Single Lobby?

Ammoman

Sparks wrote:

It sounds like you've gotten one of the bad apples allright There may not be any way forward but to resort to legal action. On the only positive note I can see, if relations are that bad, you won't have to worry about losing a friend in the process!


Do I think it will never happen? No. As the NRPAI found out with fullbore, if there's a need, it'll be filled. But I do think that unless we do it right, it'll cause more grief than it solves. What's needed is an independent lobbying group. Not tied to any one sporting discipline, or to hunting, or to the IFA. One whose agenda is public domain, which is formed as a legal company so that its members have a third party (the courts) to hold it to it's own rules, and a board whose members are elected fairly by the members of the group. It's got to be sufficiently moderate that noone is reluctant about supporting it, but sufficiently assertive that it will resort to legal action where required. It cannot be seen in the same light as the US's NRA are seen over here. The NRA can claim to be the most effective lobby group in the world all they want; but their image here is something that few moderates want to be anywhere near. And make no mistake - the polarised believers may be the ones having the debate, but it's the mostly silent moderates who make up the majority that decides who wins...

Now what are the odds of that happening? Depressingly slim. I'd foresee political machinations between the various large and small groups right up until the axe is dropped, and then, in finest Irish tradition, fifty years in pubs crying into pints of beer about how they would have had the earth, moon and stars, if it hadn't been for that bastard So-and-So in the Such-and-Such association, who ruined it for everyone by being so recalcitrant.

No I wont be loosing a friend , just getting rid of a headache !!!

OK so where do we start then ? you are agreeing that it is needed so why not start the ball rolling ?
what would the overall objectives of the organisation be , who would operate it , how about funding . I'm sure that there are a number of people that would be happy to be involved.... why not at least draft up the objectives ??

Sparks

you are agreeing that it is needed so why not start the ball rolling ?

I wouldn't be seen as being independent by pretty much anyone. And one person can't start this - your first move would be to get a meeting between all the sporting bodies, the NARGC, and probably the IFA. You'd also have to think about the Northern Ireland bodies and talk to them about attending. You'd need a chairman who knew everyone and was accepted by everyone as being independent, and you'd need a soliciter and/or barrister from the get-go. And it couldn't be pub chatter - you're talking about undertaking an expensive, risky, long-term project here. It would require dedication and committment, and anyone on the board of the body would probably have to be forbidden from being on the boards of other bodies. And you'd need money. And therein begins the seriousness!

Ammoman

I dont see why it has to be so complicated , yes i see where you are comming from , i see the need to do it right , but it wont get started on its own , as you said yourself there are too many conflicts between the different associations , can they not see the need for this ? and if not , Why not ?

If this association or lobby group is for the common good of Irish Shooting sport then would'nt it be a good idea for every association to be involved ?I think that someone needs to light the fire under these groups and get some SPARKS flying, excuse the pun , but you know what I mean..

Sparks

I dont see why it has to be so complicated

Thirty years of personal issues. And differences in philosophy - some are moderates and don't like the idea of telling the papers that the gardai don't know what they're talking about and some are far too extreme and want to go after Michael McDowell personally!

If this association or lobby group is for the common good of Irish Shooting sport then would'nt it be a good idea for every association to be involved ?

Associated with, yes - involved in running at board level, definitely not. We've a long history in this country of members of one shooting body's board being on the board of one or other umbrella group and putting that shooting body's interests ahead of the interests of the other members of the umbrella group.
Plus, if you're on the board of a commercial company, you have certain fiduciary duties that mean that you'd really want to be on only one board - otherwise, you could be put in a position where you couldn't put forward the interests of a group you're meant to be representing.

And this isn't something you could force anyone into, or it wouldn't work. You'd want to be able to show that there were written, enforced rules that protected the interests of those who signed up and that it would be worth the effort of doing so.

Ammoman

I see where you are comming from , they should be members but not run it. conflict of interest and all that. OK any sugestions as to who should run it ?

Sparks

They'd have to be fresh blood. I'd lean towards people in the 25-50 age bracket, an equal mix of male and female, professionals by trade, college graduates or equivalent, preferably with experience in project management or working on projects, but you'd also need people that didn't fit that profile. They'd have to be active shooters, a mix of formal target shooting, hunting, and general agricultural use. They wouldn't have to be the best shots in the country, though some measure of success is always good in the profile of a spokesperson. You wouldn't want too many, and you would definitely want to ensure that the chairman did not have veto over the board - you want a group, not a military unit.

You'd also want to hire a soliciter (though if a soliciter who's also a shooter were to volunteer to do the job pro bono, that'd be fantastic), and you'd also want a professional PR firm hired from day one.

