Neal Crausbay was the president that supported us

Neal Crausbay was the president that supported Competetive ATA shooting, In a letter to the shooters in Trap and Field May 18th 1995, he wrote: Minneso Delegate Neil Winston mailed each of you delegates a letter in which he attempts to "ENTICE" your support of his views by telling you it is "Us" "AGAINST THEM" the "EC"

Quote from Neal Crausaby in Trap and Field:

Can you imagine trying to determine if a target setting made under Neil Winston's choice of "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN A STRAIGHTAWAY FROM POSTS #1 AND #5" is legal or not.

What in the "WORLD" would be"SOMEWHAT LESS" be?

Where did his request for 44 yard doubles target (his first ballot) originate?

I will chime in here on this, Could it have come from Rob Taylor, who has been asking for that doubles target setting?

Neal Crausaby also told me in a private conversation, Where are they going to get all the trap help in Sparta? There is not enough school kids in that area.

How can you possibly trust Neil Winston when he goes to such extremes to get poor ATA target and angles rules changes?

You can learn a lot by reading the ATA minutes and your Honorable Neal Crausaby's Trap & Field letter.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Could DR.shortshot have somewhat less than a brain.

 

Federal,
Why would you even find it nesessary to make a comment like that ..? What good can come of it ..? WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Federal:This was a president who brought to our attention of certain delegates that wanted to circumvent the process of rule changes. W/O a president like this who loved trapshooting, wanted it competitive, Like Vic Reindeer, Kay Ohye, to name a few, and went out on his own and addressed it in Trap & Field so we shooters know who the good delegates were. It takes shooters like myself, Roger Coveleski, and WPT, who read T&F and are informed, and not be led down the path to have our sport dumbed down, and have target angles, and distances lessened, so anyone can break a good score, when in actuality they do not yet have the skill to break competitive targets.

I personally like the challenging wider angles and 50-52 yard targets.

When you have so many perfect scores, and the Grand Slams that are now over 500 I believe, as Vic Reindeers brought to our attention before his passing what was happening, along with Kay Ohye also speaking as a leader in trapshooting ability, supporting the wider angles,0-52 yard targets. It costs the clubs money for the long shootoffs, and the possibility of overtime, which is money that club could have earned as a profit.

If you are not man enough to shoot competitive targets, you best need to shoot skeet, or play marbles w/kids where you can have an advantage.

I personally want to thank Neal Crausbay from the Great State of Texas for his attempt to keep the ATA shooters informed

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Unfortunately while all this was going on the ordinary shooter while most had read what was going on did not really understand what this was all about. Most ordinary shooters and this included many of the delegates who would eventually vote on the issue were told this would be an improvement in target presentation while narrowing the extreme angles and distance for doubles targets would not diminish the quality of the target presentation. How wrong this information was. I believe that this misreprenentation especially to many of the delegates is what got us to where we are today.

 

Olde, the Delegates had a year and a half experience with straightaway from 1 and 5 before the August 1996 in which they approved 34 degree targets. I can't why imagine you think that they didn't know what they were voting for.

By the way, before you canonize Past-President Crausbay, whom Gary quoted as writing "Can you imagine trying to determine if a target setting made under Neil Winston's choice of "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN A STRAIGHTAWAY FROM POSTS #1 AND #5" is legal or not," I suggest you do this. My letter is posted here about half-way down in the "part 2 - evolution of of flights angles thread. Copy it , paste it into word, and do a search for "somewhat." In other words, I wonder, where did that quote come from? It may have been in a cover latter or something; I don't know. But here's the point. Clearly, the tenor of the quote is that my suggestion to the Delegates was too vague to be used.

It was not.

Here's my text. "Enclosed with this letter are two ballots. The first proposes changing the rulebook regarding target angles. Right now a gun club would have to hunt up a copy of the Winchester V1524C trap manual to know what we really intend to require of them. Let’s tell them directly: the minimum setting is the No. 2 hole or the minimum setting is the No. 3 hole. Cast your vote for whichever you think is in the best interest of trapshooting."

What's unclear about that? It's perfectly clear to me, just as I intended to make it. The choice was between the two or three hole. What's to misunderstand? Why did Past-President Crausbay suggest otherwise?

N1H1

 

N1H1, The truth of the matter is that many of the delegates DID NOT FULLY REALIZE (no matter what you think) as they did not understand what they were voting on. I and many others talked to many delegates after this vote in 1996 and this is what I base my information on. This is not meant as any disrespect to anyone involved with the 1996 vote.

