Neil Winston didn't need a graph-- lose everyday shooters

As per official ATA minutes not only did Neil Winston say we were going to lose a significant amount of everyday shooters, he voted for the motion anyway.

Thanks to those in the trenches. You know who you are.
I report. You decide.

Merlo out

 

"We will have to build a new shooter base around central Midwest."

N1H1, who was suppose to do what by when to build this new shooter base? My guess is the ATA management team did not have a plan in place, ready to be implemented before they made the decision to move to Sparta. Sadly, 12 years later, the ATA management team still does not have a plan in place to build a new Midwest shooter base. If they do, it isn't working.

N1H1, what are the odds of building a new shooter base around the central Midwest, the year you made this statement and do you still agree with these odds 12 years later?

G

 

He did not say he had the plan.

 

You all have got me convinced! We gotta save the Trapshooting game...note it is up to US...WE. I'm gonna pack up and head to the Grand American Handicap event NOW. Who is with me? See you there... Regards, Ed

 

Cardinal Center is far enough West for this PA shooter.

 

Now this is some funny shit. Not only hasn't the Midwest stepped up but all their state shoots have fewer shooters today than in 2005. THANKS NEIL job well done. I can say I told you so, and I guess you can too Neil.

Old Goat 2 Not me. Brad

 

You need a shooter base, and the Midwest does not have that MANY shooters. Never did, Never will.


GB.........................DLS

 

Kinda sad. If the senior members aren't willing to support Trapshooting, how are new shooters expected to join the fun. Oh well, I ain't there yet....still fun for me. Regards, Ed

 

The joy of driving to distant trapshoots eludes most 70 yo's. Congrats to those with the desire, stamina and strong backs. Me, if I can't fly to any shoot with an airport close by I stay home. There's so many local shoots here in PA within a short drive there's no need to travel to a distant cornfield. To each his own.

 

You Ohio guys should not have kicked the ATA out of Vandalia.

 

I totally understand! Gives me the willies when I see all the drivers texting, speeding, and demonstrating road rage on the evening news. Regards, Ed

 

If Neil wouldn't have pulled the ATA out of Ohio we would never of had the CC. Thanks again Neil worked out well for all of us. Brad

 

There ya go Harry, just what I said earlier. A guy comes on here and post something that he thinks HAS to be true because it was on the back of the
Koo-Aid packet and you go ahead and post the damn truth.

 

You should be thanking all of those guys from Ohio, PA, and farther east. Now you only have to shoot against HALF the number that shot the
GAH event in VANDALIA

 

When you say "expected to join" they have that covered. Just ask all those kids that had their shoot moved to the CC.

 

No graph needed. Mr. Winston merely stated the results from ATA's own shooter survey. I guess our leaders just didn't believe what their membership was telling them.

​

 

If the above posting by HB was confirmed by a graph or chart of some kind it may of made it easier for them to understand but NOOOOO, who would of thunk ..? WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

So? That was "then" and this is "now".....nice history, but still beating a dead horse. The old shop-worn venue for the Grand was gonna close anyway, unless trapshooters were going to buy the airport at "that place in Ohio" to run a once-a-year shoot. Lead, follow, or get out of the way....just re-living the past and whining is not helpful for change....but maybe it is best to just keep up the "misery loves company" dialogue as long as people enjoy it. Just don't see anyone funding a viable alternative or doing anything to change. And that's okay, too. Flame away. Ed

 

Who's whining? I'm saving much time and money simply driving me and the family to Cardinal Center in another week. One hour closer to me than Vandalia. Oh, that's right, the ATA DID try and get the now mini grand into the Cardinal Center facility many moons ago. That's when the present owner said "stuff it" at the meeting. Don't believe it-just ask a former ED. Meanwhile, my family will enjoy our no lack of amenities within a short driving distance from that dang shoot in Ohio.

 

No "Flame away" by me Ed.

I'm also not whining or living in the past. I was merely commenting on the first post and providing documentation so that others fully understood the facts. I attended the first and many other Sparta Grands, enjoying every one. But that doesn't change the fact that everyone had a pretty good idea that participation in this Championship tournament would suffer a decline, as expressed by the shooter survey, some Delegates and even some E. C. members. The decision was made to depart from the established criteria and the event draws far less than it once did.

I've always believed that had the ATA considered adhering to their established criteria for relocation, shooters would have made donations to cover construction. There were many who openly stated they would donate the construction cost of one or more trap fields. If there was any outstanding debt, it wouldn't have been much. I'm pretty sure that folks like the Martins would favor putting their money into a new ATA-owned facility over some of the other donations made. One thing for sure . . . . members want to own their own homegrounds.

Oh, on another subject.

The Vandalia Homegrounds was never "a once-a-year shoot." Many other events were staged throughout the year. The Dayton New corps held shoots. There have been St. Patrick's day shoots. Maple Syrup shoots. The Ohio State Shoots each year and the Central Ohio Trapshooter's League were shot there. I seem to recall a B-B gun shoot was also held on those grounds. They even held a shoot for the new ATA Manager, Ray Loring, back in May of 1934.

Anyone suggesting that the Grand American Handicap was the only shoot held at the ATA Homegrounds at Vandalia is offering their personal opinion and have not taken time to check the facts.

Reminds me of the often stated opinion that when the ATA purchased the Vandalia property, it was in the "boonies" and there were so few hotels that shooters had to sleep on the grounds in tents. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those grounds were carefully chosen and met all the criteria for selection. That criteria was almost identical to the criteria mandated for the relocation to Sparta. They just deviated from their own rules. There were certainly many tents on the grounds in the mid twenties and following years, but they were not caused by a lack of hotel rooms an amenities.

HB

 

The old grounds in Vandalia used to be rented out for several cars shows per year, which were never discussed or talked about … The Due diligence was eliminated when the ATA and the State of Illinois agreed to a lease as opposed to the land being purchased as a new home grounds to replace Vandaila … I was a Johnnie come lately to attending the grand and witnessed many changes in and around Vandalia the number of times I was there … It may of been a lot of things but one thing for sure it was GRAND … Like your first Kiss only better … WPT … (YAC) …

 

To be clear, the A.T.A. Board of Directors accepted the Dayton proposition in 1924 because - "Dayton fulfills all these requirements . . ."

I offer the below to substantiate my claim to any non-believers.

​

 

STCP Parent,

I agree that N1H1 did not say he had the plan at the meeting. But he did say: "We will have to build a new shooter base around central Midwest." So, how is building a new shooter base around central Midwest suppose to happen without a well thought-out plan?

After, N1H1 made his statement above, wouldn't you have thought that the ATA management team would have commissioned and independent firm to do a feasibility analysis to determine if building a new shooter base around central Midwest was realistic or a pipe dream, before the ATA management team made the final decision to move the Grand to Sparta? The the ATA's own shooter survey posted above by History Buff should have been a wake-up call to the management team.

But in the end, the ATA management team choose to ignore their members - big mistake.

G

 

HB, Thanks for your reply to my posting and providing first-hand information on this topic. I geniunely appreciate your candor and sharing your experience. And, I must add that my tendency to overly generalize (kinda play fast and loose without facts) is sometimes embarrassing....as in my expression re: the Vandalia venue being limited to a once-a-year shoot. Clearly, I know better....my apology. All that said, this whole subject invites discussion of details which seem to be darn painful to many. I'm kinda like the "Hogan's Heroes" character Sgt. Schultz: "I know nothing...". However, I do enjoy shooting trap and intend to get to the Grand and a few other small shoots this year and leave the controversial aspects to those more involved. Regards, Ed

 

Hehehe, engage brain THEN post?

Damn facts always muddy the Kool-Aid don't they?

 

I see no need for an apology or feel embarrassed Ed. We all generalize sometimes. I just did not want others who have not been in the sport very long to get the wrong idea about Vandalia's early days. Believe it or not there have been some folks with years in and around our sport who still believe Vandalia started out in the sticks with little or no amenities.

With all its flaws, I still miss those days, but as we all know, its history now. But I kinda miss the Sparta Grand too.

You're wise to leave the controversial aspects to others if you want to continue enjoying trapshooting. I wish I would have taken your route and not involved myself.

Enjoy the Grand and consider keeping us informed.

My best,

HB

 

So, Sir Neil wasn't as dumb as many suggest.

 

You should know.....

 

Goat, that's about the dumbest reply you could have posted.

