Pacific International Trap Association at Sparta?

Is it time for a PITA shoot at Sparta, IL?

 

No I don't believe it is.

Thanks

 

lol

 

Wouldn't work, Sparta targets are only "2 hole".

 

These posts show the different attitudes between those in Ohio and PA vs Iowa and Illinois. Ohio and PA shooters and clubs are happy to throw and shoot targets regardless of who is supplying the scorekeeping. I am guessing the Cardinal Center management would happily take another major shoot.

The rent at the CC would go up if PITA came in. IDNR could care less. Success is often measured with different rulers.

 

Seems to me most of the attitude is from Ohio and PA. Even if the rest of the States are in disagreement of how things are run they aren't crying on the internet. They just might be talking to their delegate instead.

The State I live in grew in ATA sanctioned clubs in the last year.

One question tho, Why would the IDNR care if the rent at the CC went up? The Grand is isn't going away regardless of how many or who sanctions the shoots at the CC.

 

The above statement was not anti ATA but more pro trapshooting. Obviously Sparta needs help.

Leonidas makes my point by saying,

Inviting PITA would not be to replace the shoot in Illinois but to help it. The CC is doing great. It has 3 of the biggest 4 shoots, but I would not mind seeing another organization in town. Registered shooting probably is only 15% of the targets thrown in PA and OH.

The original post does not even mention ATA.

 

You are the one reading an accusation of an anti ATA statement where there was none implied or intended.

The Ohio an Penn statement is one of truth as they are the majority crying on the internet.

My State grew in ATA sanctioned clubs, no brag just fact!!

What creditable information do you have that PITA targets would help registered shooting at Sparta?

 

Leonidas
I never said PITA targets would help registered shooting. It may help Sparta. The more targets thrown the better. The opportunity may be there tho. No need to get defensive. Your narrow vision cant be helping your view of the trapshooting world.

I did imply that there is room for more registered shooting in Ohio and PA. I will have to take your word that registered shooting can not be increased in your area. It is possible nothing can help Sparta. It was only a suggestion.

As far as your anger towards PA and OH crying....they have all that they could rationally want. OH and PA both have shoots that may be bigger than the shoot in IL. The CC had 3 shoots that may all be bigger than the shoot in Sparta soon. And they are adding 2 dates.

The more targets the merrier and there isn't a better bunch of folks out there than those managing PITA.

 

I guess you only read what you want or can't remember what you've read in the post above your last one.

I have no anger toward Ohio or Penn, just amazement on the attitude of some people who are from that area.

In the State I live in we gained 2 trap clubs shooting registered targets. Lost none.

By the way Sparta is not in my area.

 

What state would your area be?

 

A PITA shoot at Sparta would surely do better than the U.S. Open did last year.

 

Well Bro, if you took a second to look up PITA rules, you would find that they also throw hole 2 targets to a distance of 48-51 yards (not 49-51 yards like the ATA mandates). They shoot ammo with a maximum velocity of 1290 fps for 1 1/8 oz loads and, other than a few differences in classification divisions, virtually copy the ATA rule book. So, other than an opportunity to bitch about another organization, I really see no advantage to holding a PITA shoot in Sparta.

 

I think Illinois shooters are happy with the ATA.

I don't think there would be much support for another organization.

But if you feel strongly about it roll up your sleeves and get er done.

 

I have some doubts that the U.S.Open did so badly because it was santioned by the ATA because trapshooting per se is falling off with the exception of some areas ... Sparta is lacking accomidations in the immediate area, that part of the problem is a major hurdle based on what many of the people I talk to who have attended and will continue to attend until it gets to be to much of a hassle for them ... Most (many) of them do have campers and a spot on site so that really eliminates a lot of what could be considered a problems ... I have been told there is no shortage of good and reasonably priced food close by but the build it and they will come generations are gradually falling off ... I plan on stopping in, not to shoot but to check out the facilty and find a few people I have met on TS.Com over the past few years ... PITA/ATA, not sure either one will be the cause of the other no longer existing, management can make or break any organization given the time to ... Have to see what happens and go from there ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Bill

If you travel that far you might a well find a Model 12 and shoot a hundred.

