christel wrote:I do not know the answer either, however what I do know is that the NRA is the only organisation that has shown it's face on this forum and I do not think I am being bigheaded when I say that within shooting circles this forum counts, something BASC certainly do not seem to acknowledge.
Also I believe the insurance offered by the NRA beats anything else available out there and let's not forget we are talking about an old institution with old traditions, yes it is in big trouble right now but without people supporting it, it will cease to exist.
EDIT
Here is another thing, every time I contacted the NRA membership department, Nick and Heather were always prompt with a reply to my question. Really sorry to hear Nick is gone. Doesn't seem logical.
Thanks Christel, that is the kind of answer I am looking for - the reasons for me to part with my money - it was not a trick question, it was a serious question with serious outcomes - either I joined or I didn't
The problem here is the NRA is unofficially represented on this forum. We have Karen and Heather who we know to be NRA and I did see a third join, NorthernNRAguy who I assumed to be the Northern Rep for the NRA. He very quickly baled out which only leaves the two lasses.
That made me laugh out loud I spat my tea all over my screeN. He didnt hang about did he. :shakeshout:
Just to comment on the "one national body" bit. (and other subjects - rant mode ON)
There have been a number of attempts at this over recent years. Most have been a complete failure. There are bodies who are gently achieving.
First off, SportEngland money is difficult to apply to a national solution - the clue is of course in their title.
Second off, any amalgamation of the three main target shooting bodies has huge legal problems. NRA is a barely-solvent charity with one enormous asset. NSRA is right on freezing point, and has nothing to its name in the way of real assets. CPSA isn't a charity, and doesn't operate throughout the UK. There is no simple (or even mildly complicated) way to combine these three entities in law.
Third off, BASC has a very different world view from NRA. Of the FAC and SGC holders in this country, about 70% (I think) are quarry shooters (ie they kill living creatures). Many of the 30% who are primarily target shooters also do a bit of vermin control / deerstalking / bunny bashing / whatever. Pure target shooters (like me) are a minority, and even then quite a few of us have done the odd bit of vermin control around the globe over the years. The issues that concern the average countryman who owns a shotgun and a couple of rifles to deal with game and vermin on the estate he has a friend at are very different from the issues that concern me taking two carefully-matched centrefire rifles plus several hundred rounds of extremely expensive ammo to hugely sensitive and suspicious countries with appalling firearms laws (eg the USA) every year. And being sure that I will be competing on a level playing field when I get there.
There was an attempt (that claimed to be trying) to create a federal structure under an organisation called NATSS (National Association of Target Shooting Sports - shame nobody checked who else used the acronym). As has been said, one of the government sports bodies was persuaded to put up a six-figure sum. Various people got their snouts in the trough, lies were told about the actual objective (amalgamation with, as has been said, consequent loss of control of assets) and the whole thing came unravelled when the paid consultants made a presentation to NRA General Council (the mostly-elected body that holds the NRA Trustees to account), were seen straight through and their suggested way forward was kicked out by a 32-0 vote. End of NATSS, which at least stopped the gravy train.
The British Shooting Sports Council (BSSC - easily confused with BASC but not at all the same organisation) is currently doing a lot of good work, almost all of it behind the scenes. It is a voluntary association of the main bodies, who all pay something towards its fairly modest operating costs.
It is also the case that a charity is prohibited from engaging in overtly political campaigning. Now I suspect that there are certain charities that are either big enough or correct enough that they can push the boundaries of that law a long way. The NRA of GB is not one of them. Think about it from the point of view of the (guess their political standpoint) Charity Commissioners. Wouldn't it be convenient to have a nice target like the NRA that you could stomp all over to show how tough you were in implementing charity legislation any time things got a bit rocky on the PR front?
Remember the Sportsmans' Association? I spoke at the inaguaral meeting at Bisley in 1997. I was so angry I leapt on the concept of One Million members in one month. I signed up. Everybody I could persuade signed up. My parents signed up. And what did we achieve? About 50,000 members at peak if I recall approximately, for a campaigning organisation with a clear and accurate focus. Most of the 900,000 Certificate holders in the UK just didn't bother.
Why join the NRA? Because until you are a Member, you don't get a vote and you can't stand for office. If you care - join, vote, stand and serve. I do.
Thank you for that explanation Ian, what bloody shambles how on earth did things ever come to that. No wonder that the shooting sports are seen as joke by government.
You say join and change well I've been a member for years and have made my mouth go often as I can and it has all come to nought, the lack of progress with the NRA over the years has made shooters resistant to join. In my believing years I tried to recruit NRA members but at the end of the day I am left with nought to entice members. People who don't shoot at Bisley don't see any reason to join what they perceive as a failed organisation, the NRA has a hill to climb to be a national organisation, it needs to recognise this and make itself relevant and pertinent to non Bisley shooters. I also know many ex NRA members here in the north who left over the years because the NRA didn't change or changed for the worse by their view so the argument join and change it carries very little weight it is the resistance to change that defines the NRA in many shooters minds.
