?

gambaman

Well done to the icpsa for there ongoing submissions for abbotstown.Is abbotstown the answer to a national shooting centre for clay shooting?.Has the effect of a shotgun shooting grounds been built at the back of blanchardstown been really looked at or is this a smoke screen to say well we tried but we didn't get it, sure give use a slap on the back any way.I think a national clay shooting centre based in the midlands is a better idea.This makes all the disiciplines availible to the whole country.If the goverment can decentralise so can the icpsa.Pulltheother1 you shoud read the accounts of the icpsa for the past four years and see the diffrence in the accounts.Why is the icpsa run under a cloak of darkness.Trust me i have some very real questions that i want answered at the next agm.Do we have to wait for another 18 months for the next agm or is the icpsa happy with there accounting year now.

Looper1

The problem with voluntary organisations like the ICPSA is that they are run by volunteers and the saying goes "there are more incompetent volunteers out there than competent ones".

Some organisations get the mix right but it looks like the feeling on this thread is that the ICPSA have a few more problems than their members can tolerate.

Pull!theother1

Please, fire away with the questions, if you pardon the pun.
As I said the accounts of the association are audited annualy, at great cost to our body and if you know of any wrong doing by this accounting firm I feel that you owe it to us to tell us all now.
Financialy I believe that we are are as transparent as it is possible to be with all the accounts available for the members to inspect and even as you probably know a member of the auditing firm attends the AGM to answer any queries from the floor. Where is the problem?
Not sure when the next AGM is set for but presume that the precedent set this year will be followed as the later date allows the accounts for the year past to be presented rather than the previous years figres, or had that escaped you. And that would make it 12 months from one AGM to another, or am I missing something, again.
I also did not realise that we were based in Dublin with our Secretary living in Tipperary, our chairman in Kildare and Treasurer in Galway not to mention the rest of the executive who travel from the 4 corners of the country. How more decentralised could we be?
A national shooting ground based in the midlands would be a lovely idea. Just one problem, show me the money? At present grounds are closing not opening and this trend may I fear continue due to environmental contraints, financial situation or just plain lack of interest from those running the grounds. Again, everyone wants to shoot but who wants to organize, officiate or invest apart from a few industrious individuals?
We subscribe to Abbotstown because it is our right and we owe it as a duty to our sport. In all reality we may not gain anything this time, but would you rather we did nothing? Never ever pass up an opportunity to further your sport, no matter how outlandish it may appear, as we do not know what outcome we may achieve in the long run.

Looper1

Pull!theother1 wrote:

Again, everyone wants to shoot but who wants to organize, officiate or invest apart from a few industrious individuals?

Having started my career in shooting at Courtlough last year I was shocked to hear that anyone involved in the operation of “commercial” shooting grounds was barred from holding office within the ICPSA.

I thought this a harsh action in so far as you have pointed out it is a few "industrious individuals" who are keeping the sport going. Would it not make for a more enlightened approach to involve these individuals in the running of the association as they are clearly passionate and innovative in developing a sport.

If not, then it would appear the association has passed an article which excludes from office members who derive an income from shooting vis-a-vis the operation and provision of a place for shooting. While allowing other members hold office who derive an income from shooting vis-a-vis the provision of goods and services (Traps and Guns Dealers).

If this restriction on the holding of office was indeed passed at an AGM and added to the articles of the association then I would be quite sure should it be challenged through the courts that the ICPSA would not have a leg to stand on.

Is this the case as it stands? Please let me know!

Pull!theother1

I believe that the thinking goes that "commercial" interests are primarily concerned with promoting their business, all be it through our sport. The fear was that if such people were in a position to make decisions that would affect either grounds, shooters or events then their business allegience would take priority over the general good. But maybe I am wrong on this.
Other members of the trade are indeed welcome to participate on the Board as decisions to allocate championships, decide qualification details etc. will not directly make them money as the ownership of a ground would.
The ICPSA was set up on a club structure where all members of the club had equal shares in the club and equal votes etc. Do you say that this is wrong?
Commerce is the life blood of any organisation, but vested interests must not be in a position to put cash in their own pockets through decisions they could make at board level. This of course is not to imply that any of our current commercial interests would ever do such a thing.
It should be noted that anything I say, I say as a shooter and not on behalf of the ICPSA. I defend my association because as I see it,it is the RIGHT thing to do. If people have questions which seem to be bothering them and if I can answer them, then it will all be worth while. To leave people to just bitch and gripe does nothing for anyone................
Is it something I have said or has it gone very quiet out there?

Looper1

Pull!theother1 wrote:

The fear was that if such people were in a position to make decisions that would affect either grounds, shooters or events then their business allegience would take priority over the general good. But maybe I am wrong on this.

Generally speaking, good corporate governance demands that directors of a company maintain an arms length approach from any other business they conduct outside the company that may be in competition with it or through the supply of goods and services back to the company. The above quoted statement is conjecture and in law would not hold water in respect as to who would be suitable to hold office within an association.

I'm afraid I do not see any difference between someone who operates a shooting ground and someone who supply the membership/clubs with guns and trap equipment for reward. Likewise I don't see why one should be disbarred from holding office and not the other.

If one was to extend your logic, one might even argue that having any commercial interest in any aspect of shooting should be seen as a disentitlement to hold office.

entropy

Pull!theother1 wrote:

Is it something I have said or has it gone very quiet out there?

Nah not gone away just working hard. after all thes posts i dont think ill be sticking my head up over the wall by writing any letters of complaint into the icpsa. still think this board is the ***best*** way to vent some spleen without having the powers that be finger you. im not against doing my bit but wheres the results of the survey we all filled in? talk to us and let us know what the story is.