 

PITA at Sparta?

Too late!

Sparta management did not need more shooters.

 

Here is section on target setting from P.I.T.A.

"(b) Targets shall be thrown from an automatic angling trap that has been set in the equivalence of the #2 target spread hole of a Winchester model #1524 hand set trap. All automatic angling traps not having the ability to be placed in the #2 target spread hole will be set to throw targets at angles of, no less than a straight away from firing point #11⁄2 to the right and firing point #41⁄2 to the left, or more than a straight away from firing point #1 to the right and firing point #5 to the left of the imaginary line through firing point #3 and the trap. "


Two things, very noticeable:

1. Words "or no less than" are used, meaning minimum angle setting equal to two hole setting.
2. No maximum degree stated like in ATA.

Again, it appears wider angles are possible.

 

I don't see anyone rolling up there sleeves to bring PITA east.
Just more of the same old.

 

You'll never see anyone roll up their sleeves, just sit around, gossip like a bunch of old women, cry in their beer like a bunch of useless old men.

 

I do not think the PITA would want anything to do with Sparta due to it's poor location, but may want to boost their membership with EX-ATA shooters, who leave the ATA

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

AZCO: If it were not for us old men, there would not be an ATA, problem is we are dying off, and changing nto a less expensive Sport Like Sporting Clays, where they throw a competitive Target.

The silent majority is where the Power is, they know what is going on, and what's happening, and voting with their WALLETS

But Caring old men like myself want our kids shooting competitive targets w/integrity, which the ATA now lacks.

Just like the post like Phil Kiner made, he does not want targets like our Forefathers shot, why? Because he cannot Break Them as he so much admitted.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Gary,

Your caring is a bunch of nonsense.

I am an old man like you too, but instead of trying to tear down the ATA like you, I am doing what I can to help it grow with positive thinking and actions. I may not be a AAA/27/AAA shooter, attend every zone, State, satellite and the Grand itself, but that is not a qualification for being a member or voicing our opinion.

The best thing you could do to help the ATA that means us, the membership is leave it and leave it alone instead of spreading your vile poison about the people who are the membership. There is 28,000 of us, only one of you. We do not appreciate your hatred you spread about us.

 

What are those ideas AZCO? Your only idea I have seen so far was to dismiss the 20,000 shooters that just left the sport as being "uncommitted anyway."

Where are your ideas? Are these the ideas that has made your state of CO have such a large state shoot. The shoot you boycott.

The 28,000 "us" describes what type person? Are all those in CO?

You imply you are speaking for the State of Colorado? You are speaking for Illnois too? What other states do you represent?

 

I have any problems with the current status of the ATA. What ideas do you want to see? Return to Ohio? God, I hope not.

 

You did not answer what states you are representing or your new ideas.

What states again are you representing. Does CO know?

 

I am defending the ATA organazation as a whole, all States and all Providences from a bunch of outsiders who do not belong to the ATA yet attack the membership of the ATA on a daily basis.

 

WHY?

Flyersarebest

 

They are actually a little different styles in the writing, the careful crafted word of "normal" in the ATA manual and the word SET in the PITA rule book. Can you see the difference in the rules?

PITA, is actually more clear, in a way the direction of the sport should not have gone. You see they use the phrase "SET to throw targets no less than" and "no more than". Can you see, the word SET? It is not in the ATA rule book.

In which case a PITA target can be SET at a straightaway from 1 and 5. Where as, if an ATA target is set at a straightaway from 1 and 5, the allowable angle outside that SETTING would only be 5 degrees, not the 10 you so state.

What does "significantly outside normal" mean?

It appears the PITA allows 16.1 degrees as a minimum SET angle and 21.5 degree maximum SET angle. Straight away from 1 and 5 is 21.5 degrees and the midway angle is 16.1 degrees.

So in PITA, yes you can SET a straight away from 1 and 5 target, but not a 3 hole target, which was slightly more than a straight away from 1 and 5. Yes you can SET an equivalent 2 hole target and even LESS than a 2 hole target by rule.

