ATTN: Roger McNamer Our OHIO Delegate

Please ask Other State Delagates and yourself to re-instate the Target Guideline/Specifications back to where they were , a minimum straight-a-way from posts #1 and #5 and a distance of 50-52 yards and the Height 9.5 ft at 10 yards I believe, I may be in correct on this spec.

Roger we need to get Trapshooting Back to where it used to be, a Competetive Target.

Your friend and fellow trapshooter Gary Bryant, You know the Yankee Hill Targets!!!

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

I could be wrong but I got the impression from previous threads that the newly elected delegate from Ohio was already on line for the return to the " 3hole" target ssttings but now reading the previous message from Dr. Longshot I am not so sure. Sometimes I don't know what to believe anymore.

 

I think the term used, op, was "on board." I took that to mean not just the 3-hole, but perhaps target speed, 1200 fps shells, and whatever else may concern the shooters of Ohio.

N1H1

 

Oldphart
I do not want to speak for anyone but to say PA or OH may have more shooters than 10 other states combined. Shooters are not represented equally in the ATA. It is a minority rule organization. WY or RI, both have as much voting power as either of those states.

In the states out west folks have to travel further to shoot. The western club managers fear lower scores will make the very few shooters they have stay home. The states creating the user fees to keeping the ATA cronies in free guns, meals and travel tickets are extremely under represented. It is by design.

Of course those in CO like Azco and company think this is great. There will come a day when the states with the shooters will realize where the power really lies.

 

The effectiveness of any Delegate in leading (or resisting) change lies not in his or her own state's single vote, but rather his or her powers of persuasion combined with the quality of the (required) motion itself. When I had something important to do I often wrote every Delegate in advance to keep my proposals from apparently coming out of the blue and give him or her time to think things over, secure other opinions. Then I'd leave copies of my proposed motion (s) on the Delegate Locker Room tables and hang around a lot to talk things over with anyone who cared to know more. That's the way to get thing done.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

Jhunts,

See what I mean?

Rules state angles can be set beyond 17 degrees, height is 8-10 feet with a recommended 9-1/2 setting. Distance flight up to 51 yards, yet some people can't function unless they are told what to do, right Family Guy?

He is saying OH-PA people are incapable of functioning on their own, setting the targets to the max instead of what is recommended?

 

So you're saying that because a state has more shooters they shoud have more representation, (votes) then the minority states may be able to overide what the majority of states would like or if more than one delegate and upon a vote one delegate may cancel the vote by voting against their counterpart.

The one vote per State/Province has worked well for years and does not apparently present any problems other that what some judge as not standing up to the EC, some not representing the wishes of who elected them but that again is the individual States problem.

 

oldphart, just like the democrats they look for any advantage so they can get to rule the rest of the shooting community.

ONE vote per ONE State for equal representation for ALL shooters.

 

Family Guy,

I thought you OH-PA bunch were going to dump ATA and create your own governing body just for you? What's the hold up?

 

Smoking357 has taken up that gauntlet. The last couple were talkers and not doers. Maybe he can get er done .

 

You will have to explain that one. It does provide a one vote, but that one vote hardly represents ALL shooters. That one vote may represent no shooters of the state, could it not? It is a good talking point though.

I could have been through the art of persuasion of other single (rogue) delegates (in ATA's case) that provides the impetus to not represent the shooters of a state or the sport (in ATA's case), could it not?

Shoot well.

John

 

What is there to explain?

All your way of thinking would do in the way you explain things is create more rouge delegates.

 

AZCO

Ohio and Pa are doing a great job marketing trapshooting, creating shoots, discussing options etc. I can drive to 30 clubs in a few hours. The state I live in has 3 huge registered shoots. I can walk to 2 clubs faster than you could drive to 2

I went to a tiny shoot (non registered) recently that was as big as your state shoot. What information could they get from you that would help OH or PA?