I should know? Wtf does that mean?

Please explain why you, or anyone for that matter,would EVER think I drank kool-aid. Some of us don't blindly walk lockstep with the ata money counters.

Actually, that might be the way they found sparta. You would have to be blind to think a place in the middle of bfn would draw a crowd.

 

Dead on dawg. Me thinks old goat might delete the "like" if he understood what you meant.

 

Dead on dawg. Me thinks old goat might delete the "like" if he understood what you meant.

Don't ya just love the arrogance that his royal highness showed when he called us the "everyday" shooters? Now I wasn't an every day shooter, only 3 or 4 nights a week and EVERY weekend. If he meant the ata would lose my dues and fee money he sure as s^*t was correct about that.

Brad D. was right!

 

Just going by your posting not long ago from the kiddie pool at the Atlantis resort where you announced drinking cherry kool-aid and not going to the 2018 Grand or "that place in Illinois"...? Sparta ? Is your "hehehe" your way of a childish giggle on here?

 

I give Neil some grief. Very deserved grief but I have this to say. Neil stood up and implied we are going to divide the trapshooting base. He did it in front of the "lecturn". This is clear in the minutes. I believe he wanted the minutes to reflect that.

So when those Ohio and PA shooters that built the sport, and that is most of the shooters, decided they would continue with their own venue, why are some so surprised? What? OH built their own venue? How dare the bastards? Read the minutes.

I have to chuckle when shooters like AZCO say the problem is the OH and PA guys don't support trapshooting by building their own venues. Or they threw the ATA out. Not yet.

 

You really aren't that bright are you? I can see I gave you too much credit.
They do have a kiddie pool at the resort. My kids are close to 50 and the Grandkids are driving so I never had to use it but it is first class. To bad you can't say that about that government owned place in the sticks.

Ya don't like it when I call it that place in IL do you? Gets to you a little huh?
Good! The location SUCKS and you are stuck with it. Forever I hope.
You keep sipping at the Kool-Aid and telling us all how you had such a great time at that place. I hope it stays there for the next 100 years. No matter what it cost you.

The hehehe was because when HB posted you changed your tune in your reply. How did you walk it back?

By admitting that you sometimes,

"Kinda play fast and loose without facts"

You will find we don't

 

I would like to hear what the "everday shooter" meant. How about it Neil?

 

N1H1 and the others who voted for the motion to move the Grand to Sparta without having a well though-out plan identifying who was going to do what by when to build a new base of shooters for the Sparta Grand, is like Nancy Pelosi's comment on Obamacare: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

 

In defense of N1H1, he did ask the right question as posted above in the minutes by Merlo, even though this question should have been asked and answered long before the vote was taken.
N1H1 question was: "How are we going we going to attract new shooters to the Grand?."

From N1H1 question at the meeting, it's apparent that ATA management team did not have a plan on how they were going to attract new shooters to the Grand in Sparta before the vote was taken. After N1H1 asked the question in the meeting, why didn't the ATA management team postpone the vote until they had an answer to N1HI excellent question? Instead, the ATA management team went ahead and voted without knowing the answer to N1H1 question. Why would they do this? And wouldn't you think that after they voted yes to move the Grand to Sparta, that the ATA management team would have then made it a top priority to get an answer to N1H1 question? It's now been 12 years since the Grand moved to Sparta and as far as I know, the ATA management team still does not have an answer to N1HI question and they do not have an action plan identifying who is going to do what by when to build a new shooter base in central Midwest that will attract new shooters to the Grand in Sparta. Maybe they we counting on 'magic rocks' to build a new shooter base in central Midwest that would attract new shooters to the Grand in Sparta. Or maybe is was not realistic to begin with and just a pipe dream.

 

The ATA spent a lot of Money to get an accumulation of numbers, due diligence, geographic areas, possibilities, probabilities and who knows what else was included for the excessive amount of money that was spent on discovery in and about certain areas … The completed reports were ignored and they were never heard from or about again once the ATA made up their mind about making the move obviously at any and all cost … Neil Winston likes to play dumb on things that can have a negative reflection on him directly or delete same and say he never said any such thing … I talked to him via the telephone a couple of times, that was more than enough for me to come to the conclusion that I harbor to this day (lower than Whale shit comes to mind ) and out for anything and everything that can be beneficial to him directly … He and I had several exchanges so I am not saying anything he is not and has not been aware of for a considerable length of time … Putting it nicely "No LOVE LOSS" , I would be the feeling is mutual or hope it is … I blocked Neil a long time ago, have no idea what he says nor do I care one way or the other … If he was burning in the desert and I was the only source of water for 100 mile in every direction I would not empty my bladder on him … Now, back to the show … Oh, I do feel sorry for his Dog, beautiful animal … WPT … (YAC) …

 

I went back in the ATA minutes to verify Merlo's claim for myself.

While it is easy to assume that Mr. Winston's support for Iowa Delegate Thyer's motion was regarding a vote on the relocation, it was not. Director Thyer's motion was to reduce the Grand American Handicap target requirements for the 2006 GAH. The motion was defeated.

​

No doubt though that then Vice President Winston anticipated a decline in participation and was concerned and/or worried enough to pose the question: "How do we attract new shooters to the Grand?"

With regard to how Mr. Winston voted on the relocation to Sparta:

1. At their August 2003 meeting, Board of Directors authorized a straw poll, subsequent to the findings of the Executive Committee regarding their investigations and negotiations of lease agreement with both the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (Sparta, IL) and the Clark County Shooting Park Committee (Las Vegas, NV).

2. In a teleconference in early January 2004 the Board of Directors were informed that the Clark County (Las Vegas) was eliminated since their development was a year behind the ATA's processes and needs. However, they were successful in lease negotiations with the IDNR (Sparta, IL) and that as directed by the BOD at the August 2003 meeting, a "straw vote" would be take. How each Director voted was not recorded. Directors were given the opportunity to ask questions and offer comments.

3. Individual votes were taken by each Zone Vice President whereby the number of "Yes" and "No" votes were reported. Vice President Winston reported 11 "Yes" votes and 1 "No" vote. I assume he voted in favor of the Sparta proposal but only he can respond to his vote. My guess that the only "No" vote in the Central Zone, was Ohio. The total vote count was "Yes" - 49; "No" - 6; "Abstain" - 0; and "Absent" - 2.

Central Zone - 11 Yes; 1 No

Eastern Zone - 13 Yes; 0 No

Southern Zone - 10 Yes; 0 No

Southwestern Zone - 4 Yes; 4 No

Western Zone - 11 Yes; 1 No

 

wpt,

Are you saying that ATA management had the answer to the question N1H1 asked before they voted to move the Grand to Sparta?

N1H1 question was: "How are we going we going to attract new shooters to the Grand?."

 

HB,

Thanks for the clarification on what N1H1 was voting on.

 

Garry,
The ATA hired high priced Professionals to do an in depth discovery report that included a number of things as if they were exhibiting a business plan on a combination of many things ... There was talks about the purchase of the strip mined (Pea Body Coal) property where the WSRC is sitting to create a Monument to them self in a way, but it did not pass due diligence set forth by the ATA so they did a lease deal ( that turned out to be an MOU, I will, if you will, maybe yes, maybe no, possibly, probably, etc) to get around the due diligence when the purchase was out of the question ... They live by "Its only Kinky the first time" , if you know what I mean ... The Number of shooters lost from Ohio, Pa, the east and as it turns out the entire country (based on attendance figures) were made up by the 3 or 4 locals they got who never knew what trap was until the ATA came to town ... Some body should of wrote a book or made a Movie, could of got "Best Comedy of the Year award " when all this was happenings ... Blind leading the blind on a mission spurred by the possibility of not having a Grand for one or at most two years which in reality would of made it even more of a spectacle and attraction for people to attend ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Thanks from me too, HB.

A while ago I contributed to a thread about a petition. I gave good advice to anyone who actually wants to change anything about the ATA.

"I have explained countless times the only way to get changes. You have to get a majority vote at a properly-called meeting of the Board of Directors. Typing is not going to change anything. Re-drafting ineffective petitions is a waste of everyone's time and effort. Corralling affirmative votes is the only effective option. Do that and you might get a bit of what you want; fail to do that and you won't. Ever."

As HB has posted, Delegate Thyer's motion failed by a vote of 16 to 27. I voted for it and thought it was not only a good idea, but needed to be expanded on, not abandoned. Here's how I went about it, as reported in the minutes of the 2006 Annual meeting, just a year after the first loss.

