What we should do!

 I heard a whisper that Dave Billinghurst has stated that SSAA National "Owns" the Fly….technically this is true because some years ago we all voted to hand our game over to SSAA National. The reasons were as valid then as they are now..we would have a nationally administered sport with a valid national championship & a set of nationally approved rules that should enable our sport to grow & prosper.

 What we really didn't foresee (somehow) was that we would be governed by a committee of short range bench resters who know very little about Fly shooting & care even less…

 What we should have done then is what we should immediately do now.  We should elect a committee , potentially two from each of the participating clubs i.e. two from Little River, two from Wagga, two from Canberra, two from Batemans Bay & two from Brisbane with consideration given to our friends in the West who are moving to have registered 500 fly matches at their club.

 Having elected an (unofficial) committee we should then go cap in hand to the SSAA National Board & with respect & humility request that we be released from any obligations to the Bench Rest Committee as it presently stands.

 At this point we would  have ,by default, a ready made National Committee who would be in a position to commence overseeing every aspect of our game….an entirely independent & free standing committee free from the judgements of those who don't know what they're talking about. A committee who can apply themselves specifically & solely to Fly Shooting. It makes sense that this committee should come from the Ranges who host our matches as this would introduce a level of efficiency never before seen in the SSAA.

 I have occasionally been, in a friendly, taking the piss kind of way , accused of being a fence sitter;... there is some truth in this allegation
 as I shoot the Fly to get away from my worldly troubles & wish not to get into shit fights over what are usually trivial matters. This however is not trivial….this is important. There are people who don't even participate in our sport telling us how to suck eggs!…I hate that.
It seems to me the fire storm that has evolved between two people I have enormous respect for was allowed to occur because we as Fly Shooters are not self governing.

 We SHOULD be entirely self governing….Fly Shooters for Fly Shooters!!!

What say you???

Belly

we should all be voting on changes not just a few ..if that means what Belly has put forward with a few chosen from each club with what the shooters from that club want then I'm all for it

Yep. Exactly how I feel.  Very well said Belly. If we don't govern ourselves we will be told what to do by those that don't even shoot the discipline.

See my other post on Les's Thread re reasons and evidence of same


Chappo

Gents,
             Unfortunately I have played this game before, helped run an SSAA discipline and manage a rulebook.

Sorry Belly, I don't mean to rain on your idea, but we've been put in the Benchrest discipline rulebook and management regime (I think it is a logical place for us to be, like it or not) and the chances of extracting ourselves from that arrangement are extremely small.

I've sat on the SSAA (ACT) board as JVP and attended SSAA National Annual General Meetings, so I've attended the National Disciplines Meetings, I know how this goes. This meeting is where the checks and balances are in the rulebook process, and will review any changes that are proposed.

SSAA has a number of disciplines which have disparate parts like this, where the meeting which determines what happens with the discipline as a whole, including any changes to the rulebook is held at the Disciplines Nationals (as per Benchrest) and any amendments to the rulebook rely upon the delegates to that meeting being well informed of the wishes of those people that don't attend.

Our current problem is that there are people within our ranks that want to change the Fly. If each state was telling their delegate the same thing, we wouldn't have a problem.

When the Rulebook was drafted there were medal allocations which were made on the assumption that we run like the rest of Benchrest, so two gun was a focus. I didn't have a problem with that as at a Nationals it is nice to have medals to acknowledge achievements.

Unfortunately some people think that every Fly shoot should be run in this format, rather than the way it had been run for about 20 years before being adopted as an SSAA National Discipline. If the rulebook is changed to mandate this we will be left with no choice in the matter.

If you don't like what is happening, let your delegate know.

Some people are playing games here, with something that I love. To say "I'm not a fan" is to make a massive understatement.

Dave.

Gents,

I don't see much point in having a delegate who I will never meet face to face. Is it possible to got to the SSAA and ask that in the best interest of our sport at least one delegate in each state be a fly shooter. Short Range delegates have no interest in doing the right thing by us, look at their matches. We put twice the amount of bums on seats than they do, could it be within their interest to push the sport in a direction to drive us away.

