FOR THE ATTENTION OF ALL FLY SHOOTERS

Dear Fly shooters,

I would like all fly shooters to be aware of some proposed rule changes put forward by the Victorian Delegate, Mr Peter Van Meurs. They include an inference that all registered matches will only award a multi gun entrant as the winner of the match.
 
As a consequence of defending the tradition and ethos of this sport, and standing up for the views that I believe the majority of fly shooters hold, I have been put aside as delegate by Mr Dave Billinghurst (the National Chair for benchrest discipline). This has been done by stealth without any consultation or due process.  It would appear that some influential people do not want me standing up for shooters views, holding meetings and actually having discussions, rather they want the comfortable status quo to remain where things can be changed quietly by stealth in a committee where the majority do not shoot or understand fly.
 
The upside of this is that if I am no longer a delegate under his hand, I can inform shooters and advise that you need to contact your respective state delegates and provide emails or letters as documented evidence of your wishes on rule book changes and how you wish this sport to go into the future.
 
It is my opinion that Mr Van Meurs agenda is to make sure that if a shooter does not have the ability to shoot in both classes, he or she cannot be the over all winner of the match, his direct statement is, and I quote from a recent email:
 
PVM - "Don Ewin (the principal match organiser) and I during many conversations over the years had always agreed that the multi gun was the focus of the event. As long term benchrest competitors we both felt that is how it should be in the Fly as well and Dave Billinghursts communication."
 
The history of the fly is deep in tradition and at no matches other than Little River this year, and with the interference of PVM at Wagga this year, has the winner been awarded this way.
 
As you can see there has been collusion in the sport to further one person, or states personal view.
 
The consequence of this hidden agenda is that if PVM gets this across the National floor, NO SHOOTER WHO SHOOTS ONE CLASS CAN WIN A MATCH.
 
To sum up this is what PVM stated in an email ;-
"Competitors shooting only one class must learn to accept that they cannot win the match"
 
Well that says it all for me.
 
It is my opinion that the highest total score for the day is the winner, can you imagine if you shot a new national record high score at the Procal cup in Canberra…..and because you didn’t shoot both classes, or had an issue with your other class, you did not win the match !!
 
It is in your best interest to contact your state delegates and put your wishes forward.
 
Mine will be " The overall winner of the match is the individual with the highest score regardless of class"
 
There are further implications to this discussion, Hall of Fame is being discussed at the moment, and the same delegate wants HOF points orientated toward two gun (Centrefire) at National Events. Each of the three classes in Fly should stand alone.  You can choose to shoot Light Gun, Heavy Gun & Rimfire or any one of the three and should earn HOF points for the win in the class or classes you shoot.  You should not be required to shoot all three (or two in the case of centrefire only) to obtain HOF points.  If the rules change to acknowledging the winner over all to a multi gun format, we will have allowed the change by stealth to influence HOF standings.  Is this what the shooting community want ?  I doubt it.
 
 
As I am apparently no longer a delegate, I am not bound by their committee and therefore for those interested I will be posting relevant sections of the rules and provide my advice, it is up to you whether you want to stand up and be counted or not.
 
I look forward to all this being behind us and getting on with the positive aspects of participating in what is the best shooting sport in Australia, we just need to band together at the moment and ensure that it remains that way.


Yours in shooting Les

Hi Les

I guess the main point to me is why are things trying to be changed when they clearly not broken and have been running fine for a long time?

Could this been seen as a benefit for a shooter who has a constant finish of say top 5 places in both classes but struggles to get a out right win, So by doing as proposed they could certainly be in with a good chance to win the overall match?

If this is the case,I think it points towards to bending the rules to earn them self a win which is plane WRONG.

Not everyone can afford to to run two custom guns, as the rule states now you can have one competitive rifle and take out the win. Dean is a prime example of this he has put in the work to get a few wins and it would be rubbish to tell him sorry mate you didn't shoot two classes so you cant win the match.

Yes i guess you could shoot the same gun twice but this makes life much harder with cleaning but one of the classes will suffer due to barrel having to re foul.

I guess it could be compared to the super cars if they made a rule that it had to be a team that had to have 2 cars to win bathurst, Poor old tekno motor sport would have not got the win.

There seems to be a lot of  un-called for drama emerging in the fly that is starting to dampen the atmosphere,Shouldn't we all be working on growing the sport not Destroying it......................................

Other wise its going to be the same small group until they give it up and it will just vanish.