"
OTHER NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BODY:

( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 16, 2006, at 21:32 Hrs. i “FRESH START” PROPOSAL FROM MINNESOTA DELEGATE NEIL M. WINSTON

Delegate Neil M. Winston from Minnesota advised that he wished to present a proposal to the Board of Directors on behalf of himself as the ATA representative from the State of Minnesota and that his views do not necessarily represent those of the current Executive Committee. Minnesota Delegate Winston did comment that he has spoken extensively with members of the Rules Committee and members of the Central Handicap Committee in formulating his thoughts and these opinions.

“August 2006
Dear Fellow Delegate,
The move to Sparta is a “fresh start” for the Grand American, an opportunity to review our past

policies and see which should stand, which should be changed. This letter will advocate a change in one of those policies, the one involving “Penalty Classification” at the Grand.

For many years, shooters with two-year target totals of fewer than 2000 (with at least 1000 in the past year) have been assigned “penalty yardage” of 25 yards at the Grand and relatively high classifications as well. A similar though less punitive system is common throughout the ATA at larger shoots. Rather than just going on with this ’til the end of time, let’s ask ourselves “what are we trying to do ... and why?”

There are reasons to retain some sort of penalty system:
1) Trophies and added money are paid for by memberships and daily fees; they are just the return of funds loaned to the organization by its shooters. Non-shooters or virtual non-shooters have no right to these funds.
2) Shooting at local clubs is the lifeblood of the present ATA, and is even more critical to its future. Penalty schemes ensure that members will have to do at least some shooting around home.
3) A shooter with no known record may be much better at trap than he/she looks. Big penalties ensure that we aren’t surprised by some lurking handicap-league pirate showing his colors for a moment just to plunder us.

The trouble with the system used now is that it is unfair, and worse yet, it is unfair to our largest group of members. We take the 20- and 21-yarders, nearly half of the ATA, and put them so far back, they just don’t have any chance at all. As a shooter’s skill/yardage increases, we penalize him or her less and less, ‘til the best of them, 25- to 27-yarders, get no penalty at all! And, then we do the same thing in the class events as well! For the penalized 20-yard, Class C and D members, often just embarking on his/her shooting career, the current rules do not say “forfeits all claim to trophies or purses,” but they might as well, since that is their effect.

Aims 1) and 2) of a penalty program can be met by assessing (as nearly as possible) everyone some reasonable competitive cost - say two years in handicap, a class or two in the other events. That puts the 20-yarder on the 22, the 25-yarder on 27. Sure, the 26-yarder gets a better deal and 27 still better. Absolute equality is unattainable, but greater fairness is just this easy.

Then promote it and use it to expand shooting at the local level. Explain in the rulebook, the gun
club newsletter and even in the Grand Program, itself, the aims of penalty classification. Require the targets to be shot by the first day of registration, not halfway through the shoot - it’s local shooting we’re trying to promote, isn’t it? And drop back to 1000 targets - it’s too late to shoot last year, and requiring 2000 just punishes new and foreign shooters anyway.

But ah, you say , what about Aim 3), catching that unsuspected expert? Forget about it. At 22 yards (starting 20 plus 2 penalty) who, in the absence of Grand American experience, is going to break 99 or a 100? And, consider the cost: is it really worth it to punish a bunch of our colleagues, many of whom are just starting out, in hopes of snaring some phantom who probably doesn’t even exist? I think not.

What about shooters with no, or virtually no, ATA target history, in other words, no class to be moved up from? Now, we put them in A singles and A doubles. I ask you: what are the chances of a new (to the ATA) shooter being competitive in either of these classes? Recall the start of your own shooting career - how many years did it take before you were ready for these classes at local shoots? And, isn’t it way harder at the Grand? How about B and B, or better yet B and C?

That’s the proposal: a couple of yards for (almost) everyone is fair and square, newcomer or old- timer; likewise, two classes, right from the start of the shoot. Explain it so people who are penalized understand why it is being done and how to avoid it.

Part of the key to making Sparta a success is getting shooters to go there. Reformed penalty classification will make the Grand more attractive to those who either don’t shoot much or are just starting out. We’re going to need them in Sparta; this is one step to drawing them there.

And, why just the Grand? If it makes sense there, doesn’t it make equal sense at home, where charity, it is said, begins? Zone, State, ATA - run shoots at Sparta - let’s do it there as well. Two yards and a class or two is plenty. Then everyone’s got a chance to shoot for something!
Yours in Sport,/S/ Neil Winston

[Secretary’s Note: The foregoing letter of Minnesota Delegate Neil M. Winston was the foundation document for the following motion.]:

Following his prefatory comments, Minnesota Director Neil M. Winston offered the following motion to the Body for consideration and debate:
1) Penalty classes at the Grand American will be current classification plus two classes. Shooters with no established average will be placed in B class singles and doubles.

1. 2) Penalty yardage will be the shooter’s current yardage plus two yards.
   
   
2. 3) Target minimums will be based on this year’s targets, that is, the current wording “2000 targets with
   

1000 shot in the current year” will be changed to “1000 targets in the current year.”
4) Satellite Grands will follow the same guidelines with appropriate changes to the target minimums based on how late in the target year the shoot occurs.
5) Minor changes within the spirit of these rules may be made in the future based on changing circumstances and experience.

Iowa Director Phil Thyer seconded the motion and President Kenneth P. Duncan, thereafter, called for discussions and/or comments from the Directorate.

MOTION DISCUSSIONS:

“ North Carolina Director Terry L. Roush asked what problem is the Minnesota Director trying to resolve?

( Minnesota Director Neil M. Winston politely referred the North Carolina Director to his prior letter generally presented to the Delegates on or about August 13, 2006. “It is no more mysterious than that,” explained the Minnesota Director.

“ New Hampshire Director Phil C. Wright inquired as to whether the entire country will be on board with this offered motion.

( Minnesota Director Winston responded that he hoped that the entire country would discern and appreciate the business logic of the intended motion and its effects.

“ Kentucky Director Terry Dean spoke against reducing the target requirements due to
particular state specific issues. Otherwise, he supported the intent and tenor of the offered

motion that is before the Body.

• “ Maine Director Fred Liberty inquired as to whether “known ability” will still be applied.
  
  
• “ Florida Director Thomas A. White interjected that in his opinion all other “known ability”
  
  and similar shoot management discretion [and obligations] still apply.
  

( Minnesota Director Winston responded to the foregoing questions in a responsive manner

to the apparent satisfaction of the Directors.“ Ohio Director Dean Townsend (and Central Handicap Committee member) spoke of the

increasing complexity of the handicap system and the difficulties in implementation. He further mentioned the issues of differing systems (handicap and classification) as apply at the Grand and state shoots. “Anything that can be done to simplify the system and preserve fairness to all shooters would be welcomed by the Central Handicap Committee,” noted Ohio Director Townsend.

( Minnesota Director Winston thanked Ohio Director Townsend for his thoughtful comments and opinions.

“ Arizona Director Douglas W. Hawkins commented that if you make it the same for the Satellite Grands - many of the Arizona shooters will not have enough targets to qualify for the earlier Satellite tournaments.

( Minnesota Director Winston responded that he believed that the present motion mooted the Arizona Director’s concerns.


MOTION AMENDMENT ...

Following a lively and spirited debate, the consensus from the Floor led Minnesota Director Neil M. Winston to revise his motion, with agreement of Iowa Director Phil Thyer as the second, as follows:

Grand American:

Shooters who do not have a total of 1,000 16 yard targets in the current year will be advanced at least two classes or more at the discretion of the handicap committee. New shooters without an established average will be placed in class B or higher at the discretion of the handicap committee.

Shooters who do not have a total of 1,000 doubles targets in the current year will be advanced at least two classes or more at the discretion of the handicap committee. New shooters without an established average will be placed in class B or higher at the discretion of the handicap committee.

Shooters who do not have a total of 1,000 handicap targets in the current year will be assigned 25 yards or their ATA yardage whichever is greater. Senior Veterans are exempt from this rule.

Satellite Grands, U.S. Open and National Team Trapshooting Championships:

Satellite Grands’ target requirements will be amended in a similar fashion with adjustments determined by the time of year in which they occur.