It seems strange to be dictated to by people who don't even shoot our discipline.

Belly, I was pumped on your suggestion till I read Dave's explanation.

There has to be a way to take OUR sport back.

Defeat is a state of mind, a phrase used by those who don't have the heart to win at all costs. This sport is ours and I'll donate my left nut if it gives us control of OUR sport

Disclaimer, reference to donations of said left nut used to provide impact to statement and in no way intended as a serious offer 😏

Deano

Hi,

While I understand Belly's ideals that we should be our own entity and committee, I believe that the current issues are not entirely the fault of the SSAA benchrest committee under which we sit.  Sure this committee has ideals that are different to the Fly, the problem is that some are currently playing games to leverage these differences to get what they want.

The issue is caused within the ranks..... if we as fly shooters were united and all our members, match organisers and shooters sang from the same hymn book and had agreement....... I believe that SSAA National would honour what we wanted without exception and the shoot would go forward easily have the strength of proper process and oversight in the future.

If we leave our personal shit behind, approach national with a single minded approach to rules, hall of fame methodology and maintaining the heritage of each class independent we can go forward.  If we continue to push the divide for multi gun being the match winners and HOF points being allocated on this basis.....I believe that there will be no future for this discipline, regardless of whether we are self managed or under the benchrest committee.

The question is can we unite, agree and make it happen, or is the move to multi gun format important enough to some to use their influence in these circles to push their agenda and jeopardise the future of the sport in its entirety.

Time will tell, and I for one hope that we can move past this quickly, have a fair voice for the shooters and remain in the current committee structure and go forward to a positive flyshooting future.

Cheers
Anthony

Belly there is only one thing to do and that is for every Fly shooter to email their delegate, Further to this I would suggest meetings be held at registered matches allowing shooters to vote on changes and forward results to the delegates as well. These meetings can be recorded to prove what was discussed and the results of votes. I would also seek letter from available founders to the BR committee regards the intent of the match when established and the adherence to the principles of the match particularly Rule 10

It does appear that some few have forgotten Rule 10 exists simply because it no longer suits their agenda

Ok…well said all.
I never suggested getting away from the clutches of the National (short range) Benchrest Committee would  be problem free….there are usually a few bumps in the road when trying to do anything worthwhile.

It seems to me the process we have attached ourselves too within the SSAA is particularly cumbersome and incredibly inefficient. Even difficult to understand…If we had our own governing body consisting of a committee styled something like I have suggested most decisions about anything Fly related could be agreed upon in the time it takes to have afternoon tea…more shooting.. less bullshit!
Further more..because nearly all Fly shooters have an allegiance with one of the clubs running the events, every one would clearly know who it was that represents them..under the present short range method of having both state & National delegates no one seems to really know who our delegate actually is!!  ( more on this in another thread ).

Who actually knows what the SSAA Board & Benchrest Committee would really think of a proposal for Fly to become it's own entity & thus self governing. Truthfully, they would not be losing anything that they care about…there might be a few delicate ego's displaced because it could be seen that they are having some of their portfolio removed but really & truly,..should they care..the answer of course is no. Who knows!! they might even  PREFER to be free of us…

One National Fly Committee separated from the present Benchrest Committee has no negatives that I can see & despite the logical comments made Dave, Anthony,Deane & Dave I haven't been convinced I'm not on the right path.

Regards,
Belly

As you know I do not often post on forums but am aware of some of the recent issues. Seeing this thread which Michael has started I think its time I or someone  described the way the "Fly" fits in to SSAA competition disciplines and how those things are supposed to work. I am not advocating or defending the situation one way or the other. But I can tell most people on here will not know about this and it would be much better if everybody understood how the Benchrest committe structure and the representative structure works.