I can imagine at one time PITA had a rule of, no less than 1 and 5 and now it is, no more than 1 and 5.

Interesting. Maybe Trap 2 can reply.

ADDED:

AZCOTRAP,

You said,

Does a SETTING of "NO MORE than" equal a maximum degree or setting?

Interesting Jo2, if the ATA mandates 49-51, why would they use speed settings that set a 48yard target? If the objective of the game is setting a 50yd target, shouldn't the speed setting that is used, average distance of a target thrown to 50 yards?

 

Shoot well, John,

In the trials that you have conducted, what is the speed setting that should be used to achieve a 49 yard target?

In your capacity as a soccer mom (you know, someone who sits on the sidelines, watching the game, never participating, criticizing the way the game is played, the officials, the rules, and the other participants) you are dismissive of Azco's assertion that the wider angles (3 hole) and faster targets can legally be thrown by any club that feels that they want to do so. As long as a target falls between 49 and 51 yards, is not less than a 17 degree or greater than a 27 degree angle and is between 8 and 10 feet high at 10 yards in front of the trap, it is a LEGAL TARGET. It does not matter how many ifs, ands, or buts happen, it is still a LEGAL TARGET.

 

AZCO: I have never spread any hatred about the ATA, The few that deserve it are the present EC BOD and NW for their actions that tore the ATA apart from what it used to be, I being a former AA27A shooter saw what happened and still care enough to try and correct what they broke. The EC and BOD for approx. 20+ years tore the heart out of the ATA and it's former 70,000+ active members took their wallets to sporting clays and other venues, have you not seen this?

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

I would love to shoot the GAH Saturday From my wheelchair, as I am not yet stable shooting from my new foot, as I tried it Thursday Nite

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Well, DLS, you coulda fooled me. I always thought hate was like porn, you knew it when you see it.

Perhaps you might take the time someday to explain to us what exactly the EC and the 28,000 membership through their elected BOD did to destroy the ATA.

 

What is the speed of a target to get it 50 yards in calm weather conditions at 9.5 feet? Whats the answer? Why not just throw it 50 yards to the stake at center of the field, post #3, then read the speed with a good Radar gun, but why the need for a radar gun, well it would be a good idea to have the speed for information purposes only.

GB DLS

GB DLS

 

I don't watch PORN so have no comparasion, like you do, some like PORN and work in the profession, not me I just pee on the porch, like Phil says, but can shoot damn well from the porch.

GB DLS

 

Thanks DLS, exactly what I am saying. Targets should be measured whenever possible and a field property staked out, whenever possible. I don't know if jhunts will ever understand that..

 

Dr. gave me a script for Viagra so I would not pee on the porch Phil.


GB DLS

 

For those additional uninformed, a judge once ruled on a porn case that it was like art, you knew it when you see it. I attempted an analogy of that commit.

 

What judge? What case?

 

Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, 1964, Jacobbellis vs. Ohio......of all places.

Might be before a lot of people's time to remember that one.

 

Jo2,

False.

Jo2,

What does "significantly outside 'normal'" mean? If you would like to defend AZCO, please help him with the answers. If there is a "significantly outside normal" why is there not a "significantly inside normal"?

Once again, the rule book as written means nothing to you, does it. ALL targets that are "NORMAL" are within the MOST DESIREABLE AREA and that is 17 degrees and less. Now, I agree with all targets should fall within 49-51 yards in still air. How is that done, set a 50yd target.

You see, it seems you just do not understand, or do no know how to write. You state, "As long as a target"..."is not less than a 17 degree", and that is just not true, the ATA want ALL targets thrown 17 or less. You see the word thrown is used, not set. The ATA, rules committees, BOD, EC left in some of the language of past rules then added some of their own recently (comparatively). With using a WW trap that had a 3 hole setting, you see set in the #3 hole of the top plate. This would provide a target field setting of greater than a straightaway from 1 and 5, as was the most desired area. It was enough to accommodate most wind conditions. Within the +25 outside normal there was virtually no headwind strong enough to require a change to the #2 hole. It appears as history suggests clubs broke the rules, including at the Grand American. The #3 hole setting also was sufficient enough to handle tailwinds, though not as good as headwinds. If xwind/tailwind came up you could easily reset the field with windage lever or open to the #4 hole. Again, it was virtually NEVER necessary to change it to the #2 hole to comply with the rules.