We have local zone shoots the size of your state shoot. All this and it is estimated that only 15% of those in PA and OH shoot ATA targets. You would have nothing to add to any conversation about OH or PA trapshooting. Don't expect a memo. lol

 

The ones wearing rouge are usually from Minnesota.

 

What exactly is my way of thinking, since you know?

Shoot well.

John

 

Like I said family guy, why do you need ATA? Just go your way and let us no counts suffer with it all by our lonesome? You certainly don't have any use for the rest of the country.

 

Democrats? Pathetic canard. You're really reaching to support a horribly unjust system.

Shame on you. Support of immoralities and logically disproven positions such as this are why you can't believe anything this guy says.

Proportional votes corresponding to membership is the only fair way. The above corrupt method gives small states that don't have much of a presence, like an Iowa, get the same voice as a powerhouse like Ohio, and that's grossly unfair and ridiculous.

 

My PM is empty. I can't associate with myself, folks.

It doesn't need to be just OH-PA.

 

Smoking357
I thought some of these guys would have gotten on board. Well you tried.
Maybe they just like to complain.

 

"Rules state angles can be set beyond 17 degrees, height is 8-10 feet with a recommended 9-1/2 setting. Distance flight up to 51 yards" ....

That sounds interesting .... then why did 'shoot management' do something like this, and someone wanted to shut the shoot down for it ??????

If this is 'legal' ... what grounds was the 'objection' made ... and why was someone willing to act ?????

Is target setting 'up to 3-hole' ... legal ... in cyber-chat only, and not in real shoots where someone's Idol gets upset ?????

"people are incapable of functioning on their own, setting the targets to the max instead of what is recommended" ... what does "incapable" mean ???????????? Thou shall not do something to upset those in power ....

 

N1H1 said, "but rather his or her powers of persuasion combined with the quality of the (required) motion itself."

Where this quote falls apart, is in the quality, no quality needed as has been the case, just persuasion, admittedly N1H1 is pretty good at it, though he advocates for nothing, I guess.

AZCOTRAP,
And you were on the right track.
There is not doubt in the art of persuasion, is it is clear here.

Written by a person named Neil Winston



Could someone tell me what was a 48 yard standard, of course there wasn't one, remember "thrown not less than" was the standard. A setting or average of 48, throws less than 48? I thought it was a 50 yard setting and the range for the 50 yard setting was +/- 2 yards at that time. You see even today with setting a 42mph or 67fps setting it is a 48yd target not a 50 yard target, in still air, as is the standard.

What do you think, do you agree with setting 48yd targets?

Shoot well.

John

 

Jhunts, his post refers to his Minnesota club. All politics is local. 48-52 phfffft. Once the target starts to fall it is more than likely to be missed anyway.

 

User 1,

excellent points. Looks like ignorance of the rule, by an ATA official, the shoot management, whoever else failed to speak up, maybe?????

This perhaps should be the subject of talk around the club house perhaps, or at the Grand this week?

 

So distance doesn't matter?

Send in the clowns.

 

I think this Neil Winston person may have been an official, maybe not.

Shoot well

John

 

The only distance that matters is the one in rule book decided by the delegates YOU voted for to served on the BOD. Whatever N1H1 posts as to personnel experiences is irrevelant as to what is in the rule book. Right now you have the option of setting the distance between 49-51 yards. Set your targets where you want within these parameters, shoot your program and stop worrying about things that are not. Good grief.

 

Jhunts are you talking about the Tucson Spring Grand?

 

So as this Neil Winston person wrote, you would not be for and are against any rules like 42mph or 67fps that deliver a target less than a 50yd average, you would be against, correct.

Shoot well
John

 

No, but I could.

I was not there however.

 

That is what I thought you were referring to.

 

Why are you guys gassing about what Neil posts when the rules are what the rules are?????


Who cares about short targets, long targets when the whole discussion of such is irrevelant to what the rules say?

I would not want to shoot at targets 6 feet high at 30 feet either, but is something that is not happening.

You have the freedom to set your targets within the parameters as stated on the rules. You should set your traps within those parameters as you see fit and shoot your programs.