There are other things; you'd want transcripts of all meetings taken, and the minutes (not necessarily the transcripts) would have to be public domain information. Agendas would have to be announced in advance and followed. You couldn't do this behind closed doors, it wouldn't work. So the people would have to be comfortable with that. You'd have to have defined channels for members to submit suggestions, complaints, inquiries, and so on. Someone would have to have the job of dealing with those, possibly more than one person.

So that's who they'd have to be like - as to what their names are, well, any ideas?

Ammoman

Sparks wrote:

So that's who they'd have to be like - as to what their names are, well, any ideas?

unfortunately no ideas ... put up an ad !!!

Flattop 15

Ohhh Boyyy.
Sparks if you think the US NRA is a tough no compromise lobby group,I would suggest checking out Gunowners of America or Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership.THOSE are the real "no compromise" crowd,they make the NRA look like positive liberals .Only reason NRA gets so much notice is it is the oldest and most strongest finincial wise pro gun group on the Hill.
But I wouldnt dismiss any of those groups help,cooperation or ideas,tactics etc the enemy of mine enemy etc.Which could be adapted to our situation.

You are right of course about the way things will proably turn out with the organisation.It has to be a glorious failure to be a sucess here in Ireland,going by our depressing history of defeated people and ideals.
But does that mean we shouldnt try it?

Ammo,
it looks like you will lose nothing by getting in contact with Des in the NARGC and getting legal advice from their counsel and sending this fellow a letter of intending high court judical review.If he wants to go hardball.... :mad:

gouda

Sparks wrote:

We've a long history in this country of members of one shooting body's board being on the board of one or other umbrella group and putting that shooting body's interests ahead of the interests of the other members of the umbrella group.

Absolutely correct!! That is how we ended up with the NTSA because of the self interest of Target Shooters and their disparaging view of Sporting Rifle shooters.

Ammoman

Ammo,
it looks like you will lose nothing by getting in contact with Des in the NARGC and getting legal advice from their counsel and sending this fellow a letter of intending high court judical review.If he wants to go hardball....

I agree , I have to wait until next week , superintendants only seem to work week on , 5weeks off , he's harder to get hold of than I am.

Sparks

Absolutely correct!! That is how we ended up with the NTSA because of the self interest of Target Shooters and their disparaging view of Sporting Rifle shooters.

From what I hear of how it was founded from those who were around at the time, that "disparaging view" was because no funding or support was going to olympic shooting from the money granted by the government for all the shooting sports. And from what those who were around at the time say, the NRPAI back then was not exactly on the moral high ground itself.

And last I looked, what the olympic shooters wanted was autonomy, not dominance.

Ammoman

Sparks wrote:

And last I looked, what the olympic shooters wanted was autonomy, not dominance.

I wouldnt think that the olympic style shooters could dominate the sport , the majority of shooters that I encounter here are benchrest , hunters and sil shooters , certainly back in the 70s and 80s the pure target shooters had a good grip on the shooting sport , but not in the last 10 to 15 years, they have become a minority .

Sparks

Whether they could or not doesn't matter much ammo, those actually leading the olympic shooting community at the moment are more looking at how to arrange for training shooters, training coaches, accrediting judges, organising training squads, entering teams to competitions, winning those compeitions, raising funds to pay for all of this, and so on. There's neither the time nor the desire to make up rules for others or to try to enforce them. We've a set group of disciplines and we work with those. And with the level of competition you have to meet internationally, there's more than enough work to be done without looking for more!

Ammoman

sounds like hard work...

Sparks

Is there any other kind?

Ammoman

No , I have been involved with a number of game clubs over the years on the committees and I know that it is a thankless job , with lots of hard work , but it is enjoyable when you see some sort of end product , in your case , people that you have helped to train , doing well. we need more of that in our sport.

gouda

Sparks wrote:

From what I hear of how it was founded from those who were around at the time, that "disparaging view" was because no funding or support was going to olympic shooting from the money granted by the government for all the shooting sports. And from what those who were around at the time say, the NRPAI back then was not exactly on the moral high ground itself.

And last I looked, what the olympic shooters wanted was autonomy, not dominance.

I think your source is being economical with the truth. The OCI were giving funding to Target Shooters but they felt that they would get more if they were not connected with Sporting Rifle shooters. I am pretty sure this should be in the NRPAI AGM minutes if you can get hold of them. At the time there was at least one if not two NRPAI committee members wearing the Green blazers.

Sparks

Gouda, if the OCI were giving shooters money, they wouldn't have intended it for use by any other than the ISSF shooters - the OCI are the Olympic Council of Ireland, don't forget, they wouldn't give out money to non-Olympic sports because it wouldn't make any sense from their point of view. It'd be like a shooting association funding a chess club. So if the OCI were the funding source and the money was going to sporting rifle shooters who were never going to take part in the olympics, I'm not surprised that the NTSA would have been formed.