Regards

Cam

Hi Cameron i couldn't agree more and you are right all this for a small contingent that can't get an outright win.

At the last shoot instead of the  total number of entrants  being able to win the match, only about 12 people could have. so the rest are just there to spectate, it is wrong and i am not going to stand for it.

Others have to hold their hand up the fly is fun it is enjoyable and it is our sport lets keep it that way.

cheers Les

Dear All,
                 Putting aside the politics, personalities and motivations, I have a fundamental problem with the premise that you must shoot two guns to win a match.

The Fly has always been an event where people could bring a rifle from another discipline to have a crack and potentially be competitive, yes over the years we who concentrate more on Fly have come to adapt the equipment we use to the specific match but the fundamental premise has always been the same.

If the result is being re-focussed onto the two gun we are abandoning our roots and bastardising the long held traditions of Fly and becoming elitist.

I am extremely disappointed with what this is doing to an event that is the legacy of my good friends.

National medals for 2 gun are fine as this offers the opportunity for those that want to shoot two classes to be recognised but this is not the overall focus of the event.

Perhaps the problem has been hidden by Canberra holding the first 5 Nationals and since we award the dirty dozen First Place at the Nationals has been recognised by the Jim McKinley Cup. Now there is no recognition of 1st, 2nd and 3rd regardless of class in the rule book  as has been the case whilst we hosted the Nationals. That is my answer to the problem, National medals for the first, second and third placed shooters regardless of class, or the hosting club be responsible for providing them.


Let's just agree to the solution and get on with enjoying the sport. I'm not interested in the petty politics, nobody pays me to do the job I do here in Canberra organising shoots, so why should I have to put up with all this crap as a volunteer???

Hi All,

A lot might think I have been quite, or non existent on the forum and these topics, and to a point I have been as there were (still are) much more important things going within my & my wife's family.

I think it is a little sad for the sport that some of these things have had to be brought out into public discussion, but unfortunately the alternative is for nothing to be said and changes will be brought about behind closed doors and the sport die because no one wants to shoot it under rules they did not know were going to change.

I am choosing to leave any committee wrong doings and personal issues in this thread alone, they can be addressed later or elsewhere.

It is my opinion that the majority of shooters do not want a shift to Multi Gun focus for the Fly.  Light Gun/Heavy Gun & Rimfire are all individual classes and all should remain that way.  You can shoot one/two or three classes as you choose.

On a centrefire day the highest score regardless of class wins outright and there should be a winner of each class.  Any recognition of multi gun should be secondary and supplementary, not the focus for HOF points or outright winners etc.

If I am wrong and fly shooters do want a shift towards Multi Gun being the winner, like it is in Short Range, please speak up and express your opinion.

At the end of all discussion Les, Pete, Billo, Myself or any other shooter or match organiser does not own the shoot themselves, and should not be proposing rule changes and getting them voted on behind closed doors to suit their personal agendas.... All the shooters own the shoot and any changes should be in consultation with the shooters and should suit the majority .  It is your shoot and it should be run in the best interests of the majority.

I would also say, it is not broken, why now are some trying to change the way it has been for the last 20+ years !!  Sure there needs to be some administrative changes and corrections to the rules.....but lets not change something as fundamental as shifting to multi gun format without full consultation and discussion.

If we can't stop fighting amongst ourselves and get a common agreement with all these things, there will be no shooters left anyway. Whatever direction we go in, we need to get agreement and move forward quickly for everyones sake.

Cheers

Anthony

WOW,

It has been my opinion for the 6-8months that the overall mood and division within the fly community has deteriorated some what, perhaps this has been brewing and has finally festered.

I for one disagree that multi gun should be the overall winner, why do we want to go down a path where deep pockets will dictate who takes home the gold. On what planet does the highest score not win a match, not just in fly shooting.

As far as the lack of transparency with suggestions and motions for future rules it's piss poor form. I for one am tired of the division that exists between certain groups of shooters, not everyone will gets along but there has the be an attempt at least. This is cancerous and if not addressed soon it may be too late for our sport.

As Dave said we are venturing away from the grass roots and I can't see why, personal motives need be nipped in the butt, and I'm sure Big Jim and the other founders of Fly Shooting would be disappointed with what is currently transpiring.

Deane

Hi All,

I was under the impression that Nick was the VIC delegate at least that is what I was told at Wagga Fly.

Politics aside if you shoot the best score on the day no matter if its out of a light or heavy gun you should be crowned champion of the Fly.