. So here goes....
First a very brief history. The pre SSAA days. The 'Fly" event, as most people may know, was an event started in 1991 in Canberra. For 20 years it was loosely administered by John Rawson, Jim McKinley and myself. The target was a registered design under our three names and that target included the words of the rules and scoring system printed on it. Therefore it was all covered.  Despite many, many people and organisations trying to influence us to change and modify the event, over the years we did not. Apart from adding the Light Gun class  and bringing the event from 10 target matches to 6 target matches (1 warm up and 5 record targets) that was about all that changed. By 2010 there were issues happening around insurance and range event approvals so things needed to change. So discussions occurred between Jim McKinley and Kay McIntyre  about having the Fly Shoot events become part of SSAA Benchrest nationally. Kaye was the SSAA National disciplines co-ordinator and also the president of the ACT SSAA.  I do recall at the time a meeting held at the 'Fly" event in the Canberra club house where I explained how some things could eventually change when this event would become part of the SSAA discipline structure. That is unavoidable.  Particularly about time when SSAA benchrest rule changes can occur which is every 5 years.
But I can understand now that the people at the time did not know really what I meant.

I do know about the SSAA National discipline structure. I myself was on the National Benchrest committee representing the ACT as a State delegate on that sub committee from 1979 until we moved to live in QLD in 2006. During my time on that committee I also carried out several other roles including Chairman, rules book committee and the International Delegate.

The National body of SSAA have established many formal shooting competition disciplines and they have a structure of representation and communication to manage these.
I don't really think it is a bad structure. The problem is that most shooters do not understand it and more recently because the benchrest discipline itself has expanded into 4 separate groups really with their own sub rules and their own calendar of events there certainly has not been equal representation and therefore management on that committee.

Benchrest shooting was one of the very first SSAA official disciplines and started somewhere back in the late 1960's. Before my time.
So the Benchrest committee  is formally called the SSAA National Benchrest sub-committee.
Important to note it is a sub-committee so it does not make final decisions.
The SSAA National body do and each separate State will eventually also have input to determine or confirm any or all sub committee decisions.

It will probably be a big surprise to most people here to know that each Sate within SSAA is a separate entity in its own right and in the end controls mostly what happens within their State. In fact each of you are actually members of the State SSAA which you live in. You and I are not members of SSAA National. Most people assume they are.
If you read the SSAA National constitution the members are actually very few. Each State and Territory are the members. Not individuals. So the National body collects our memberships funds and issues membership cards on behalf of each State. The funds from your annual memberships goes to your State body. They then pay National a fee for the magazine and mostly keep all of the rest and distribute how they see fit.
The National body makes it funds from a levy on each Sate depending on number of members and from the publishing etc.

As with all the other SSAA shooting disciplines the representatives which are on these sub committees are :- 2 delegates from each of the States and Territories.
They should represent the benchrest shooters (all of them) from their State but primarily they are appointed or have the election confirmed by their State body. For example, NSW, QLD, Vic, WA etc.

Currently for Benchrest sub committee  all States and Territories are represented except Tasmania and the Northern Territory as they do not conduct matches.

It is up to each State body to decide how it appoints these 2 delegates. In theory they could be simply appointed by a State body without consultation. But in most cases these 2 delegates are elected by benchrest shooters and confirmed by the State body. Some of the problems that exist are:
How and where are these meetings and elections held? Is there equal consultation amongst all 4 groups of Benchrest shooters?  But remember this is a State issue within each State to determine.
Herein lies one of the most controversial issues currently at play now.
I suspect that some people are well aware of how this structure works and they also know that others do NOT understand it therefore play the game well. Possibly to suit other agendas, possibly simply accidental.
Some States appear to be having issues about their meeting and elections of delegates.

So, what does this Benchrest Committee do? Well it is there to oversee to proper running of official benchrest events (all of them). Events including National Championships, State Championships and other Major events considered of "national importance" like the Super Shoot for example. Also records, rules, procedure for running of matches plus a few other tasks like confirming a calendar of Registered matches (which are the official matches where the rules must be adhered to) and targets etc.