Today, we set the field with switches. Those switches are never touched during a match. When they are set at the minimum angle rule, any xwind/tail wind 040 degrees - 320 degrees relative will create one or both targets to be within minimum boundaries so stated at 15-20yds.

Now, if the ATA rulebook said, "Targets are to be set to be thrown with a centered field of between 34 and 54 degrees with a legal target thrown less then 45 degrees left and right of center", and depict that. I think that would be a good rule. Though the game was, it appears, based on the quartering target and should continue. Though I would point out as the angle has been less for quite awhile, it would suffice me to have the rule say, "A trap shall be set to throw a minimum centered field of 44 degrees, 22 degrees left or right of center". Then add wording if unable to set a specific degree to "set the trap to throw a centered field of not less than between straightaway from post 1 and 5" and also reinstate up to 25 degrees outside of that. This virtually assures a target thrown, not set to throw, but is thrown outside of the desired field is legal, as long as it is whole, of correct color, not a freak target, within the legal field of flight (vertically as well) and promptly thrown at the contestants call. Now many, many, many legal targets are turned down as being thought of as illegal. Which plays into the end result of the match or tournament. Of course then we can get into the FTF rules the have been changed as well, but that is another discussion.

I don't need to do trial or test, I can use the one that exists. I appears it is still valid within the ATA as N1H1 promptly answered with the correct answer. A 67fps target will average 48yards, using a 9ft height target. Does a target that averages 48 yards meet the currently stated rules of a 50yd target (no less than 49- or more than 51) of a staked ATA field?

Remember the idea of the 50yd target was not so 1 target of a 1000 touches the stake it is that the targets fall +/- of the stake to average 50 yards within the range so depicted in the rule book. It is not the speed to achieve a 49yd throw, it is to be thrown for ALL targets to be at and beyond 49 yards.

ADDED:

Your a classic AZCOTRAP, a true classic, could you point to where I ever stated otherwise?

AZCOTRAP,

Why you and Jo2 like to tell falsehoods is beyond me. I think I even pointed out in the Skeet rules, if staked the priority is to the stake not the gun, as it should be for trap, if field is so staked. Again, I will point out the target was to fall within the range centered around 50yds, just not meet the minimum of 1 in a 1000 or even 1 in 4 reaching the 50yard stake.

I think I asked a pretty easy question, what is your definition of "significantly outside normal"? You have yet to answer it, it seems to me.

John

 

There is no "significantly outside normal"'that is acceptable. The settings as defined in the rule book are what are acceptable and as pictured in the diagram. Anything outside those settings are non sequitur, therefore making your question meaningless, so any answer I give is meaningless also. I cannot help you understand something you do not want to understand.

 

From the ATA rule book, dated as an update of March 18, 2015 of the printed manual dated September 1st, 2014

"However, no target is to be declared illegal unless it is significantly outside normal parameters
(e.g., more than 10 degrees outside normal)." What are "normal" parameters, that would be the "most desirable area."

Are you saying, the depiction gives a club the option of setting a 27 degree target and that would be a "normal" setting? If so how far outside normal is allowed? You appear to say,

What truly is non sequitur is to state in your words, "There is no "significantly outside normal"'is acceptable.", then to see the rule as posted above.

What is non sequitur is you argue the PITA rule states no maximum as you stated "2. No maximum degree stated like in ATA." and then to see the PITA rule states, "set to throw targets at angles... ... or more than a straight away from firing point #1 to the right and firing point #5...".

Again I point to the word "set" within the context of the rule within PITA and not in the rule for the ATA.