Subsequent to the call for discussion on the motion before the Body, President Kenneth P. Duncan called the question with no further response. The requested voice vote by President Duncan was indeterminate, therefore, the President requested a show of hands. Subsequent to the counting of the hands by Executive Director John R. Norris and President Elect and Eastern Zone Vice President D. Ray Greb, it was by majority vote

RESOLVED That the amended motion offered by Minnesota Director Neil M. Winston revising certain portions of the “Penalty Classification” system is hereby approved as outlined herein.BE IT NOTED FOR THE RECORD That the vote was recorded as follows:

• — Twenty Six (26) votes in favor of the motion,
  
  
• — Twenty Two (22) votes opposed to the motion.
  
  That's how changes in the ATA are accomplished. You set a goal, spend a year changing minds, and roll the dice to see if the vote now goes you way,
  
  These rules have been in force for 12 years with neither problems nor changes. It was certainly worth my time and effort to do this. The system does work as designed. It is also the only way to get things done.
  
  N1H1

 

Witch states are considered Central?

 

Bama,

I don't know N1H1 definition of central Midwest, but the ATA defines the Central Zone as the following:

CENTRAL - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Canada.

 

N1H1, I think you're 1st proposal was more fair to a majority of shooters the way it was revised penalised the new and less skilled shooters the most. I know people that would go just to shoot at the grand but don't because of the 25 yrd. penalty. If you're 20 yrd. shooter that is 5 yrd. penalty were as 24 only gets 1 yrd. so the 20 yard shooters eventually quit going because they have no chance.

 

Rn3, I agree. Sometimes you have to settle for something less than your ideal in order to get anything at all. Thanks for your comment.

N1H1

 

N1H1....please explain why any votes so important or any votes at all would not be roll call votes? And why would you not demand roll call votes? The count of votes means little without names attached. No one is represented without those names.

Not that it matters now. It may matter for another org.

 

And in my opinion, this current changes process as you described above is the heart of the problem. Why, because most ATA members do not have the resources, (time and money), to corral up affirmative votes. Why, because a state delegate should not have the power to decide if a member's idea is good or bad. Why, because a state delegate reports to the ATA and not his/her state organization. Why, because the entire membership was not given the right to vote on suggested changes.

N1H1, why do you have to explain the current process for changes countless times, why isn't this process listed in the ATA rule book and the ATA website?

N1H1, you said the current process the only effective way; I would say it's very ineffective, antiquated, unrealistic and very biased in favor of ATA management.

Was the entire membership allowed to vote on on this very important change process before it was implemented?

So now the members find themselves in a catch 22 situation, they have no realistic way of getting the current change process amended or repealed and replaced because the process itself is flawed.

And please don't tell me the members need to do a better job of picking their state delegate, that song is getting old.

We live in the computer age, why not use this technology to let members electronically submit change requests directly into the ATA office. And most importantly, give all members in good standing the right to vote electronically on these submitted changes, thus eliminating the need to manually coral votes? Controls can be established, like passage requires that at least X percent of the members voted and at least X percent voted yes for the change.

It's time for ATA management to give their members the right to submit and vote on changes?

 

Garry, personally I believe having all operating decisions subject to the vote of 50,000 members (actually no one really knows how many members there are) is unrealistic. It is not a good idea when there are that many potential voters. Never heard of any organization being run that way.

Exactly how are electronic votes going to be handled? How are we going to validate that an electronic vote came from an actual member in good standing? How many members do we need to accept a vote? It is much more complicated then you think, and I doubt it could be done.

 

Bat, I respect and appreciate your comments.

It's hard to believe that the ATA does not have a data base of all of their current members. Strike out members the in good standing part, unless they are flagged on the ATA database. Validation can be done by membership number and other identifiers already on the ATA database. Like how we log-on today to get access to our private financial accounts. My focus was on changes that members would like to see but I share your concern about who makes what decisions. That is why I suggest that controls be establish that set the bar much higher than a simple majority.

I would like to ask you two questions. 1. Do you think the process for getting things changed as described by N1HI above is very effective? 2. Do you think there is a real or perceived trust issued between members and management?

Thank you.

 

Garry, I'm just saying that I believe such member validation is much more complicated and expensive than you seem to think, and that having decisions held up while 10's of thousands of individuals vote on them seems kinda unrealistic to me, can't imagine any organization running that way. Think of herding cats. Also, I do not believe ATA has any idea how many life members there are.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I believe the cost to set up a secure website with multi-level authentication would be extremely expensive, I believe beyond the capability of the ATA.

Do I think the process for change is working as members would like. Well, it is what it is. . . I don't know of any better method off the top of my head. I don't think as many members are as upset about things as the impression you get reading here, but again that is just my opinion. You have to understand that I do not think that all members voting on operating decisions is a good practice. I can't imagine any advisor making a suggestion to place decisions on operations in the hands of tens of thousands of different individuals.

As far as perceived trust issues - again, there is a huge perceived trust issue with ATA management, at least among the posters on this site. Among shooters as a whole, I don't think to any such extent. There is a lot more to ATA shooting than where the Grand is located, and the ATA is really just us as far as the majority of shooters that shoot at local and state shoots. ATA has made some decisions I think were poorly thought out, rules need to be written better etc., but I'm not going to revolt over it.

 

The ATA may not have a lot of things but I would bet even money they have a validated (valid) list of Life Members, if nothing else ... The ATA does not want the Membership to have any idea as to what is actually going on much less have anything to say about it ... The ATA as it is today is much like the Swamp that President Trump has to deal with, but there is no way to get it drained because of the way the BOD and EC are structured by design ... People like charts and graphs rather than deal with reality ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Joe, this is not a secure website like what I was talking about. Maybe one is not needed, but that is what I was picturing.in that respect. Then you need the capability to internally maintain a database of all voters and how they voted, and be able to parse that data as needed. I think it would be extremely expensive. Others are free to disagree with me.

 

Joe,
A secure website starts with https://

I'm not in the know about ATA corporate issues other than what is available to all and what I observe. When you have life members, people die, and it is not an unrealistic assumption that the ATA is not informed about such things. That is always a challenge. Many, many life members are no longer shooting, have moved, and or passed away, with nobody worrying that they may have failed to let he ATA know about it.

They don't have one because I doubt it would be worth the expense, they don't have in house experts, etc.

 

Bat, thanks for giving me your opinions on the two questions I asked you.

 

"ATA has made some decisions I think were poorly thought out, rules need to be written better etc., but I'm not going to revolt over it."

And MORE BULLSHIT from "Bat" .....

There is NOTHING "poorly thought out", about paying yourself ATA travel money to go shoot .....

There is NOTHING "poorly thought out", about getting the "Boys" together for nice meals on the ATA credit card at these shoots .....

There is NOTHING "poorly thought out", about free gift shotguns for the "Boys" .....

There is NOTHING "poorly thought out", about buying a cheap office building and selling it to the ATA for a nice profit .....

Do you want me to keep going "Bat" ol'King of BULLSHIT ?????????????

FWIW ..... "Bat" ..... your posting here, is far more "poorly thought out" than what you call "a huge perceived trust issue with ATA management, at least among the posters on this site" .....

 

So, I'm not entitled to my opinion userofquotes?

I don't have a problem with reimbursing them under the accountable plan for travel to the shoots they work at. I just don't think they are all criminals the way you make it sound. Despite what I see here all the time, everything I have ever heard is most of them spend more out of pocket than they get reimbursed. Of course you don't believe any of that, which is your prerogative.

Getting the boys together for nice meals on the ATA credit card - never seen anything about that except posters here saying it could have happened, and I'm sure it could have.

Free shotguns for the boys, read about that in T&F decades ago, and no, I have no problem with giving one to outgoing President.

I have no idea what the profit was on the building issue, neither do any of you for sure. Attorney General passed on hanging anyone over that, but, that one was a poorly thought out deal, no doubt about that.

 

Despite that it was against the bylaws and illegal, not that the IL AG knew what he was talking about.

Is the statute of limitations over on that?

 

Interesting post "Bat" ..... let me use more "quotes" from you .....

"neither do any of you for sure" ..... How can you make that statement in a definitive way ?????? There are searchable public records about this type of transaction, and any/all prior transactions involving this "property" ...... Are you sandbagging about your involvement, to the point you may know some factual information that may be unknown to others ?????? Could YOU know a fact, or facts, that are non-searchable, non-public, "details/money" about this "transaction" you are not sharing with the unwashed masses ?????

