Hosting additional classes is well within AAFTA rules...August 10 2017 at 12:37 PM
HookEm (Login HookEm)
Let's not forget (as shown below), that AAFTA rules allow for clubs being creative to cater to their shooters.
So within existing rules clubs can implement of a lot of the suggestions posted in the threads below.
For example: hosting classes by skill level or by equipment restrictions, like a "break-barrel only" class.
Plus, at the local club level matches need not adhere to strict AAFTA rules, so hosting an Unlimited or Freestyle class is fine!
As it is, Open shooters don't want their rules changed, so it seems to me that Unlimited/Freestyle would have to be a new division.
Question is, can we justify that based on numbers?... Well, local clubs can host that class and let the numbers speak for themselves.
Clubs are not gated from doing what they think is best for their members & newcomers.
=== Cut-paste from AAFTA Handbook ===
The Match Director may provide additional classes to any of the divisions. These classes are generally based on restrictions to equipment usage or target types. Classes are generally only offered if there are enough shooters to justify them. Examples of classes within a division could be A & B, or Senior & Junior. Match Directors should determine the specifics of any classes they wish to make available at a particular match and outline them in the match announcement when possible.
|This message has been edited by HookEm on Aug 10, 2017 12:38 PM|
True, and clubs do that. But...
|August 10 2017, 3:11 PM |
I think most of the debate is about sanctioned
classes at AAFTA matches.
The GP series and Nationals are a big draw for many hard core FT shooters. If they want any assurances that they can shoot a certain way at those matches, they must conform to a currently sanctioned
"Question is, can we justify that based on numbers?"
Based on the numbers, it looks like we can:
But it's the BOGs decision.
Sounds like a good topic for our National Meeting...
|August 10 2017, 3:30 PM |
Adding another division is a considerable commitment for the hosting clubs, and frankly can be a two-edge sword:
Yes, it would create a home for those clamoring for it, but it would also further fragment our sport.
We already have 6 classes, and some of them don't even meet the minimum 3-man quota at GP matches.
So, at least IMO, we should consider 'consolidation' scenarios (outside of merging Hunter into Open).
I honestly don't think we need 8 sanctioned classes... but, let's put our thinking hats on and discuss civilly.
|August 10 2017, 4:31 PM |
We have too many classes, and some get zero or low participation.
We should consider eliminating some GP Classes.
Open/Piston and WFTF/Piston - one uses a harness and the other doesn't. Does that minor difference warrant separate classes? The often low participation level makes the piston classes problematic. We might be better served having a single Piston only Class, replacing the three current piston classes.
Limited/Pistol and WFTF/Pistol - one clicks and the other uses sticks. Do those minor difference warrant separate classes? Allow clicking and the current Hunter/Pistol class could absorb the smaller Limited/Pistol Class. We might be better served having a single Pistol only Class, replacing the two current pistol classes.
Isn't that probelm self correcting?
|August 10 2017, 5:56 PM |
Usually classes get consolidated at a GP if there isn't enough participation within a class, so it sounds like an unnecessary paperwork drill.
|August 10 2017, 6:15 PM |
Maintaining non-viable classes is still paperwork.
The consolidation that you speak of is usually an afterthought. Promoting/offering non-viable classes is a waste of time money. I've got a box of unclaimed medals and trophies from past matches that our club has held.
I'm talking about consolidation ahead of time. If we know that there is a high likelihood that a class will need to be consolidated, maybe it should not be part of the GP series.
Leo, the vote / discussion we had at last years Nationals ........
|August 10 2017, 7:19 PM |
Didn't work out well for those of us that was there. A trial year for a freestyle class like we did for the Hunter class in 2006 would be the sensible way to go. Forget about allowing bucks and bipods in Open that has been a dead subject as far as I'm concerned. Here presents a perfect opportunity to intertain growing our sport. Don't make us go through another annual meeting like last year turned out. LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN! We know you are the only one that can champion this trial year if you want to.
Leo, this isn't about what local clubs can do...
|August 10 2017, 8:43 PM |
I suspect those people who invest the time, money and effort to start a local Airgun Field Target club do whatever they can to attract and keep the most people to their matches as they can. I assume that most Field Target Clubs around the country are just like our club in Sacramento. The only requirement we have is a 20fpe power limit to keep from destroying the targets. If you show up with a 30fpe hunting rifle we probably have a well tuned 20fpe rifle that we will be happy to let you use and a mentor to help you along the way. If you show up you will be welcome and you will shoot.