Sparks

From my understanding of company law looper (and I hastily point out that I'm not a soliciter, so I may well be incorrect), there's a significant portion of the companies acts set aside to deal with conflicts of interest on the part of directors. In particular, a director entering into a transaction with the company is forbidden unless the articles of the company allow for it - so if you were in charge of a shooting grounds, held an ICPSA competition and charged range hire to the ICPSA, you could wind up in hot water. And after the ODCE was set up, the companies acts gained some serious teeth. So I can't really blame the ICPSA for getting very worried about that possibility - in their position, I'd do precisely the same thing. There's also the question of a noncommercial conflict of interest - if you run a shooting grounds, or a shooting club, and the matter before the board is where to hold the National Championships or some other major competition, could you argue objectively as to the location, even though you could be bound to represent the best interests of your club or grounds?

It's a murky, sticky area at best...

Looper1

Sparks wrote:

From my understanding of company law looper (and I hastily point out that I'm not a soliciter, so I may well be incorrect), there's a significant portion of the companies acts set aside to deal with conflicts of interest on the part of directors. In particular, a director entering into a transaction with the company is forbidden unless the articles of the company allow for it - so if you were in charge of a shooting grounds, held an ICPSA competition and charged range hire to the ICPSA, you could wind up in hot water. And after the ODCE was set up, the companies acts gained some serious teeth. So I can't really blame the ICPSA for getting very worried about that possibility - in their position, I'd do precisely the same thing. There's also the question of a noncommercial conflict of interest - if you run a shooting grounds, or a shooting club, and the matter before the board is where to hold the National Championships or some other major competition, could you argue objectively as to the location, even though you could be bound to represent the best interests of your club or grounds?

It's a murky, sticky area at best...

Yes you are quite right, there are clear guidelines with respect to behaviour and conflict of interest but the issue here is what disbars a person from office as distinct to their behaviour and duties as a director under company law. It is not uncommon for a conflict of interest to arise, for instance:

"A company wished to award a contract to a firm, the chief executive of which is also a non-executive of the board of the contracting firm."

In such a case the non-exec director exempts himself from the discussion declaring a conflict and allows the rest of the board to reach a decision in his absence.

This is a quite common process as in the nature of the business world our captains of industry quite often pop up on the boards of multiple companies which have reciprocal business arrangements.

It certainly can be a murky area but as long as good corporate governance rules are observed then there should be no issues arising. How often would an item arise on the agenda of a meeting which would cause such an incident to arise, very few I imagine.

So in summary, either let anyone with an interest in shooting either commercial or non-commercial be eligible or restrict the articles to non-commercially inerested parties. But certainly not a half-way house as things would appear currently, it is repugnant to natural justice to maintain such a position.

entropy

Sparks wrote:

there's a significant portion of the companies acts set aside to deal with conflicts of interest on the part of directors. In particular, a director entering into a transaction with the company is forbidden unless the articles of the company allow for it

looper1 you seem to know a fair bit about company law and all that stuff. all the traps in ashbourne are supplied by the chairman of the icpsa who is also the agent for promatic traps, does this fall into what sparks is saying above?

Looper1

entropy wrote:

looper1 you seem to know a fair bit about company law and all that stuff. all the traps in ashbourne are supplied by the chairman of the icpsa who is also the agent for promatic traps, does this fall into what sparks is saying above?

I noticed in the Directors Report contained in the 2003 accounts that the shooting grounds in Ashbourne have their accounts incorporated into those of the ICPSA which is in effect a wholly owned subsidiary.

As Sparks quite rightly said there are areas of the companies act covering corporate governance and where transactions are entered into between directors of a company and the company itself they must be subject to the articles of association of the company and/or the prior approval of the shareholders.

I would not wish to comment further on any aspects of the relationship the chairman of the ICPSA may have with the ICPSA through the supply of traps and any other such services and would suggest that this is a matter which should be answered by the ICPSA or any of its authorised officers.
Perhaps someone from the committee of the ICPSA would come on and clarify the position or failing that one could take it forward to the next AGM.

Pull!theother1

Again, I know little or nothing of company law, but could you imagine the stink if a member of the executive was instramental in awarding say an international event to his/her own ground, no matter how ideal the location? Do we realy want to go there?
Ashbourne is leased by the ICPSA as its home ground. It is in turn indepently run for the association by ACTA and the association is not involved in the day to day management or decision making. I would like to think that any or all financial decisions made by ACTA are soundly based on good financial sense, unless you know to the contrary? Should a person be disbarred from supplying a service, even if say they were the best tender, solely because of a position held in the association? Now that is somewhere we definitly do not want to go.
And to the best of my knowledge, due to the imense costs involved the two trench layouts in Ashbourne are currently privatly financed, owned and run by individuals. Are these the traps referred to?

entropy

Pull!theother1 wrote:

Again, I know little or nothing of company law, but could you imagine the stink if a member of the executive was instramental in awarding say an international event to his/her own ground, no matter how ideal the location? Do we realy want to go there?

probably not but i think looper was banging on about the problem of being in the shooting business and also being on the executive weather or not the business is in running a ground or sellling guns and traps. i dont think anyone who makes any money out of shooting should be on the executive. thats my 2p worth!

entropy

Pull!theother1 wrote:

Should a person be disbarred from supplying a service, even if say they were the best tender, solely because of a position held in the association? Now that is somewhere we definitly do not want to go.

dont know any thing about tenders cause being just an ordinary member of the association no one bothered to tell me that we were tendering and for what?

Pull!theother1 wrote:

And to the best of my knowledge, due to the imense costs involved the two trench layouts in Ashbourne are currently privatly financed, owned and run by individuals. Are these the traps referred to?

no but "currently privately financed", what does that mean? is the association going to buy them or what?