"I have ever heard is most of them spend more out of pocket than they get reimbursed" ......
Where did you "hear" that ????? And if "they" pay some out of pocket, should that somehow make it OK ?????

You are "entitled to YOUR opinion" ..... and ..... "Others are free to disagree with me." more Bat quotes ..... So, YOU are giving me permission to "freely" disagree with YOUR constant BULLSHIT, about how EVERYONE should read the financial documents from the ATA, and just accept all these "poorly thought out deal(s)", a last "Bat quote" .....

 

@Palos shooter

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/grand-american-last-stand-ohio

http://www.toledoblade.com/frontpag...-Grand-in-Vandalia-will-also-be-the-last.html

Palos shooter:

If you open and read the links; you will see azco has no clue. He was given the information previously and elected to disregard.

You have to ask yourself what motive Ohio shooters would possibly have to kick the ATA Homegrounds out of either Vandalia or the State of Ohio. Let me know if you come up with one.

 

At at least two Annual Meetings Airport Director Blair Conrad told the ATA BOD that our time at the Airport was drawing an end. For sure and without question. This left us time to look for a new home.

The FAA was also very cooperative in giving us permission to shoot, one year at a time and always not long before the shoot was to take place. Can anyone seriously think that in the age of Homeland Security we would get such variances - allowing us to shoot toward an active airport and actually leaving shot on runways - these days? Imagine being the official that signed that variance document when faced with the question "What is the worst thing that can can happen if I sign this and what is the worst thing that can happen if I don't?"

It was also Mr. Conrad that assured the ATA that it would leave with at least $ 2.5 million paid for our property. At a critical juncture he literally left his deathbed to sign the documents to make that happen.

The ATA owes a great debt to Mr.Conrad for not only warning us what lay in our future, but also his input in what would be involved in our responsibility for lead cleanup. It could have cost us all our money, but a far more generous deal was reached that literally kept us alive.

N1H1

 

Why would you need a "variance" to shoot trap on ATA OWNED property ol'N1H1 ?????????????

"A variance is a request to deviate from current zoning requirements. If granted, it permits the owner to use his land in a way that is ordinarily not permitted by the zoning ordinance. It is not a change in the zoning law, but a waiver from the requirements of the zoning ordinance." ..... https://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/real-estate-law/zoning/variance.htm

Why would a "Airport Director" go to a meeting to tell anyone "our time at the Airport was drawing an end. For sure and without question" ??????? Maybe because of the interest in buying the property for an "expansion" ......

And this ...... "shoot toward an active airport and actually leaving shot on runways" ...... how far was it from the ATA owned property to a "runway" dumb-ass ??????

Take your BULLSHIT to the land of mental midgets where they believe your stupid ass ......

 

"shoot toward an active airport and actually leaving shot on runways"

What idiot would say that? If shot traveled over a mile or 2. LOL other than N1H1?

 

More BS. You can bet that if the airport wanted the ATA gone, it would be in writing. Two members from our club went to Vandalia to talk to the powers at the airport. Quoted statement...."we don't need to have that property."

 

"shoot toward an active airport and actually leaving shot on runways"

What idiot would say that? If shot traveled over a mile or 2. LOL other than N1H1?"shoot toward an active airport and actually leaving shot on runways"

What idiot would say that? If shot traveled over a mile or 2. LOL other than N1H1?

If any of you actually had shot trap at Vandalia, you would remember that the ATA had to put up chain link fences to divide the shooters from the airport. Before that, I walked out to the runways and there was plenty of shot there on the one that was closed for the Ohio State Shoot and the Grand American.

The few readers here who actually shot at Vandalia will understand that if cfandg thinks it was "over a mile or 2" to the runways, he was never there not even as a visitor and is just another poster here who likes to "contribute" though he has not any idea whatever what he is talking about. He doesn't know a thing about the "Vandalia"; he is just blowing smoke, hoping that readers here will accept him as "one of us" but showing himself to just another clueless flake as so common here.

How about it, guys? Will anyone here set him straight? Or didn't anyone here ever really shoot at all?

N1H1

 

More BS. You can bet that if the airport wanted the ATA gone, it would be in writing. Two members from our club went to Vandalia to talk to the powers at the airport. Quoted statement...."we don't need to have that property."

More BS indeed. Of course it is in writing.

From the minutes of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the ATA BOD:

"4. Report of Committees

Guest Representatives from the Dayton International Airport

President Phillip C. Wright, with the acquiescence of the Board of Directors - no objections being noted - expressed his desire to introduce:“ Eugene B. (Blair) Conrad, Jr., A.A.E., Director of Aviation, and“ David A. Mason, P.E., Chief of Engineering, Planning and Environmental , representing the

City of Dayton, Department of Aviation, James M. Cox - Dayton International Airport (Dayton International Airport)

3600 Terminal Drive, Suite 300, Vandalia, Ohio 45377-1095, and“ Mark Schoewe, Engineering/Environmental Consultant for the Dayton International Airport, with

PBS&J, 1895 Airport Exchange Boulevard, Ste. 234, Erlanger, Kentucky 41018.

President Wright explained that the ATA Relocation Committee had originally extended an invitation to the Dayton Airport representatives to appear before the Board of Directors so that they could directly address - and explain - the current planned activities at the Airport and their anticipated impact on the ATA operations, as we presently know them. President Wright further noted that the remainder of the relocation discussions will be held at the end of New Business as previously authorized by appropriate Board Resolution. He indicated that due to the busy business schedules of the Airport representatives that it was more expedient, and polite, to permit them to address the Board at this earlier time.

Blair Conrad addressed the ATA Directors and Officers and prefaced his opening remarks by stating that he is not an ATA member but he is a member of the NRA ... and proudly so. He fully supports the Constitutional advances that the NRA conducts and performs on behalf of the citizens of the United States. Mr. Conrad emphatically stated that he is here as a friend of the ATA but that everyone in the audience must understand that he has duties and responsibilities that in “some material aspects” differ from ours. It is his desire to do everything within his power and control to keep us in Vandalia but our present facility (leasehold and fee simple) will be adversely impacted in the not too distant future.

Mr. Conrad revealed that some interesting things are going on at the Dayton Airport and contrasted that comment with the specific site and facility needs of the ATA (of which he has been made aware). He reiterated that the Dayton International Airport is committed to working with the ATA in an attempt to keep the Organization in the Vandalia area. “Growth is tough for everybody - we are joined at the hip and it is a difficult time for everyone,” stated Mr. Conrad. He briefly summarized the Master Plan Study Update and the anticipated (scheduled) impact(s) to the ATA.

[The Master Plan Study Update has been under active discussion during prior meetings with the Relocation Committee and is reproduced herein for clarification purposes]

Dayton International Airport Strategic Master Plan Study Update (12/99)


PHASEI ................... (PublishedImplementationDates: 1999-2003)

I

Extend Runway 6R south by 4,400 feet and shorten Runway 24L by 400 feet for an ultimate runway length of 11,000 feet.

II

Cargo aircraft apron expansion.





Cargo aircraft maintenance hangar.

IV

Reroute US 40 (National Road) around the Runway 6R extension.

V

Construct a new Air Traffic Control Tower and TRACON facility.

VI

Relocate and realign Old Springfield Road parallel to Runway 6L.

VII

Land acquisition south of the airport.

VIII

Relocate Amateur Trapshooters [sic] Association.

PHASE II . . . . . . . . . . . . (Published Implementation Dates: 2004 -- 2008

I

Extend Runway 18 north by 4,300 feet and shorten Runway 36 by 3,300 feet for an ultimate runway length of 9,500 feet.

II

Reroute Ginghamsburg-Frederick Road around the Runway 18 expansion.

III

Cargo hub expansion.

IV

Construct an air cargo access road west of Runway 6L - 24R.

V

Land acquisition north of the airport.

PHASE III . . . . . . . . . . . . (Published Implementation Dates: 2009 - 2018)

I

Provided aircraft operational demands are realized, construct a new third parallel Runway 6 - 24 at a length of 11,000 feet with 6,000 foot lateral separation from existing Runway 6L - 24R.

II

Cargo hub expansion.

III

Construct a new interchange with Interstate 75.

IV

Construct a west by-pass connector road and miscellaneous connector roads.

V

Land acquisition west of the airport.