What we are missing is a national overseer, who promotes this open arms approach. Airgun field target is a competition and as such needs rules. What we don't need are arbitrary rules that stifle the growth of the sport. If Airgun Field Target is to grow over time it has to become a sport that attracts national attention and participation. Who doesn't want to be a national champion? Many hunter class shooters have beat their heads to a bloody pulp trying to get the BOG to approve some rule changes that we believe would help grow the sport, only to be ignored because 20 years ago it was decided that Hunter class was to be the limited equipment class. WHO KNEW!!
Scott Hull began a West Coast movement to create a Freestyle Class because he he believed it would promote the sport. What most people don't realize is he doesn't even shoot the class he helped pioneer because AAFTA doesn't formally recognize the class. Scott is a many times national champion and loves to compete at that level, as do many who participate in this sport.
So where is this going? Based up on the terrific input and feedback I received in the "Let's Talk AAFTA Divions/Classes" thread, our club is going to formally petition the AAFTA BOG to create an Unlimited Division of Airgun Field Target starting in the 2017-2018 season. My original hope was we could create a rule change in Hunter Division to satisfy the majority of people seeking a change, but in reading and digesting the feedback we received I believe the best solution for the sport is the Unlimited Class. I hope to file this request with the BOG within the next couple of weeks. If you manage an AAFTA member club and think this is a good idea or a bad idea, please let a BOG member know how you feel.
Jim in Sacramento
Bedsides what Jim just answered
|August 10 2017, 11:27 PM |
I need to add that one of the preeminent duties of a national governing board in ANY sport is the keeping of sensible and useful statistics.
Even more so when, like in our case, our culture is democratic, but our RGB is "parliamentary".
To be quite frank, unless there is an official record-keeping, an " Additional class" at Club level has the same value as inviting friends over to the backyard for a plinking session over some steaks and beers.
Without more and better statistics that can be drilled down to individual level, the decisions will be taken by what a few feel is the majority's will.
In Europe and the rest of the World, FT is banking it's success and growth in attracting Target Shooters, to the detriment of FT's roots and origins.
In a country of Riflemen and Hunters (over 50 million) we should be taking a different route. It's simple logic.
Let's hope that this year's vote will show with more authority than in the past what is the constituency's will.
Keep well and shoot straight.
Hector, I assume the affiliated clubs need to get a vote locally to have their officers
|August 11 2017, 6:39 AM |
represent their vote at the Nationals?
Just not familiar with the process.
To All CONCERNED ABOUT A NEW CLASS .......
|August 11 2017, 7:40 AM |
Gentlemen, this request is not asking for a free pass to heaven. Just a trial class at this years Nationals for a group on airgunners that have enjoyed shooting in this Freestyle / Unlimited class for a couple years now. I know of at least 8 to 10 dedicated FT Freestylers in AZ that most likely won't be attending a National in their home state because they don't have a class to shoot in. In the 2017 National FAQ someone asked if they could shoot Freestyle with out competing for awards. If I recall correctly the answer was "No" only AFFTA approved classes can participate. (This may not be exact wording but the sum of it is the same) It seems growing the sport is coming very political and it is only going to hurt FT not help it. This isn't a request for blood its only for a TRIAL class a this years Nationals as we did for our Hunter Class and WFTF class some numbers of years ago! We still have 1 week shy of three months to make this happen. It isn't adding a new class ..... It will only replace one or two classes we have little participation in. I will pay for the awards out of my own pocket if money is the issue. I also won't be shooting it this year but it might entice me to switch in a future year if it was approved as a real AFFTA class.
|This message has been edited by dayjd2 on Aug 11, 2017 7:44 AM|
the way THAGC does it
|August 11 2017, 7:41 AM |
Paul, If the BOG sends an issue ballot I send an email to the club members asking for feedback. I can't remember a major one since the bipod vote back in 2014.
Tar Heel Air Gun Club
|This message has been edited by variant45 on Aug 11, 2017 9:55 AM|
Thanks Scott, I am not familiar with the process and wanted to
|August 11 2017, 1:15 PM |
To be clear...
|August 11 2017, 2:15 PM |
Regarding the Unlimted/Freestyle topic: I'm suggesting that we discuss and brainstorm at the National Meeting.