As it is apparent with the action of the ATA President during the Autumn Grand with the requirement of using the supplied PAT Trap bar, which is for a 34 degree field, the recommended and as witnessed mandated setting is 17 degrees. With a setting of 17 degrees a target thrown, not set, but thrown up to 10 degrees outside normal would be legal. More than 10 degrees outside normal (17) is an and can be declared illegal.

 

Well, I am glad you finally figured that out. Personally I think the wording of the rule is confusing and could have been made easier to understand.


I think you are over thinking this stuff, especially the PITA rule. If the rule states "or more than a straightaway from firing point....." that is still a maximum angle setting, just not stated in degrees as the ATA a rule is.

But, that's alright, you can make things as complicated for yourself as you want.

 

All this banter and semantics. The real problem is that more and more trap shooters question the organizational matrix of the ATA, including how the EC and BOD makes decisions, and how these people get into the position of power, and when, if ever they are forced to leave so new blood can be brought in.

 

Shoot well, John, when I read the rule book on flights and angles, I see that it states that angles are to be set NOT LESS THAN 17 degrees to the left or right of the centre line of the trap, not 17 degrees and less. Let's define "NORMAL" as 17 degrees left and right of centre, then add the 10 degrees that a target is still considered legal outside of the 17 degree setting, giving a maximum angle of 27 degrees left and right of centre. Setting a target that is 22 degrees left and right of centre should fall within the 27 degree maximum allowable target setting with 5 degrees to spare.

I see no reference to wind in the rule book and can't remember ever seeing in my 35 years of ATA shooting, the trap setter lick his finger, hold it to the wind, and decree the WW trap be set in the 4 hole, because the pesky tailwind is closing the angles.

 

If you want to know "how these people get into the position of power," read the rule book to see how delegates are elected and what the EC is.

I would suspect the people serving as State delegate are the ones who have the gumption, time and resources to travel and serve on the Board.

People are all the same, they make decisions based on the information they have at hand.

I believe it only takes 14 to make a quorum of State Delegates to conduct business as the Board. If you have 50 State delegates and what ever delegates there are from the Provinces, and only 14 show up, those 14 are going to call the shots for the ATA membership.

If you want changes, get involved. Then be prepared for people to second guess your decisions and bitch about the job you do.

 

Shoot well Jo2,

A few of things.

1. I am not sure you would see the someone licking their finger, were you looking. Are you a finger licker looker?
2. Odds are you were already at a club not complying with the rule, so increasing the spread was already out of the question, especially if you were in MN.
3. Why is the angle requirement of the angle thrown not met until 15-20 yards from the trap?
4. It would be great to me, as I have stated, as the Pat Trap is the choice of the ATA to make the rule as simple as possible. Since it appears no one bothers to try to comply with the rule anyway. Just have a trap set angle of 22 degrees. That's it. If it is not a PAT Trap, be adjusted to throw not less than a straightaway from post 1 and 5 in still air. Tail wind, head wind cross wind, doesn't matter.

Still the question exists, what does "significantly outside normal" mean? N1H1 I think in previous posts on another thread describes the word "Normal" as a carefully crafted word to allow clubs to set what ever maximum they wanted, is that not the case?

What causes a target to be thrown significantly outside normal parameters? The club should adjust the trap to throw "Normal" parameters, shouldn't it. Why would a club set a trap outside "normal" parameters? It appears as what happened in Tucson, just a little outside normal is enough to shut a shoot down. It would be interesting to know what the switch widths were, and what they were adjust to, to comply with the threat of the ATA president. I can only assume they were reset to bar width of 4 1/4 inches. If I remember correctly.

I think I saw a post somewhere that says the targets were wide at Sparta a few days ago. The wind was 10mph out of the north, at least at the Sparta airport, you see what wind can do to the field and the perception of the field. No one complains about a field that is to narrow, only a little wide, though legal. Kind of like the argument for shooting on a trap with a non oscillating trap. That being, well they were thrown in the legal angle limits.




Notice the word, "wind" in the section on how to set targets. I wonder how wind could be a factor then and not now. Is it possible the little placards on the PAT Trap switches telling the operator where the field goes in relation to moving the switches is there for a reason. One of the reasons being wind.