If we decide that there is a need for a 2 gun or 3 gun trophy then that's fine but the aim for shooters should be to come in at the end of the days shooting with the highest individual score.

The last 10 years of results have to mean something LG or HG has always been crowned champ not a combination of the 2 scores.

I back Dave Groves 100%.

Peter

and another shooter here who doesn't want the overall winner to have shoot both classes LG & HG
the winner should be WHOEVER shot the highest score in either LG Or HG
not everyone can afford 2 guns or shoot in both LG & HG, whether it be because of age or bank balance  

why change something that isn't broken

1st to 3rd for 200y RF, LG and HG
overall winner is whoever has the highest score in LG OR HG
1st to 3rd in LG & HG
1st to 3rd in 200y RF and 1 other nominated class

I for one could see a time where the so called winner of day that shoots in both LG and HG, could of shot crap in both LG and HG and not placed in either  but still win overall and that BS in my book

not everyone shoots both LG and HG, why turn those people off the sport , I for one wouldn't shoot the sport if I know before I even start the day I'm not going to win .. I will take up F class open or something else

its like saying the winner of day that shoots F class must shoot FTR and F open or standard... like Crap

Personal Politics aside this is a very important issue for all fly shooters. I will not comment on what is currently happening at Wagga until we have that issue solved.

I can state a few facts though.

1. The Blue Heeler was never intended to be a multi gun 500m event. From 2011 when the 500/300 commenced it was a two day overall winner. I know that cause I won it. Every year since it has been that way. 1st, 2nd and 3rd for score, regardless of class, for 500m and same for 300m. combined 500 and 300m score for the two day overall winner.

2. What occurred at Wagga in August is still under review at club level and I will refrain from making further comment in relation to that until 1)matter is resolved and 2)I am authorised to respond on behalf of Wagga SSAA.

3.  I can state as fact that Dave Billinghurst states categorically that the SSAA "owns" the fly. Further he was perplexed that a winner would be decided on one gun score not multi gun. He stated this to me personally via telephone last Tuesday. I explained that LV and HV in SR BR was vastly different to LG and HG at fly.

4. I have seen the email where a Victorian member states the fact that shooters will have to get used to the fact they cant win a match with one gun.

5. I have seen the email where one member from Victoria admits to colluding with a Wagga member as to what they see as their personal vision of the fly and how it will run.

Fly has been growing over the last 5 years and a large part of the reason for that is the friendly nature of fly and this is clearly written in rule 10. One of the things that drew me to fly and away from SR BR is that very friendly nature.

Lets look at this matter with some simple numbers. At the Wagga Fly in August 2016 there were 58 competitors who shot the 500m match on Saturday. So each one of those shooters had a chance to win the day. Under the proposed changes only 18 of those 58 shot two classes on the day.

So in effect those who can afford to shoot two guns have gone from competing against 58 competitors to competing only against 18. Nice way to vastly increase your chances of winning (if you can afford it).

How they run the national event is up to the national committee at this time (unless we move away from it). The problem rests with the desire to run state and local matches to the SAME rules as the national event.

There are only two possible outcomes if this change goes ahead.

1. People wont bother travelling big distances and taking time away from their families when they are ruled unable to win the event before even firing a shot. Fly numbers will fall and it will become another lagging discipline with dwindling competitor numbers OR

2. More shooters will try and run two guns. (Great I hear you say, but no not really). Imagine if our 58 entries ALL shot two classes. We would have had 88 entrants. Our club would not have been able to handle that many shooters/details in one day, so then the only choice is to make it a two day event. Then its a long day Sunday. Some shooters cant do that so again we lose competitors and the sport dies.

To prevent certain whingers I must add that these are my own facts and opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the wagga SSAA branch.

I have posted this to merely provoke some rational thinking about our sport, what is happening and what could be the long term outcomes if things progress unchanged.

Gents,

Thanks Chappo for prividing some transperancy as to what Happened at WAGGA. I was confused as to what transpired with the awards ceremony but respected what I thought was the clubs wish in regards to trophy allocation. It would appear this was not the case and look forward to hearing what happened once the matter is resolved internally.

I for one an tired of this shit, I had to get out of shooting in 2011 for financial and personal reasons. Once this was resolved I couldn't wait to come back, I love this sport and the passion in which fly shooters possess in competing....fierce but fair.

I am perplexed why anyone would want to creat an environment where budgets dictated your ability to compete for a win. But if you look at the results for some time it is apparent why someone would want this, so they might get a win. If you can't shoot the highest score than remove it from the trophy system so you could win on an average. Piss poor.

