The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

dromia wrote: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