Family guy, I never called you a clown.

 

Kind of a classic dismissive response, "Who cares about".

Shoot well

John

 

Shoot well John,

What the hell has any of the questions about short thrown targets have to do with what is in the rule book? I want the targets at least 50 yards, but the club has the option of throwing them anywhere between 49-51 yards and I can accept that.

I dismiss it because I am not talking about targets thrown 48 yards. You and family guy are. Settle that red herring between youselves and leave it out of the conversation with me.

 

When the ATA has an OUT OF CONTROL PRESIDENT LIKE ROB TAYLOR GOING TO SHUT DOWN AUTUMN GRAND for wider angle targets that are within the ATA rules, What Have You Got? A ROGUE PRESIDENT that is and has been bending the rules to his Favor. HE WANTS 38 YARD DOUBLES, What do you say about that??

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Roger McNamer is a fair fellow and listens, but has a firm hand on the rules, And I believe he stands for a Competetive Target, This man can break Competetive Targets, I have seen him do it.

Roger stand up and have your say at the meeting at the Grand, You have my support.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

I think it would be more of an uninformed President as opposed to one out of control.

He cannot dictate 38 yard doubles. They have to be voted on by the BOD.

I am a little confused on this issue. If you want harder targets to regain loss ATA membership and shoot attendence, woundn't shorter traveled targets be right along that thought process?

 

You are easily confused, no comment

 

Shorter Traveled Targets, how far do they need to be shipped? less than 500 miles

GB DLS

 

DLS, have you ever considered doing stand up comedy? Don't!

 

Just think of something, on shorter targets, less distance less time in the air, unless the targets are set very very high. On short targets the shooter would have to shoot faster than on targets set accordingly to the Rule Book some shooters could not handle this.

 

You don't have to be good at the sport to be good for the sport. Millions can't play Tennis but still watch Wimbledon and hope to see Djokovich and Federer in the Finals..

 

I have an idea also , times have changed since the 80s, what about the Money punch--- also the codes that have no effect on the shooting . Maybe it's time to start living in the year 2015 now. The days of winning Big money are gone. Why not try to get the people who have been treated unfairly ,Buy the personal feelings of some committee members ,I don't have to name them we all know who they are. Bring back the shooters that have been as you say treated unfairly . And those shooters will bring others as well, let's try to increase the shooting population . Loose the money punch, loose the codes , and the committee members that have no clue of how increase our members . People are still shooting calcuttas , do as stated above and they will come back .. Nothing extra , just being treated fairly as others ,there again we can name names there also. Respectfully, Rob Mize

 

Has Roger McNamer committed to change as previously stated or are you just hoping he will support a return to 3 hole targets?

 

I know a state delagate. Cant do alot. But there are a lot of people as rob111 state that have been slapped with this B.S code crap. Because they shoot games . And calcuttas. Because they like to win a little money. And not a 2 dollar ash tray. The codes and the money punch crap needs to go. 3 hole tragets need back. There is no money left its not the 80s. The money punch crap put a stop to that. Number 2 the Central Handicap Co. Needs to go also they do nothing. Your reviews are done by the computer. Get rid of the code crap the money punch. And the chc. You could win the so called grand and not pay for your week.

 

that,s none of your business

 

That is all true I support it 100% and back you on it too.

 

Really, you said previously he was on board.
Why wouldn't you want the shooting community to know you finally have some actual support?

 

If we went back to original settings there is no problem, NW created these problems

 

Because it is none of your business

 

What I am for is not a comedy act, it may be funny to you though and that's your privledge

 

He must be very un-informed then

 

Well it will all come out at the Delegates meeting. If you can't make it be sure to read the minutes.

And in future if you are trying to keep something private don't announce it on ATS.com.ROTFLMAO

 

Just because I post something I do not have to prove it to you

 

N1H1 was very concerned who our delegate was

 

Who said he was committed to anything? Not me

 

You said that Roger was "On Board."

Are you taking that back?