NATSS Single Body. £3/4M Sport England money. What happened?

[Christel]

I tried hard to change the way things were and no one backed me, I walked away in the end because life is too short. It was exactly the "this is the way it is attitude" I was up against.

[Ovenpaa]

Why am I not surprised.

People hate change and that includes the top level of all of our 'National' organisations. Divide and conquer springs to mind, we are already divided and without unity we have no hope long term.

[John25]

Thanks for the reply John.

Couple of issues from your post.

Firstly the attitude of staff in the organisations reflects on the leadership of the organisations.

Agreed, but from my recollections of conversations held with my opposite numbers in CPSA, NSRA; there was an unwillingness to proceed, job security was seen as a major issue

Also are the staff there for the organisations members or do the staff see the membership as being there for them.

I cannot speak for the present but, during my time, a number of NRA/NSC staff felt that the company owed them a living and that customer service was a fly to be swatted rather than a reason for existance

The issue of reciprocal use of facilities is interesting but to some extent a red herring. Firstly use of facilities I do not see as such a problem at a local level I'm sure that most clubs would subscribe to it so long as it was supported by a national and regional strategic approach to support and develop the clubs. People will only change if they can see an improvement from changing.

Here I have to disagree, it is especially at the local level wherein the problem lies. For instance, to quote one club's rules "After three visits the shooter must apply for membership" I would rather see the like of "After three visits the shooter should be invited to apply for membership or on proof of adequate insurance, pay the green fee

Secondly on a national level if the facilities were separated to trading arms to function on a sound business level, I know the NRA tried this and it didn't work which I believe is nore a function of the NRA's ineffective governance structure No argument from me there and a flawed belief in growing Bisley before a national membership, Here I'm not sure I agree, I certainly did not feel that the NRA wanted to be self centred, the appointment of a Regional Manager belied that, merely that, financially, it was unable to provide tangible support and then have a national body doing things along the lines of that which was outlined in the Performance matters document. The findings of this document was driven by what shooters not national body employees thought. Wholeheartedly cuncur

"The majority of those attending (54.7% of
workshop attendees) want the new body
established as soon as possible with the
following remit:
1. It should offer to oversee all the target
shooting disciplines.
2. It should be of UK significance.
3. It should be primarily strategic.
4. It should have a small, competency
based Board led by someone of
appropriate stature and experience (not
necessarily from shooting).
5. It should be business like and
professional in its approach.
6. Its main work should be focused on the 5
strategic priorities emerging from the
online survey - legislation, public
relations, shooting on the school
curriculum, membership, protecting the
sport’s heritage.
7. It should retain Home Country identities
to make communication to devolved
administrations and funding bodies
easier.
8. It should be the ‘one voice’ for the sport
both in terms of lobbying Government,
representing UK interests internationally
and enhancing its profile with the media."

Gets my vote

[dromia]

I'm running the hot bath and the razor is sharpened, just need to get the gin out.

[karen]

I could talk for hours on this but don't have time today - sorry!

Have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... ing_Sports

The survey referred to was the biggest misuse of statistics I have ever seen! I will tell more later today if I have time.

Love
karen

[Ovenpaa]

The one thing I cannot find is who started NATSS, who was the driver of the original concept?

[dromia]

Thanks for the link Karen, who put up the Wikipost.

It is a bit contradictory in relation to the survey as one part criticises the survey statistics whereas at the end it says that it is still being found useful.

I suppose with so much conflicting insidious vested interest that seems to be the bed rock of our national organisations there is no surprise in the fact that the statistics, whatever they are, are being interpreted in different ways to support the differing agendas.

What an outrageous, disgraceful shambles the shooting bodies are.

[John25]

In the spring 2009 NRA Journal, Glynn Alger said

National Association of Target Shooting Sports
Recently a number of members have started to express concern about the spectre of joining NATSS. NATSS is about doing something shooting has been unable to do before, acting co-operatively to protect the sport as a whole. If you look at the results of both the NRA survey, carried out two years ago, and the more recent version run by the consultants Performance Matters, the outcome is consistent in that most shooters appear to want a single national body.
They believe, going forward, that it makes sense to join the various elements of the sport together at one level to make it easier to join and shoot and at another level to make sure the messages being sent to politicians are consistent and in the interest of the whole sport not minor factions.
The horrible truth is that the current national bodies have largely failed to represent the interests of shooters because they fail to appreciate the wider picture and act only within the limited confines of their small piece of the sport. Pistol shooting was a victim of this approach. Since then we have seen our rights as shooters increasingly eroded as the authorities nibble away on the margins with changes to legislation and interpretations of guidance that make the sport more difficult in which to join and to take part. When you look outside the UK at the position of the UN and the EU on civilian ownership of firearms policy the picture is equally worrying.
There are those within the NRA who choose to ignore these realities, having taken a fatalistic approach to life, which in terms of ambition is limited to being able to shoot within their own lifetime. The NRA has wider responsibilities to safeguard the sport for future generations.
To me the NRA is important because it has the opportunity to make all the difference for shooting across the UK. However, in its present form, it is
bound to fail if the “Bisley Rifle Club” prevails. The NRA’s importance is that it has the gravitas to persuade all the other bodies to come together to create a large significant shooting organisation in terms of the sport and being able to influence the political landscape.
On its own, the NRA has lots of history and it used to be able to bring influence to bear through its membership. Those days are gone and we can no longer attract senior politicians or members of the military to represent us. We used to run an event that appeared on the social calendar along with Henley and others. We are not even on the public radar today. As a sport we represent 6000 individual members and possibly 17000 others through their clubs. On this basis we are not a highly significant organisation. In a sporting context the Palma World Championships may attract 10 teams to take part, while ISSF disciplines attract 150 countries to compete. In international fullbore shooting terms we are a big fish in a small pond.
If we wish to protect, promote and grow fullbore shooting we have proven that we cannot do it as a stand-alone organisation even when we own a jewel in the crown like Bisley. Our future is intrinsically linked with the other target shooting bodies if we are to punch our weight in future.
NATSS has not decided that we will become a single national body but it is committed to looking at the possibilities. At the highest levels within the organisations concerned, there is a recognition that the formation of a single national body would be a good thing but no one is as yet convinced it can happen because there are influential elements within all three national bodies that will not support it.
What a single national body looks like has not been decided. It could be a loose federation or it could be something more profound. Whatever the desired outcome it must be approved by the three NGB boards and then by the wider membership. Let us face it, if the interests of fullbore shooting at and away from Bisley are not accounted for, the whole idea of a merger will not fly. Perhaps it is time for the quiet majority to be heard for once?

Full article http://www.nra.org.uk/common/files/jour ... spring.pdf

You will note that he starts with talking about The Spectre of joining NATSS

Concern over most, if not All of his points has been expressed on this forum. Like Chrystel I feel that lfe is too short to keep on bashing my head against this wall. Despite all the best efforts of many

NOBODY LISTENS!

:cool2:

[dromia]

Then perhaps we should lock all these national body forums as they are futile?

[John25]

Ah, perhaps you misunderstand me?

Personally I'm fed up with it, I no longer wish to fight the battle, i have retired from all admin except personal.

I'm not against some form of single body, on the contrary and I'm not suggesting that the battle be surrendered just that I'm tired of fighting.

I know how selfish that seems but after thirty years?


My parting shot is, Someone needs to get to grips and fight for the shooting sports otherwise the current generation will be the last.