If this makes it into the rules fly shooting can get ...... cause I will be moving on, I won't support this kind of slimy underhanded tactic any way shape or form.

over and Out

Its a shame that the Fly has come to this.

I have not shot  match for a while but I did shoot a few over the years.

For what its worth the Fly was never intended to be a multi gun format ala SRBR and I know Stuart Elliott, John Rawson and Jim McKinley  never intended that when they started the shoot or for the many years it ran without the SSAA BR committee to manage it.

The Fly grew and continues to grow by being unique and any attempt to change over 20 years of history is appalling.

Peter Van Meurs has shot the Fly for years and knows all this is true. PVM mate if your reading this think hard about what you are doing ... its not right and you know it.

As for anyone at other clubs who aided and abetted in changing this wonderful event to SRBR format I say go shoot SRBR and stop interfering in something you know nothing about.

Unfortunately this whole affair reminds me of little Johnny Howard when he forced his opinions on shooters.

Pete if you really believe your right you should have held open meetings after major Fly shoots to allow the shooters to have a vote say on what the majority want.. that's how it was always done in the Fly before, including going over to SSAA.

The only result I can see from this is the end of the Fly shoot in the long term. The NRAA must be looking around grinning at the influx of F Open shooters they are going to get after the dust settles.

A sad sad time indeed.

I agree with most of these posts. Please see the thread by Michael Bell called "what we should all do..." where I have posted information.

On  the issue of State Delegates representing each State SSAA association, I think I should point out a little  anomaly currently.

Back in 2006 after Annie and I moved to live in QLD there were no official State Benchrest Delegates for the ACT.
The ACT being a Territory, like a State, also has 2 delegates sitting on the Benchrest National sub committee.

The ACT SSAA branch at the time , as I understand it, decided to appoint firstly Max Coady to represent the ACT temporarily. Max lives nearby in Crookwell NSW and is always attending the Majura range. Then later Alex Chryss took on this role as he was the organiser the Australia Day matches etc.
Both Max and Alex actually live in NSW and they have always been NSW SSAA members. In fact I am sure they are both NSW Life members.
Anyway this is all fine and allowable since the ACT branch proposed they represent their branch at least temporarily.  But they do live in NSW and get to vote in NSW elections for State benchrest delegates who will then represent them.

I am not critizising either of them or how this process occurred at the time.
But....I have to say things have changed.
There are actually now quite a few ACT SSAA members who are shooting official benchrest because the "Fly" is part of the whole discipline. So really, now those ACT members could organise themselves and consider approaching their ACT branch about having ACT benchrest shooters represent them again as State Benchrest Delegates.
Anyway it is their right. They just need to organise it.


This is another way of ensuring that the "Fly" shooters get more inclusion in the whole of benchrest discipline Nationally.


Just saying........


Stuart Elliott

Guys

In addition to what has already been said, I am hearing that by changing the rules it puts the Rimfire event under threat. Its been said that the said PVM would drop the Rimfire event if he could as all the emphasis is directed towards the 2 gun (light and heavy) no need for a rimfire event in his proposed rules.
Please correct me and this understanding of the fallout of these changes if I's wrong.
We only shoot Rimfire now in Sydney due to a fall out of the Centrefire shooters some 20 years ago athe Sydney cup, but that is another story.

Regards

Dave

I looked into the Fly shootin' in 1993 or there abouts & always intended to "get in there & have a go" under the the rules at the time. I am now making an attempt to "have that go".
BUT
The current suggestion of having  to shoot two classes of gun is pure "short range lack of brain/thought".
I am aware I should post 'positive thoughts on here' but like many others, I simply cannot afford a second gun!
This to me at this time, turns me away from something I have wanted to seriously try out for many years.
Why would I bother to attend a shoot or a series, to not have the chance of honestly winning the match?

I am keen on the 200yd rimfire and 300m Custom/Factory.
With the implication that I "HAVE TO BUY & SHOOT" two centrefire guns in the 500m - You WILL loose a competitor to the discipline. We will not bother with a discipline which appears to want to ................. Sorry I could not type legal comments.

You (PVM & co.) will be the direct offenders to causing at least one potential competitor & (If  I speak to others) possibly another ten shooters LOSS to "registered Fly", unless this is your intention!

Andy.

Who wants to bend the outcome so that the individual class is no longer relevant?

If you related this principal to the athletics it would be a triathlon or similar and the individual classes become irrelevant.  