The National Benchrest sub committee hold a meeting at least annually. They can call meetings more often. At each meeting which is held an election for a Chairman occurs. This person is elected at the meeting from the State delegates in attendance.
It is usual, although not essential, once a chairman is elected that this persons role as a State delegate is replaced by their  State body which they were representing. The reason is so that State will still have 2 State Delegates sitting at the table. A State could have one delegate but in that case would carry 2 votes.  The Chairman will have a lot of other ongoing tasks to do which are of a more National scope. Besides, in general the only people who can vote on motions at these meetings of the National Benchrest committee are the State delegates. Not even the chairman votes excepting in cases of a tied vote to perform a "chairmans casing vote".

Rule changes. As with all SSAA disciplines the rules are locked in place for a period of 5 years. Every 5 years a process starts which includes the National Benchrest committee to look at any possible changes to the rules. So this means as far as rule changes go only the State delegates from each State may place motions on the agenda for this annual meeting. Like all agenda motions they will require a seconder and discussion and finally a vote. Only the State delegates vote.

An important part of this process is, in theory, these agenda items are supposed to be placed with the chairman several months prior to the actual meeting taking place. This is so the committee Chairman can distribute the agenda items proposed to each of the State Delegates well before the actual meeting. Most important every 5 years when potential rule changes could occur.  The reason for this is so the delegates from each State can see what the other Sates want to propose with changes to the rules and therefore they have time to call a meeting of their own withing their own State. Or to poll their shooters some other way (maybe email) to gain an idea or feeling about which way they should vote when the time of the actual meeting comes.

Remember, this is particularly important for the annual Benchrest Committee meeting every 5 years, because that is for potential rule changes.  So now, that "5 year time" is coming up and that meeting will be held in Perth at Easter 2017. This meeting is traditional held at the group shooting Benchrest Nationals.

So this is why all the current activity. Or inactivity. Or maneuvering one way or another. Remember information is king and as far as I am concerned all shooters involved should have an equal opportunity in their State to listen and be heard.
This means via their State delegate. If there is dispute about who is the real State delegate then those shooters should make urgent action directly with the State body for which they belong.

The problem which complicates all this is, as stated above, each of us cannot control or influence or in fact even attend a formal meeting within another State. An informal meeting maybe so.  Therefore if any shooters have concerns or demand more information they need to direct their concerns at the structure within the State they belong. For example, either the State benchrest delegates supposedly representing them or go above them to their State body directly.
This is why, as I understand it, Les Fraser had held a couple of meetings of  NSW members at Fly shoots recently. But, due to other factors it appears there is now a dispute about whether or not he is a NSW Benchrest delegate. He and others believe he was elected to that role.
Still this is an issue for all the benchrest shooters of NSW to sort out and resolve.
I can see and I hear that currently many benchrest shooters competing within the "Fly" discipline feel they are not adequately represented. I would agree with that. This is one reason why I wanted to point and and clarify the structure.
Shooters who reside in another State cannot participate in that process. Also remember there are other groups within the benchrest discipline that may not also be adequately represented. The Rimfire shooters and the Hunterclass shooters.

For the Benchrest Committee all of this stuff has become much more complicated over the last 15 years. The reason is that we now have 4 separate benchrest shooting parts within the whole Benchrest discipline.
Each with their own sub-rulebooks. Back in the day, there was only one rulebook.  Then through the 80's Hunterclass was added and later Rimfire Hunterclass came too which is score shooting benchrest style.  Then there became separate National Championships held at a different time of the year instead of the traditional Easter weekend. Then in the 2000's the Rimfire events got separate as IRB (International Rimfire Benchrest) came along. They have their own National championships too. Then in 2011 the "Fly" came along and it became the 4th group with it's own having Nationals and sub-rules and including Centrefire and Rimfire events. Often at different ranges.
So it is a problem because these other 3 benchrest groups have sub-rulebooks and the original rulebook which was written for only the original Group Shooting events still needs to be read to to know all the procedures inclauding "Fly" sub rules etc. In my opinion that is poor.