If the NRA and Bisley were to disappear tomorrow I don't think anyone other than the shooters who use Bisley would notice.
I take no joy in saying all of this, I'm an NRA member for heavens sake, but unless the organisation listens and acts like a national organisation it will be seen as the second rate player it has become. But the organisation has to listen, admit where it is really at, be humble and explain clearly how it is going to go forward and what it plans to achieve and how over the coming years.
Come on Bambi get some
Imperial Good Metric Bad
Analogue Good Digital Bad
If you are a responsible quarry shooter and as such you want insurance to cover your activities, BASC offer their members a very good package, but to get it you have to be a member.
If you are a target shooter you have to belong to a Home Office Approved club (otherwise no FAC and no shooting) and one of the criteria for Home Office Approval is that the club carries appropriate insurance for itself and its members. One of the things that the NRA does is negotiate an insurance package that is available to its affiliated clubs. I haven't studied the economics of this for a while, but the last time I did, it was worth it for the club of which I was treasurer to affiliate to NRA just to keep its insurance premium down. The further consequence of all this is that if you don't go target shooting as an individual (and very few people do), your insurance needs are met by your necessary membership of an NRA affiliated club - so why bother joining the national body unless you want to join in the politics (not many) or shoot for GB (only the elite)?
The NRA has only an approximate idea of the membership of its affiliated clubs - each club member who is not an NRA member declared to the NRA costs £5? £7? for insurance etc (Karen and Heather will both know the correct answer), so there is an incentive to minimise the declaration. We know how many non-members are paid for by the clubs, but are not naive enough to believe that that is a 100% accurate answer. We have around 800 affiliated clubs, so we guess at around 12 per club, so about another 10000 shooters associated with the NRA on top of the 6000 individual members. But we do not know.
So, different structures fishing in different sized pools and with different statistics lead to different patterns of membership.
dromia wrote:
If the NRA and Bisley were to disappear tomorrow I don't think anyone other than the shooters who use Bisley would notice.
NRA runs the Shooter Certification Card scheme, which allows us mere plebs to shoot on military ranges? Also I thought they had something to do with licensing ranges, could be wrong on that one.
One big problem the NRA have is that most people shooting at Bisley dont need to be members of the NRA.
MY club fees are very modest (small club) at £100 per year. This includes 8 ish sessions (1/2 days including a marker), access to a club house, storage for club guns (3 at the moment), and extra days can be booked as and when. We all pay the same amount, its down to us to turn up. Although the first years is discounted for NRA membership, £70 plus for the following years looks hard to justify against my club fees. But still contemplating it, depends if I get pay rise, on a lot less money in my new job.
If the NRA and Bisley were to disappear tomorrow I don't think anyone other than the shooters who use Bisley would notice.
Oh how wrong you are.
Without the NRA there would probably be NO civilian shooting on MOD controlled ranges. Unless I am misinformed to use a military range the Club making the booking has to be NRA affiliated. In my experience the MOD/Landmarc will only deal with the NRA and NRA affiliated clubs. If your club is not NRA affiliated you cannot make a booking.
I am a Target Shooter, my days of shooting live quarry are over. I have been fortunate enough to have travelled all over the world shooting. The only Organisation that can give me Insurance that covers my needs are the NRA. The BASC that people keep harping on, when I enquired about insuring for international shooting advised me to join the NRA as their (BASC) insurance could not cover me.
All over the UK there are many Target shooters who aspire to represent their Country at Shooting. Its is a requirement to represent Great Britain that the Individual is a member of the NRA, afterall the NRA is the Governing Body and provides a small subsidy to Great Britain Teams so it is only right and proper that individuals are members. I know many Target shooters from all over the UK. from the top of Scotland to the South west and all points inbetween. Many of these shooters only come to Bisley once a year for the Imperial meeting but they are all annual members. Some never come to Bisley but they are still members of the NRA. They seem to think that it is worth joining.
Is it worth joining the NRA? I think so because if you are not part of it you cannot influence it. I know of one rifle club in the North East of Scotland that are very gratefull to the NRA. That Club was about to lose its range several years ago. They Contacted the NRA and are still using their range. If it was not for the NRA they would have ceased shooting.
People have consistantly gone on about what does the NRA do for the non Bisley shooter. Well they do quite alot. The NRa helps Clubs getting acces to military ranges. They have given out many thousands of pounds in grants to clubs up and down the country so that clubs do not fold or stop shooting. In this respect the NRA most definately is National.