While Mr. Conrad was addressing the Board of Directors, Mr. Mason was displaying numerous site elevations and other pertinent depictions that visually related to the verbal comments of Mr. Conrad. The aerial and schematic views clearly indicated the anticipated impacts of the planned Airport improvements. The Dayton Airport representatives presented three (3) additional written Phasing Schedules for the Directors and Officers to review. The Schedules are summarized, in pertinent detail, as follows:


MULTI LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE & RENTAL CAR PHASING SCHEDULE
DAYTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUGUST 15, 2002

Phase

Description

Date

I

Extend Economy Lot

11/02

II

Temporary Ready/Return Rental Car Lot and Employee Lot

07/03


III

Multi-Level Parking Structure Ground-breaking

07/03

IV

New Hertz Facility/Demolish Old

10/04

V

Expand Long Term Parking & Relocate Loop Rd., Remove Valet Drive Connector to Loop Road

06/05

VI

New Rental Car Facilities

10/06

VII

Demolish Old Rental Car Facilities

08/07

Again, while Mr. Mason was displaying, and otherwise pointing to, some site schematics and elevations for the Delegates viewing; Mr. Conrad emphasized that he is willing to work with the ATA on a site transition. At least as we (Dayton International Airport) see it right now, “the ATA can stay here without impact thru 2005." The first material impact will be the rental car lots (to be newly constructed) that will most probably necessitate the removal of approximately thirty (30%) percent of the West end traps.

[During prior meetings with the Relocation Committee the number of affected West end traps was indicated to be fifteen (15) to twenty (20) ... thirty (30%) more equates to the probable loss of thirty (30) traps]

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY AND EXTENSION OF RUNWAY PHASING SCHEDULE
DAYTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUGUST 15, 2002

Phase

Description

Date

I

Draft EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)

12/02

II

Final EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)

07/04

III

Design of Road/Runway 6R

07/05

IV

Record of EIS Decision

07/05

V

Construction of Relocated US 40 / Terminal Drive

07/07

VI

Construction of Runway 6R Extension Compliance with FAA Runway Safety Area (RSA) Requirement and Install Category I Approach

10/08

Mr. Conrad briefly reviewed the Purpose and Need meetings that were completed on June 04 & 05, 2002, with regard to the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) that directly relate to the proposed improvements at the Dayton International Airport.

Mr. Mason directed specific attention to:

Station 2 / Board 1 of 2

Reference RSA requirements ...
“The FAA has determined that the following purpose and need elements are applicable to Dayton International Airport.”

Station 2 / Board 2 of 2

Reference perimeter road ...
“The FAA has determined that the following purpose and need elements are applicable to Dayton International Airport.” Mr. Conrad further noted that once a “purpose and need” element is identified, it is extremely rare that a final “no action” finding is implemented.

Mr. Conrad further explained the anticipated impact of the runway safety zone and the current status of the waivers granted to the Dayton International Airport by the FAA. It is his current belief and


understanding that the RSA (Runway Safety Area), with reference to Runway 18 - 36, extends down to the tree line area (500' x 1,000') adjacent to or near the present vendor buildings/tents.

The Airport Manager noted that the Runway Safety Area (RSA) is designed to reduce the risk of damage to airplanes near the runway in the event of undershooting or overshooting. The typical aircraft in use at the Dayton International Airport dictate RSA dimensions of 500 feet wide (from the center of the runway) plus 1,000 feet at the ends of each runway. Mr. Conrad noted that the present RSA waiver is currently effective through 2007 and he expressed his confidence that he could “obtain some additional time “assuming the ATA relocation process was in transition.”

SALE/PURCHASE OF ATA PROPERTY AUGUST 15, 2002

Phase

Description

Date

I

Letter of Intent (Draft)

08/02

II

Environmental Due Diligence Audit (Phase III)

08/02

III

Second Appraisal

09/02

IV

Agreement

04/03

V

Transfer of Fee Simple Title of North Parcel [Lead Fall Zone] and [concurrent] Lease of North Parcel from Dayton International Airport (DIA) to the ATA

08/05

VI

Last Grand American Trapshoot at DAY [Vandalia] 08/05

VII

Removal of Debris Field and Lead Shot ...
Transfer of Fee Simple Title to South Parcel ... Cancellation of Lease (West) ...
Initiation of Lease for Buildings near Administration/Museum (but no trapshooting at DAY) [Vandalia]

09/05

[Phase V (as captioned) is the result of prior negotiations between the ATA Relocation Committee and the Dayton International Airport ... Mr. Conrad’s proposal involves a scenario detailed in the following summary manner ...
The ATA would survey and sell the lead fall (swath of land that approximates 150' times the length of the trap line) zone to the Dayton Airport for the sum (legally sufficient consideration) of One ($1.00) Dollar and enter a concurrent lease back for the same property as conveyed for a like sum of One ($1.00) Dollar (“Sale and Lease Back”).

By utilizing this modality the “purview of the FAA is taken out of the equation (with the ATA) and the only parties to the 'issue' are the Dayton Airport and the FAA”]

Dayton Airport Manager Blair Conrad advised the Board of Directors that he personally delivered a letter addressed to Executive Director John R. Norris, from Mr. John Thomas, Interim City Manager, for the City of Dayton, that accurately responds to the position of the Dayton International Airport with respect to the concerns of the ATA officers and its membership. The letter is summarized in pertinent part as follows:

August 15, 2002

Mr. John Norris, Executive Director
Amateur Trapshooting Association of America 601 West National Road
Vandalia, Ohio 45377

Dear Mr. Norris:


The Amateur Trapshooting Association (ATA) has been located both adjacent to and on portions of the Dayton International Airport in Butler Township since 1923. The relationship between the City of Dayton and the Amateur Trapshooting Association has been very close for many years. The ATA owns approximately 59 acres adjacent to the south side of the Airport and leases a portion of the Airport for activities related to various shooting events.

In July of 1998, the ATA announced in a press release its intention to search for a new site due to various reasons which included the proposed growth of the ATA and to provide other services to users of the trap fields. The Airport had initiated a strategic Master Plan update that looked at the long-term needs for the growth at the Airport. The extension of the south parallel runway was identified as a critical need by the year 2008. The Master Plan seemed to fit with the ATA’s time frame for a transition to a new site, either locally or out of state.

The City of Dayton, Montgomery County, and Vandalia/Butler Chambers of Commerce teamed with the Airport to find a way to retain the ATA in the County. Numerous sites in Montgomery County, Miami County and Greene County were considered. The site the ATA wanted approached 1,700 acres. The Airport proposed, and still is considering, the potential lease of about 400 acres west of the Airport for utilization by the ATA. The ATA rejected the offer because this site was too small.

Over the last two and a half years, the City and the Airport have continued to work with the ATA to develop a smooth transition to a new site. In 2001, the ATA settled on a site in Illinois and began working on a relocation plan that would see the last ATA Grand American Shoot in 2003 or 2004. The Airport has discussed an offer to purchase the approximately 59 acres of land owned by the ATA with the participation of FAA grant funds. There are environmental issues that seem manageable, once the ATA removes debris and removes specified lead shot.

To date, the City of Dayton and the Airport have not asked the ATA to leave. Neither previous Airport Directors nor the previous City Managers told the ATA to leave or that the lease would be ended. The ATA has recognized the potential for Airport expansion and the ATA has been involved with the Master Planning process. The ATA and the City of Da/Dayton formerly included the provision in the lease that allows for notice that approximately 76 trap sites could be taken out of service. The Airport Director and other Airport staff have occasionally met with the Executive Committee and the ATA Board relative to the relocation issues and the potential for the offer to purchase the ATA land. Recently, Airport Director Blair Conrad and Chief of Engineering/Planning and Environmental Dave Mason met with members of the ATA Executive Committee and the Executive Director to discuss an extended timetable for the final move so as to allow additional time to reconsider the future. As this time, I am communicating my concurrence with this timetable and unless unforseen circumstances arise which require earlier termination of the lease, it [is] our opinion that the Grand American Trapshoot can occur at Dayton International Airport through 2005.

The ATA must come to some resolution of its vision for the future for your organization. Within this time frame, if annual events are to continue, the City of Dayton and the Airport are ready to assist in any way we can to support your effort.

A letter of intent is being prepared for your consideration that would address the issues relative to the lease cessation and the purchase of the ATA property by the City of Dayton. This is not intended to be notice of the lease cessation, since that may be given sometime in 2004.