So the problem is (and this part is my personal opinion) there should be 4 separate and complete Benchrest rulebooks and those rulebooks should indiviually cover all aspects of that discipline.
There should be equal representation from all benchrest shooters ( of the 4 groups) who can choose and elect their representative as a State Delegates. Each or both delegates could be "Fly" shooters, or Rimfire shooters or Group shooters.
But even today the delegates have tended to be just group shooters. Why? Historical, but also because the meeting for such elections seems mostly to be held at State championships for group shooting. That can be a problem for the other shooters to attend this meeting in their State and vote or be heard.
Some States are a little different and vary their meetings. QLD is one example of that.

So, for my two bobs worth.......
The time and places of these meetings should allow shooters from all 4 benchrest shooting groups equal access.
Separately I would suggest that the National Benchrest Sub-committee also establish 4 representatives from each of the 4 groups to provide the committee with advise and annual overview of the issues happening within those events.
This would not change the voting structure but surely would help committee members gain wider information and timely. There are other non voting positions already within the Sub-committee like National Scorer, Rules committee, International delegate etc. These are all non voting. So it would be my suggestion to add 4 more that represent all the four different shooting sections

The four completely different sections of SSAA Benchrest these days actually are:
1) The benchrest centrefire Group shooters ( 4 classes. SP, LV, HV, Exp)
2) The benchrtest Hunterclass shooters (4 events. RF LG, Rimfire HG, Centrefire LG and Centrefire HG)
3) The benchrest Rimfire shooters (3 events. IRB which is HG and Rimfire groups in LG and HG)
4) The benchrest 'Fly" shooters (3 events. Centrefire LG and HG. Then Rimfire HG)

But having said all this I did propose similar to this back in the early 2000's when I was on this committee but I  lost that vote. I think it is still relevant today and more so now that the "Fly" in included.

Annie and I are some of the few people who always participate in all these 4 separate benchrest sections. In fact we also participate in other forms of the sport with other organisations. Like 1,000 yard benchrest which is NRAA. Also with RBA Rimfire and Air Gun which is TRA. So, because of this we sure get to see the misrepresentation or lack of consultation which occurs (or doesn't) for whatever reasons. The majority of shooters within those 4 groups of Benchrest events which I have listed above only do one type of benchrest shooting. This is perfectly fine.

I know this is long read and I have trimmed it down quite a bit but probably, it just needs to be said. I hope you think so too.

Demand YOUR say and consultation for YOUR sport.

There was a good saying which Larry Brown used often. He was the originator of BR-50 International. His saying was:
"change your thinking to suit the sport, don't try and change the sport to suit your thinking".

Many thanks and good luck.
Stuart Elliott







 

WOW!!!   Thanks Stuart,…very comprehensive …………………………………………Think I'll take a panadol & lie down.

Belly.

haha, LOL.
Very good. mate, get out the air gun and go shoot some flies. You'll get over it quick.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

A good and informative post, I know some of us know this system and understand it, some have absolutely no idea....and it is good to have real information available so people can understand the process and structure.

The recent events have also highlighted that it is time for some housekeeping and procedural tidy up within this system., certainly at a state level to start with.  This is a serious sport, and I know that all the delegates and officials are volunteer, but people spend many thousands of $$ competing in these events and there needs to be good governance.  For too long it has been fairly comfortable for some to ring their mates.....decide what they want and get it to happen.  This is not a boys club !!  

Are accurate minutes taken at these meetings and distributed for approval within a day or two of the meeting ?  Or are they produced from memory and able to be adjusted to circumstances later because no body has seen them ?

Are the delegates meeting with the shooters, discussing their wants and needs..... or are they just doing what they want, or worse doing what someone who knows the system has convinced them is right  ?

We all need to take an active interest and either get involved, or at least follow the process and communicate with our state delegates and ensure we are heard.

Anyway, what has been shown is that there is actually a lot of agreement within Fly, and a lot who want basically the same ideals, and could easily reach unanimous agreement.....and a very small number (maybe as small as 1)  of proponents causing the division regarding the move to a multi gun future.....

Cheers

Anthony

Anthony,
Exactly. Well said.

Stuart

thanks Stuart for the write up, it was a help

and well said Anth