Wind is not required to be mentioned in the rule book as it, the ATA, assumes it clubs will comply with the written rule as stated, "the trap shall be so adjusted". Not on initial set up, but for the match that is occurring, with the conditions that exist.



Shoot well.

John

 

AZCO, So we should blame the delegates? Sounds easy. Lets get a rope!

 

Shoot well, John.

A reply to a couple of your questions.

#3-It is not that the angle requirement is not met until 15-20 yards from the trap, it is that it is met 15-20 yards from the trap, not where it hits the ground, thus eliminating the wind from the equation in most circumstances.

I can't comment on what happened in Tucson, I wasn't there, were you?

Can you direct me to the section of the rule book where I might find #12&13 that is referring to wind and target setting, or is it from an old manual for a WW trap?

I can tell you that whoever commented on the wide targets in Sparta, doesn't know what a wide angle looks like. A 10 mph head wind will never result in an angle that is too wide. A more likely explanation would be that the field was not centred on the trap, creating a wide angle on one side and a narrow angle on the other.

I think that the little placards on the switches on a Pat trap are there to help in the initial set up of the trap when the field is being adjusted, no so the whole field can be shifted each time the wind blows from a different direction.

 

Rosey,

You asked how the BOD obtains and welds such power and makes decisions. The BOD is made up of the Delegates. Did you read the bylaws in the rule book of the ATA like I suggested?

 

Jo2,

I suspect jhunts missed that part in the rule book that states targets are to be set during still air.

The shoot in Tucson was stopped, because of "missing" equipment from the traps. Trust me that if that shoot had gone ahead and the missing equipment noticed after the shoot, the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts here would be jabbering for three years about the "fixed" shoot that allowed the big dawgs to clean up once again an steal from the little guy trying to win with his Class D average.

 

AZCO, Yes. Just read it again. People with money and time creating alliances, and the same core continues in charge.
BTW, where does it say that the any committee members get reimbursed and how much?

 

Well, that may be, but politics is what it is. That is why people need to get involved and attend whatever meetings and or conferences are open to them as a member or as a delegate. I cannot criticize those who show up, conduct business, when others cannot be bothered.

No, don't know where expense reimbursement is covered. Do you expect people to pay for ATA business expenses out of their own pocket?

Do you have first hand knowledge, information, evidence or testimony that illegal acts have taken place by anyone?

 

Nope, but as a member, there should be open knowledge about it.

BTW, I was heavily involved to DU for 15 years. My position required me to go to 8 - 10 banquets a year, state and national meetings and work shops.

I cared.......I paid my own way.

 

Well, good for you.

And a BTW for you. The books are always open for the IRS and they look very closely at money coming in and going out at a tax exempt charity organization.

 

The IRS has nothing to do it. Who determines Joe Blow is going to the Silver Dollar for the state shoot and will get this and that reimbursed? Is Mr. Blow going anyway? What does he get reimbursed? lodging, fuel, mileage, entry fees?

Is there a format/standard for this? What is it? Where is it? Why is not posted in the by laws so members can see where their money is going?

This is the stuff that makes members second guess the ATA.

 

My reference to the IRS was in regards to unlawful activity. As to everyday business to "promoting the ATA" I leave that up to the judgement of the EC and the elected delegates. what you are suggesting is not unreasonable, perhaps you could call and find out.

 

Shoot well AZCOTRAP and Jo2,

You guys should really get together sometime. If your going to try to help each other, you should try to stay on the same page.

Good laugh, you guys are pretty funny, thanks for the laugh.

Shoot well.

John

 

It's pretty simple, actually. Set the targets as close as possible to the rules guidelines, taking in wind adjustments, etc. and SHOOT THE "FREEKING TARGETS". As long as we all have to shoot the same targets, I'm good to go. Personally, I could give a crap if a 2 hole target is set +/- 5 degrees one way or another as long as it's fair for everyone. Being anal about target setting is just more minutia to garbage up my brain with....