Along those lines, I have also sent an email to the clubs soliciting topics they may want to discuss at the Meeting.
In contrast, if/when there are matters to be voted on by the club's a Proxy ballot is sent out at least 40 days prior to Nationals, giving all the club's (not just those in attendance) an opportunity to vote.
Let's please not get ahead of ourselves on this topic.
|This message has been edited by HookEm on Aug 11, 2017 2:16 PM|
Each Club how designated AAFTA representative
|August 12 2017, 8:44 AM |
Usually, the Club President
He is the one that holds the vote.
There are no guidelines as to whether this Rep has to consult or not the Club Members.
Theoretically, Clubs can request the BOG to include an issue for voting at the Nationals meeting. It has to be done in time, and I think this was, and is, Jim C's intention when he brought this subject up.
If the BOG heeds the request for inclusion of the matter in the yearly vote, then the point is included in the ballot/proxy that goes out to the Clubs for consideration and voting, even if the Club has no "Rep" at the Nationals' General Meeting.
In that way ALL Clubs can issue a vote on the subject.
In the past, this subject has been de-railed twice.
Once on the timing issue and another on the decision that a simple majority (half plus one) was enough to warrant a change.
Since at the present time we can get all the ducks in a row I do hope this year the issue will be included in the ballot and gets decided.
It's up to the Club's Reps to request this from the BOG.
How things are changed
|August 12 2017, 10:43 AM |
As best I can tell there are two ways rules get changed in AAFTA
1) The process Hector describes here. In the past I have discussed with a couple of BOG members why is it that some of the more contentious or controversial issues are not addressed. The answer was always "no one asked for a change, the BOG does not act on Yellow Forum ramblings". This path does not necessarily mean the request will receive consideration as the BOG has final say on what is presented to the member clubs for voting.
2) The BOG decides to change rules as they see fit with no vote from the member clubs. All you have to do is look at the rule changes in the last couple of years and you will see this is clearly where most rule changes come from. One of the more controversial, if I remember correctly, was when one day we found out that scopes with a maximum power setting greater than 12x were no longer legal in hunter pistol field target, when they had been the day before. I think many PFT participants gave up PFT rather than buy a new scope.
Jim in Sacramento
Good Morning Jim
|August 12 2017, 12:18 PM |
As I'm certain you know, the By Laws do not provide for a means for an individual to submit an issue for consideration. Although this is frustrating, it is proper. Individual submissions carry the potential to circumvent the consensus of the members club.
I think that allowing the BOG to consider and present the issues of individuals for a vote of member clubs is a good thing. It provides a means for the BOG to consider worthwhile issues that an unaffliated individual might bring up. There can be no realistic means for an individual to demand consideration in such a process. However, it's a great way to get the finger pointed at yourself for being arbitrary and power hungry.
The advantage I see in the process is as follows:
As a new member of THAGC I can now send a letter expressing my concerns and views through the club. Those views will be considered and balanced along with the views of everyone else in the club. What comes out of that process could be vastly different than "my world view". I can also forward my letter to the BOG. It should carry no weight in the process, but it might by allowing something that I brought to their attention to be considered in arguements before a vote. To me, that's fair.
Overall, the By Laws do need some work. I am very comfortable that you are the kind of guy who will accept a fair outcome & appreciate your efforts to work for positive change.
|August 12 2017, 2:40 PM |
I am the director of the Sacramento Valley Field Target Club a dues paying club that is a member in good standing of the AAFTA. All my requests will be submitted through this channel.
We frequently discuss AAFTA positions and rules at our matches and I get constant feedback from our members. As a matter of fact it was these discussions that led to my support of a new division rather than a change to hunter rules.
My whole goal in this process is to finds ways to attract and keep more people so we can grow our ranks and share the fun.
Anything else 😁
Jim in Sacramento
Hector, are you volunteering?
|August 11 2017, 8:16 AM |
Do you want to put your words into action? Then please let us know.
BTW, you don't have to be a governor to help out (e.g., Scott Allen is not a governor, and he's providing a great service to our organization.).
Yes, Leo. Let's talk specs and functionality of a Cloud based
|August 12 2017, 8:49 AM |
system and a budget to get a professional developer to do it right.
It will reduce the MD's time to prepare Match reports to half AND start building the statistics base we sorely need.
PM me if the BOG is really serious about this.