The City’s Director of Aviation [Blair Conrad] is designated as our contact person relative to these issues. If I can be of any further assistance with this matter, please let me know.

Sincerely,

/S/
John Thomas Interim City Manager

cc: Members of the City Commission Mr. Blair Conrad

Mr. Dave Mason
Ms. Irene Porter - FAA, Detroit

.................................................. QuestionsfromtheDirectors

Upon concluding his remarks, Mr. Conrad inquired if there were any questions from the Floor. New York Director Patrick McHugh asked for clarification as to how many of our West end fields would be lost subsequent to the 2005 Grand American Tournament. Mr. Conrad referred attention to “Page 2" of his


handouts which depicted the Proposed Rental Car Facility Relocation and Runway Extension. The Dayton Airport manager reiterated that we will lose approximately thirty (30%) percent of the West end fields shortly after the 2005 Grand and ultimately up to forty (40%) percent by 2006. By that time “hopefully” we will be in transition to the “West end property.” Mr. Conrad also mention that the “regional shoot” (referring to the Ohio State Trapshooting Championships) “should not be a problem for the immediate future.”

[Mr. Conrad’s reference to the “West end property” is approximately four hundred (400) acres located on Fredericks Pike / Dog Leg Road West of the Airport. This property has been presented to and discussed with the ATA Relocation Committee. The FAA has stated that Dayton Airport should dispose of excess property (utilizing a “compatible use purpose”) that is held in their real estate inventory for which they have no immediate need (this particular property has been categorized as excess by the FAA). It was revealed that the property has been appraised for Ten Thousand ($10,000.) Dollars per acre and that if they (DIA) were to dispose of the property it has to bring at least ninety (90%) percent of the appraised value. It was noted that they 'could' sell for less than the indicated number but the “negative balance” would be deducted from other available grant funds. It is the present intention of the Relocation Committee to further investigate this possibility and the Board of Directors will be kept advised accordingly]

Director McHugh asked if any consideration by the Dayton Airport was given to relocating the runway to the North? Mr. Conrad responded that they are trying to minimize the impact to the area and the environmental (noise issues) impact is far greater to the North. Mr. Conrad continued that when we stop shooting (subsequent to 2005) that he is quite confident that we can reach a settlement that is cost effective to the ATA. Mr. Conrad further intimated that we are currently depositing approximately two hundred (200) tons of lead and other debris on the property that will eventually have to be removed in some form or fashion. This comment refocused attention, again, to a direct reference to the proposed sale and lease back of the “lead fall zone” that would work to limit our exposure and enable the Dayton International Airport to contractually assume the remaining responsibility (i.e., continuing legal liability).

Central Zone Vice President Thomas E. Acklin wanted to know if we could continue to use the East end portion of the property. Blair Conrad stated that “everything is negotiable” but eventually the DIA will impact the East end portions of the property. He stated that the FAA will insist that they resolve “outstanding issues,” (referencing the Runway Safety Area (RSA)).

Mr. Conrad addressed a question from the audience pertaining to further information on the Master Plan. He advised that anyone interested in reading and viewing more detailed information on the issue can access the information on the DIA Web site. It is very comprehensive and updated quite frequently.

Another question from the audience prompted the following comments: “we (DIA) have not mentioned a specific “move by date.” But, you (ATA) are going to have impacts that will affect your ability to have a shoot under your present venue and configuration. Mr. Conrad further note that you have a “longer window open for your relocation efforts” ... he suggested that we use it productively.

Mr. Blair Conrad concluded his remarks by stating that there will be a continuing dialog among the Relocation Committee, the ATA Executive Committee and the Dayton International Airport officials. He, again, urged that serious consideration be given to the available West end property even though it might require a dual line concept. He expressed his certainty that if we could not presently purchase the property; a significant long term lease, or lease option to purchase, is a distinct possibility from his perspective.'

Note four things:

'VIII 'Relocate Amateur Trapshooters [sic] Association."

"SALE/PURCHASE OF ATA PROPERTY AUGUST 15, 2002"

"Another question from the audience prompted the following comments: “we (DIA) have not mentioned a specific “move by date.” But, you (ATA) are going to have impacts that will affect your ability to have a shoot under your present venue and configuration. Mr. Conrad further note that you have a “longer window open for your relocation efforts” ... he suggested that we use it productively.

"Last Grand American Trapshoot at DAY [Vandalia] 08/05"

And most telling

"As this time, I am communicating my concurrence with this timetable and unless unforseen circumstances arise which require earlier termination of the lease, it [is] our opinion that the Grand American Trapshoot can occur at Dayton International Airport through 2005.

And it did.

N1H1

 

I assume you're kidding.

The A.T.A. started looking for a new location back in the 1970s around the same time Mr. Fineup offered to donate his Linn Creek, Missouri property. His offer was rejected.

Many times the A.T.A. was informed about locations in Ohio, some in close proximity to Vandalia. I'm not sure if these locations received a fair review.

The criteria necessary to pass the due diligence test was 2 miles of land in a straight line, unobstructed background, minimum depth of a half mile, situated so traps can face north, land must be located near a major metropolitan city (preferably no more than 20 miles away), serviced by major airlines and highways, and boasting ample motel, hotel and entertainment facilities.

In 1998, an ATA press release said they would be thrilled to stay in the Dayton area but did not want to inhibit their search or limit their scope. No locations were identified at that time.

A little effort to research will show that Ohio did attempt to locate suitable land for the A.T.A. as did Airport officials. Offers were made but the A.T.A., lacking the finances to purchase land and construct a new homegrounds, sought to find a State government willing to "provide financial assistance, community support, adequate facilities and appropriate transportation." In essence, they wanted somebody else to pay for most of a $15 - $20 million dollar shooting facility.

Anyone who says Ohio made little or no effort to keep the A.T.A. in the Buckeye State is being untruthful.

HB

 

Good stuff ol'N1H1 ...... The money grabbing leaders of the ATA WANTED to move, and just had the Airport purpose things that NEVER HAPPENED, and NEVER WOULD ......

"Construct a new interchange with Interstate 75." ...... "Reroute US 40 (National Road) around the Runway 6R extension." ...... "Relocate and realign Old Springfield Road parallel to Runway 6L." ...... "Reroute Ginghamsburg-Frederick Road around the Runway 18 expansion." ...... "Construct a west by-pass connector road and miscellaneous connector roads." ...... How close can public "traffic" drive around "active runways" ??????

You would have to remove every business along a large stretch of "US 40", to "Reroute US 40 (National Road) around the Runway 6R extension." ......

 

N1H1 I said to you " You can bet that if the airport wanted the ATA gone, it would be in writing."

Not only did the Airport and Vandalia want the ATA to stay they made an offer for more property.

Mr. Blair Conrad (Airport) concluded his remarks by stating...….
1.He, again, urged that serious consideration be given to the available West end property

2 He expressed his certainty that if we could not presently purchase the property; a significant long term lease, or lease option to purchase, is a distinct possibility

Nowhere in the BS you wrote, copied, pasted, etc does it say the ATA has to leave the property it owned. And nowhere is a letter written to the ATA saying you must vacate your property.

 

N1H1....the Airport went so far as to imply the east end property issues were resolvable.

Central Zone Vice President Thomas E. Acklin wanted to know if we could continue to use the East end portion of the property. Blair Conrad stated that “everything is negotiable” but eventually the DIA will impact the East end portions of the property. He stated that the FAA will insist that they resolve “outstanding issues,”

He did not say they were unresolvable issues and actually implied the opposite.

If you closely read the context of the copied and pasted crap by N1H1 you can see the ATA has clearly told the airport we have plans to move. The airport is offering ways to stay. At that point many of the 2012PULL creeps are already within the hierarchy of the ATA..

 

Looks like the close runway was about 370 feet from the firing line.

 

Read closely N1H1 post......

the City of Dayton and the Airport have not asked the ATA to leave. Neither previous Airport Directors nor the previous City Managers told the ATA to leave or that the lease would be ended.

Doesn't sound like Vandalia is kicking the ATA out of town.

 

""As this time, I am communicating my concurrence with this timetable and unless unforseen circumstances arise which require earlier termination of the lease, it [is] our opinion that the Grand American Trapshoot can occur at Dayton International Airport through 2005."

