OzFclass

RMc wrote: From what I can see people are trying to say that the poll on this unofficial site should had been taken into account. This is no different than a council polling 80 people and banning Australia Day. The other 99% of shooters should also have a say. The main error that I can see that happened was there was not enough time given for the proposal to be handled in a formal manner, but I think it is a long straw to say that the NRAA made its decision on a financial basis, this is showing no respect to those that use their time so we have a sport.

Richard McRae

Richard, if the input from this site should not have been taken into account, why ask the question here then?

Surely after asking the question and having the vote go against a 155 or less option you could understand why people would ask how the decision was made.

I don't think the problem was a lack of time, I think it is a lack of clarity as to how these things are decided upon.

Initially we were told that the problem was a supply issue into South Africa, talking to a number of the South Africans about the proposal, a number of them believed it was about the safety of the sport, was the NRAA aware of this aspect?

Whilst many of us wish to work with and understand the systems and processes, the only way we will be able to do that is by having answers to questions like these so can develop that understanding.

Since them "big bullets" are here to stay in FTR I'd suggest MANY shooters would benefit from some discussion/debate here, especially from the top shooters about the type of setup needed to best run them ie. are there trends in what is being used to shoot well ?

Often it's just the little things that can actually have a big impact on group sizes.

The F Open 'shooting platform' has been thoroughly discussed here and myself and I'm sure many others have enjoyed reading the views expressed here in posts on the subject.

The FTR shooting platform is perhaps 'looser' than an F Open one but I reckon there's lots of material to drill down into on this topic ? Regards Rob Kerridge.

How did the 5 Independent NRAA directors vote? Is there a formal process that was used to make the final decision ie the NRAA view that the restriction should be put in place?

Whoops, just realised my question should have been:

Where can I access the board meeting minutes (required under section 15.5 (c)) where this issue was discussed?

SunnyCoast 5r wrote:Whoops, just realised my question should have been:

Where can I access the board meeting minutes (required under section 15.5 (c)) where this issue was discussed?

I'll be very interested in the answer.
Matt Paroz

I don't think any benefit is going to come from having a "royal commission" into how this issue has been handled by the Board. Its been the case for some time that a number of F-Class matters are not being handled well at Board level. But the last thing we need to do is put more pressure on our sole Board representative Bob Pedersen. Its a voluntary position and he's been putting huge amounts of time and effort into it for many years, and with the lack of gratitude shown by some, I wonder why he keeps doing it. Its very easy to come onto this forum and criticise. If criticism is due then it should be directed at each and every one of us F-Class shooters for not making the effort to encourage and support more people to represent us at Board level. It firstly needs good F-Class representation at S & T level, and then cooperation between S & Ts to bring about more F-Class members on the Board. Its in our hands.

Alan your are right to commend the enormous efforts of Bob and all of the other people who help to govern our sport. I apologise for being arrogant; I do not want to denegrate their input. I have not met Bob and I would have asked him these questions very differently face-to-face: so I am sorry for the tone of my post.

Would it be possible to let us know what the thinking was behind the decision to support a restriction? That way ordinary members might better be able to see the point/s of view that influenced the final position.

My own (modest by some standards I know) investment in setting up a FTR rig was a long term decision for me as family commitments mean I might not have the coin available for quite some time to 're-arm'...so the restriction would have potentially left me with a less than optimal rifle before I had even used it.

As a pragmatist this situation has caused me to worry that I am disconnected from the decision making process in a sport that I have planned to enjoy for a long time. In my short time on this forum I have read some marvellous ideas about how to progress our sport but the evidence is that the organisation is somewhat cumbersome when dealing with change.

Regards
Peter W

AlanF wrote:I don't think any benefit is going to come from having a "royal commission" into how this issue has been handled by the Board. Its been the case for some time that a number of F-Class matters are not being handled well at Board level. But the last thing we need to do is put more pressure on our sole Board representative Bob Pedersen. Its a voluntary position and he's been putting huge amounts of time and effort into it for many years, and with the lack of gratitude shown by some, I wonder why he keeps doing it. Its very easy to come onto this forum and criticise. If criticism is due then it should be directed at each and every one of us F-Class shooters for not making the effort to encourage and support more people to represent us at Board level. It firstly needs good F-Class representation at S & T level, and then cooperation between S & Ts to bring about more F-Class members on the Board. Its in our hands.

Alan, Bob knows me, and knows the respect I have for him and what he has done for our sport.

He also knows my interest in how things work at both State & National level, and probably knows that I have, probably naively, tried to nominate once and decided to hold off until I was a bit "older in the sport" so to speak.

Bob, if you have taken any of my queries personally I apologies for that, but I would ask you to go back and read them again and I am sure you will see nothing is directed at you personally, more so it is about garnering a better understanding of the overall systems and processes.

Alan, I agree with your sentiment in some respects, but I'd have to say that if we are required to tip toe amongst the tulips, as I think a lot of us have been doing for quite sometime, to try and get things done and understand more about how we can positively influence our sport, I'd suggest we will get no where with that approach.

As well as us needing to support more people to take up management positions within the sport? So to do the current management need to openly foster younger people to/who have an interest and understanding of how things work.

It is a two way street....

For instance, asking for the minutes of the board meeting should not be taken as an attack or barr any offense to the board members, it is simply another way clarity into our sport should be available.

jasmay wrote:For instance, asking for the minutes of the board meeting should not be taken as an attack or barr any offense to the board members, it is simply another way clarity into our sport should be available.

The way things are structured, only the S&Ts can ask for clarification - they are the members of the NRAA. So you would need to ask the QRA to raise it with the Board.

Let's not forget the poll on this site. 45 shooters claimed to shoot F/TR. 22 voted for the status quo & 23 for a 155.5 grain limit, whatever that means.

Other way round John. Either way it's not an overwhelming majority.

AlanF wrote:

jasmay wrote:For instance, asking for the minutes of the board meeting should not be taken as an attack or barr any offense to the board members, it is simply another way clarity into our sport should be available.

The way things are structured, only the S&Ts can ask for clarification - they are the members of the NRAA. So you would need to ask the QRA to raise it with the Board.

And to me that in itself is very confusing, I pay a fee, through the QRA to be a member of the NRAA, but am not actually a member.

The NRAA has 8500ish members if you ask what there membership is, yet, none of them are actual members, a very confusing system.

Yes it is a strange system. We the members are not actually members except through our states which are members. We pay the company (NRAA) a fee, but to them we do not actually exist!! It seems a little like the old English feudal system.
Keith H.

So could we ask that we please receive informal feedback on the general thoughts of the board on this matter?
Thanks in advance.