It would seem sensible to me that the outright Championship Winner would be the 2 gun trophy, and there would also be a Light Gun winner and a Heavy Gun winner.

The classes are so different that they are totally incomparable to each other, and I can see that if the rules change some competitors may be put off attending 'cause they don't run with 2 guns.

Geoff

Geoff Hansen wrote

Who wants to bend the outcome so that the individual class is no longer relevant?

If you related this principal to the athletics it would be a triathlon or similar and the individual classes become irrelevant.  

It would seem sensible to me that the outright Championship Winner would be the 2 gun trophy, and there would also be a Light Gun winner and a Heavy Gun winner.

The classes are so different that they are totally incomparable to each other, and I can see that if the rules change some competitors may be put off attending 'cause they don't run with 2 guns.

Geoff

Geoff,
It is understood that the proposal comes from Peter Van Muers (although I am happy to be corrected if I am incorrect)

I would argue that the two gun trophy would not be the outright winner and point out that this is NOT what the Fly is about.
I would support my statement by pointing out that the Fly shoot started as a ten target event and nobody shot two classes. The ten target match took all day. When the Fly reverted to a five target match some shooters started shooting two classes to make travel worthwhile ie still shooting ten targets.
The outright winner has always been the shooter with the highest score at the match regardless of class shot.  This should remain the case.
If the desire is to become like Short Range BR then lets add the 300 Fly Factory and custom class  then you can have a 4 gun trophy but its not SRBR its Fly - Bring a rifle LG or HG shoot the match achieve the highest total score you are the outright winner ... that's how it was designed, that's how its always been ... that's how it should stay.

To find out exactly what has been proposed to the National Benchrest Committee regarding fly rule changes, the question was recently put to Dave Billinghurst National Benchrest Chairman.

With the exception of the open ended discussion of the introduction of Hall of Fame for the fly are there any other formal proposals regarding the Fly rules currently before the committee?

The answer from Dave was:  "I have no agenda items from Victoria Re rules changed for Fly Shooting."

Peter has his personal views on determining match winners and HOF which we are all aware of. That is all they are his personal views. He is also well aware of his role as delegate which is an obligation to represent the VIC shooters. It then follows his personal views take a back seat if they are in conflict with the majority vote of VIC fly/benchrest shooters.

Peter or VIC Fly shooters have NOT proposed any changed to the Fly rules.

Nick

Nick Aagren wrote

To find out exactly what has been proposed to the National Benchrest Committee regarding fly rule changes, the question was recently put to Dave Billinghurst National Benchrest Chairman.

With the exception of the open ended discussion of the introduction of Hall of Fame for the fly are there any other formal proposals regarding the Fly rules currently before the committee?

The answer from Dave was:  "I have no agenda items from Victoria Re rules changed for Fly Shooting."

Peter has his personal views on determining match winners and HOF which we are all aware of. That is all they are his personal views. He is also well aware of his role as delegate which is an obligation to represent the VIC shooters. It then follows his personal views take a back seat if they are in conflict with the majority vote of VIC fly/benchrest shooters.

Peter or VIC Fly shooters have NOT proposed any changed to the Fly rules.

Nick

Well Nick that certainly sounds good. I would hope that Victorian shooters would support the traditions of the Fly anyway.
As to SSAA I still have a feeling that the Fly was not meant to be run by a committee of SRBR shooters. The disciplines are similar but are not the same and that is how it should be.

Guys


Currently the 2 gun winner is from the Rimfire and Centrefire scores combined, as I understand it the idea "floated" was to drop the Rimfire from the 2 gun and make it just about light and heavy centrefire. That's fine for some but once you drop an event as being a requirement then you numbers are going to drop off and\or there is no reason at all to put on a Rimfire event at all.
Clubs could certainly have a 3 or 4 gun trophy to encourage max participation.

Real shame everyone is arguing about this stuff as it was always a fun event - remember Rule 10!

Regards

Dave

Hi all,

I have read all the posts but have been a little occupied with trying to sort out Delegate issues and the like. No one wants Rimfire to go anywhere it is a great sport and will be supported. As for Rule 10 the fly is the most enjoyable shoot that is on the calendar everywhere but unfortunately to keep the sport in the spirit of how it was intended unfortunately the bi product is dealing with personal agenda's by some and keep the main focus of the event from being pushed aside.

I think all of us who promote the fly in the manner in which it shot currently just have to drop your delegates an email expressing this. If you read back through this thread, you will get the gist of what has happened.

cheers and good shooting
Les