N1H1

 

But...but...but ebsurveyer! Shot travels 600 feet or so! Your calculation must be wrong; cfandg has already explained to us

""shoot toward an active airport and actually leaving shot on runways"

What idiot would say that? If shot traveled over a mile or 2. LOL other than N1H1?"

that it must be a mile or 2. He can't be so ill-informed, can he?

N1H1

 

So, how far was it from ATA OWNED property to the closest "runway" ?????? ol'N1H1 ......

 

History Buff:

If azco was kidding; it was in very poor taste. He posted that in some other thread a time ago. I happen to think he believes what he wrote or is smoking some of that CO legal marijuana. If what you posted and what N1H1 posted fail to get him back to reality....

I appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Conrad of the airport. It may very well have been instrumental in the ATA having the extra time it had. I just wish those in positions of authority in the ATA had made better use of the time and found a better solution to the relocation question. I should add Ohio was more of a drive for me than Sparta.

I do not know why the powers at the time ignored many of the parameters set forth in the original set of criteria in selecting Sparta. If I recall correctly; the Indiana proposed site would have required a dual line. Maybe I remember incorrectly.

I do recall a great deal of opposition to Amarillo. I think the opposition to Amarillo was fair. I do not recall what other factors knocked out the Indiana alternative from consideration. I think Sparta continues to have many shortcomings when contrasted with the originally stated desireable qualities sought.

 

This is a false narrative, there was NO "extra time", because the ATA could use their OWNED property until "zoning" or some other force changed.

Again, this is false propaganda created by those seeking to profit from a MOVE, NOTHING MORE .....

 

How about ol'N1H1 posting the "cease and desist letter" from some entity with enforcement powers, giving a actual "comply by date" .....

And Stop promoting the false narrative that the ATA was given "extra time" to continue legal use of their OWNED property ...

How about it ol'N1H1 ...... Who gives a damn what someone may have said in some "meeting", show everyone where the proper "law enforcement" was going to "lock the gates" on ?????? date ........

Does anyone have a clue what the "infrastructure" cost would be that was proposed in ol'N1H1's BULLSHIT post ?????

 

Where is the get out of Vandalia letter N1H1? The fact that you posted all the above without that shows what a queerly deceptive person you are. Very strange. jmho

 

The rumor that Ohio did nothing to keep the ATA and Grand American tournament has been spread for years and many people just simply chose to believe it instead of doing a little research.

It's one of those stories like the one about the Vandalia location (in 1923) did not have the necessary amenities for consideration and the fact that each year at the Grand all the tents proved this theory. Totally bogus view and ATA minutes prove that Vandalia met all the important criteria.

Mr. Conrad, who as I recall was very sick and the ATA wanted his involvement. He was tough but fair from what I was told and ATA officials believed they would come out better by negotiating with him. As it was stated above, Mr. Conrad's influence was very helpful to the ATA and as a result, land reclamation was kept to a minimum and the ATA was fortunate to walk away with over $2 million on the sale of the property.

As I stated, the ATA was searching for a new location back in the 1970s. Shortly after announcing their intent to relocate from Vandalia, the City of Dayton offered a lease extension till 1994 and additional airport land (24.01 acres) west of the practice traps for $55 per acre annually. This would allow for an expansion to 91 trap fields. The lease offer also included the option for another 44.76 acres on the west side of the airport entrance road which could be exercised at anytime up till 1994 and the 1974 price. I believe this was the land Dayton offered during the relocation talks in the early 2000s.

Relocation efforts stopped and the ATA decided on expansion instead.

Relocation activity started up again about 1998.

After investigating about 40 locations, the Relocation Committee narrowed the field to just 3; Sparta, IL; Amarillo, and Shelbyville, IN. The E. C. recommended Sparta, IL with Shelbyville, IN as the alternate. The BOD eliminated Shelbyville, IN site. The BOD then selected Sparta, IL with Amarillo, TX as the alternate if Sparta was found to fail the due diligence test.

Illinois retracted their Tax Incremental Funding (TIF) money offer of about $4 million and the ATA realized they could no longer afford the move.

Illinois decided to construct the WSRC as a State-owned property. The rest is history.

Again, ATA officials were well aware of the decline in attendance at Sparta even though members of the Relocation committee openly stated that the membership should not consider the lack of amenities or the long drive from home as it was not of great importance.

​

 

Here ol'N1H1, just for you, the King of all BULLSHIT ......

"Sophistry is the deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick someone or a false or untrue argument."

"An example of sophistry is when you use a fact in an argument to make your point even though you know the point is false." http://www.yourdictionary.com/sophistry

Unless you can provide that exact date the jack booted thugs were going to lock the ATA OWNED Home-ground gates for ever and ever ......People believing the ATA was given "extra time to move", is a double false narrative ...... They never had to "move", and was not under any "time pressure" to do so, if "moving" was in FACT the "best option" ......

 

I think the ATA did consider just using the East end of the Vandalia property and thought it might just cause more attendance than moving to another location.

HB

 

Bat: So you agree an Outgoing President that ONLY served 1 ONE year to get a $20,000 dollar gun, BULL SHIT.
What GOOD DID he do for the ATA, tell us, sold us a bill of goods, had us pay a $Million PLUS for a HORSE BARN
MUSEUM, on Ground we do not own, in an ANTI-GUN STATE. My blood pressure is rising now.

The Cardinal Owner OFFERED FREE LAND for the MUSEUM, but ATA F*cked us, I bet they got paid under the table w/2012PLL I heard the Incorporator of 2012PLL was ATA Kanasa Pres.

I do not know of any industry that gives $20,000 to a president that served ONE YEAR, A ONE year President is not a good option. Now you give me a guy like LEE IACOCOA that made $MILLIONS IN THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY. OK

NEVER Give US a man like Pres OBAMA that left office w/$Millions/Hilliary$ Multi Multi Millions should both be IN JAIL.

GB.....................................DLS

 

President Trump Gave his $400,000.00 salary to the Vets

GB...............................DLS

 

Obama's salary was $400,000 per year, yet after serving 8 years (8 x 400,000 = 3.2 Million) he amassed a fortune in excess of 40 Million, paid over 8 Million for the home they purchased ... ? Good investments, I think not ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I believe Neil said all Camping Spots were full, on the Bed Bugs / Centipede Thread then one of the campers drove all around the camping sites and said there were a LOT of vacancies.

GB................................DLS

 

Thanks for you efforts History Buff. You do a very good job with the historical matters. Folks who do good work are always appreciated by this nobody.

The FAA got pretty ugly with some airports after 9/11. Mr. Conrad (NRA member) and the City of Dayton (in consideration of economic impact) may have had some impact with the FAA of which we will never know.

I received a call from our local airport administrator in 2002 about a security matter. We are talking a General Aviation facility. There were no commercial airline passenger considerations involved.

I had worked for this fellow in his former occupation. I knew enough about him to know he was a straight shooter and did not react well to being pushed and shoved. He vented. He had a reputation for that as well.

He was caught in the middle of the City, his employer at the time, and the FAA. The FAA wanted various improvements in security infrastructure. The City did not want to pay for those arbitrarily mandated improvements. Guess who won!

Do I think the late Mr. Conrad and the City of Dayton were involved in some sort of conspiracy to get the ATA out? No, I do not. The DIA did not commision the work they presented through their representative for some sort of expensive charade.

Do I wish we were still there in Vandalia with the entire trap line? You bet. I have my 2005 commemorative coffee cup here somewhere. I think we shot 10 per post all of the big week.

 

Yea ..... what a shame it would have been for a bunch of shooters having to shoot on a few traps ..... when the ATA chose to have a few shooters shooting on a bunch of traps .....

Hey Doc ..... give ol'N1H1 a chance to post that "end date", before everyone gives him a chance to redirect the thread about other things ......

What say you ol'N1H1 ...... post that exact day the ATA had to get out of Vandalia .....

 

Some of us notice how many former Presidents and EC members shoot far fewer targets after their terms expire. One can easily draw parallels here.

 

Just Joe:

Do you think the EC, in whole or in part, would actually interact with the rank and file? They do not even wear matching shooting apparel in Sparta like they did in Vandalia. I suspect they have a real fear of being easily identified/recognized.

Transparency? Saving money? Elites fraternizing with the unwashed masses? The very thought of engaging in such activity would remind them of a Marlon Brando line from a particular movie: “the horror.”

 

Since Neil Winston was mentioned and the possibility of moving the ATA is on the horizon, this might be a good time to bump this.

Lots of history here for the ATA History challenged.