It wouldn't mean it was particularly underhanded, mind - from what I hear, the NRPAI itself snuck in beneath the radar and got itself recognised instead of another shooting body and then usurped it in turn. It seems to be a common theme...

Mind you, if it makes you feel any better, the NTSA have been diddled financially by other groups in the past decade as well, so we're at the state now where everyone's taken a chunk out of everyone else, noone can agree on who was right and who was wrong, and everyone's more interested in not being diddled than in training and coaching and competing and winning And even worse, a fair amount of the time, they're right to be watching for that because it's still going on

And I'd be interested in seeing the NRPAI minutes allright, even if only from a historical perspective (one of these days, we ought to compile a history of target shooting in the ROI and NI back to when it started in the 1840s). But somehow I doubt I'd be allowed see them!

gouda

Sparks wrote:

Gouda, if the OCI were giving shooters money, they wouldn't have intended it for use by any other than the ISSF shooters - the OCI are the Olympic Council of Ireland, don't forget, they wouldn't give out money to non-Olympic sports because it wouldn't make any sense from their point of view. It'd be like a shooting association funding a chess club. So if the OCI were the funding source and the money was going to sporting rifle shooters who were never going to take part in the olympics, I'm not surprised that the NTSA would have been formed.

It wouldn't mean it was particularly underhanded, mind - from what I hear, the NRPAI itself snuck in beneath the radar and got itself recognised instead of another shooting body and then usurped it in turn. It seems to be a common theme...

Mind you, if it makes you feel any better, the NTSA have been diddled financially by other groups in the past decade as well, so we're at the state now where everyone's taken a chunk out of everyone else, noone can agree on who was right and who was wrong, and everyone's more interested in not being diddled than in training and coaching and competing and winning And even worse, a fair amount of the time, they're right to be watching for that because it's still going on

And I'd be interested in seeing the NRPAI minutes allright, even if only from a historical perspective (one of these days, we ought to compile a history of target shooting in the ROI and NI back to when it started in the 1840s). But somehow I doubt I'd be allowed see them!

Clarification: I never suggested that the Sporting Rifle shooters received or tried to receive funding from the OCI. Target Shooters held a view that their funding would increase if they disassociated themselves from the Sporting Rifle shooters. They had serious misgivings about Sporting Rifle shooters even attempting to receive funding from ANY source as they were not deemed to be "proper" target shooters. Try thinking of it in terms of one group out to do down those believed to be beneath them or somehow inferior as they only used "sporting" firearms and not "real" target rifles. Believe it or not ,some sporting rifle competitions were delayed on occasion because a "real" target shooter wanted to practice and objected to "other" shooters being on the firing point and daring to shoot paper targets. Apparently, sporting shooters were not entitled to the same courtesy and regularly had to shoot while "real" target shooters laughed and spoke loudly on the firing point. Can't say if it is still like that but it certainly did happen and there definitely was unconcealed bitterness from target shooters towards sporting rifle shooters.

Sparks

Well gouda, it was a bit before my time so I can't give personal testimony but I will say that I have a very hard time believing that the people I heard the history from would be so openly bigoted on the range, especially since they're now running rifle clubs that have both NASRC and NTSA shooters on equal footing with equal support. There are certainly bad eggs out there - on both sides - but to be frank, few have any time for them in reality. And anyone making noise on the line during a match is meant to be chucked out by the range officer, and it's seen as bad form to make noise during training - but that's a range discipline issue and should apply equally to both sides.

On the funding front, I've seen more than one grant application and there is... a certain degree of informality used by some associations when it comes to budgeting compared to others, and the lack of appreciation for that informality might be seen as having misgivings, but I don't think I'd say there was genuine animosity involved there (again, with the exception of certain individuals who are regarded as being a waste of space by both associations anyway). There is a strong belief that the NTSA should be autonomous (a belief I agree with), but that's for organisational reasons, not personal ones.


I can say, from the last 12 years, I've not seen evidence of a general trend of animosity towards sporting rifle shooting from the NTSA or from NTSA shooters. I've seen personal issues, yes, but as often as not they had nothing to do with shooting at all. I've seen a lack of interest from many shooters in the NTSA towards other kinds of shooting, but that's just because they're doing the shooting they like. Criticising them for that would be like criticising Sonia O'Sullivan for being a poor swimmer! And frankly, every time we bring a new shooter to a match from DURC or whereever, we'd be bringing a blank slate - so whatever opinions they form, they form on their own. With 96 shooters in 20 hours in a full week, we don't have time to go around moulding minds! So whatever happened prior to the mid-80s happened before the current generation of juniors was even born, and anything prior to 2000 was probably before their time.