 

If their intention was to remove the sporting part of the game they succeeded. I have to believe some had to be confused.

That being said I ask you H1N1......Are you happy with your lifetime achievement now? Are these the results you wanted? Would you now accept being inducted into a HOF where they honored this highlighted achievement?

This is an opportunity to attempt to walk this back.

 

Well, I don't know why they didn't, olde. The motion was the same as in 1995 and they had a year to think about it. It had been the talk of the ATA for a year and a half. I had sent every one of them (except for the new ones in 1996) a letter, posted here, that they should have understood and if they didn't they could have asked me. After every motion there is a period called "Discussion" when unclear elements can be explained, positions taken, one side or the other supported. If they still didn't know what was happening, I don't know how they could have been helped. Or how they found their way to the meeting.

Do you think Past-President's Crausbay's article, glued into Trap & Field as the first page, is a fair representation of my position?

N1H1

 

These votes were no secret, guys. They were scheduled to happen in August 1995 and 1996. Where were you? Why didn't you clue your Delegate in? Make him understand the situation? Both Ohio and Pennsylvania did vote for the narrower target both years after all. By the way, who is the "3-hole" candidate you are trying to get elected this year? The one we were told about earlier here? I thought this site would be his or her platform, you guys his or her campaign staff. but ..... Well?

N1H1

 

Again H1N1 your hubris and arrogance is on display. FYI it is not a positive trait. You are right as I stated earlier. Undoing what got you a lifetime achievement award will be difficult.

Again I ask you?

Are you happy with your lifetime achievement now? Are these the results you wanted? Would you now accept being inducted into a HOF where they honored this highlighted achievement?

 

Neil

It is a yes or no question?

 

Is it possible some state delegates were "clued in" yet voted for the 34 degree angles against their constituents wishes?

HAP

 

This thread is not about me, FG, and the rules here prevent us both from straying from the thread's subject. It is about Past-President Crausbay and, apropos of that, the quote Gary attributed to him. Can you find his words in my letter? Do you think that " "Enclosed with this letter are two ballots. The first proposes changing the rulebook regarding target angles. Right now a gun club would have to hunt up a copy of the Winchester V1524C trap manual to know what we really intend to require of them. Let’s tell them directly: the minimum setting is the No. 2 hole or the minimum setting is the No. 3 hole. Cast your vote for whichever you think is in the best interest of trapshooting." is unclear? What is not clear about it? How did any Delegate read that and not know what he or she was voting for?

Of course they understood the whole thing. They voted for what they saw as being in the best interests of the ATA, as the By-Laws ask of them. The three-hole lost. There have passed 19 years in which opponents could have launched a reversal, but nothing has been done. The subject has never appeared in the minutes, never been brought up in any meeting I've been to.

You guys just type. You never do anything. But gripe.

Who will be Ohio's 3-hole candidate for election in a couple of weeks?

N1H1

 

Well, Hap, then the constituents were not effective in convincing him or her. Another example on not getting stuff done while others were. You have had 19 years. Opponents of the two-hole have yet to raise even a ripple. Are you ever going to get organized? That's what it's going to take, after all. What, specifically, are your plans? If you personally have no plans, what should others be doing, other than what I've advised, that is.

N1H1

And, of course, Delegates are not charged with anything but acting, as they see it, in the best interests of the ATA.

 

See that was easy...

It is in the context of what delegates understood and or regret. Or what you understood the outcome would be.

So I ask you again the same question....

Are you happy with your lifetime achievement now? Are these the results you wanted? Would you now accept being inducted into a HOF where they honored this highlighted achievement?

 

I don't think that was the case at all with the delegate I know personally that acted on his own and voted his way instead. He didn't know much more of our shooting history than you did when you began your crusade to adopt this rule bending practice either.

HAP

 

Paging H1N1

A mod gave you permission to answer the question.

 

I just do not believe NW can answer a straight forward question, he has to use graphs, and partial information to arrive at a specific mis-leading answer that is off topic.
DLS

 

I think over the years there has been a substancial loss of creditability from so many things coming out on a multitude of issues ... Manipulation of words does not excuse or alter what was said and or the meaning of same ... The ATA is in trouble because of such actions over the many years and yet it continues ... If there are no MAJOR changes do not expect any MAJOR different results ... There are many questions that go unanswered dating back to the days of Vandalia, so do not expect any progress in the future ... The EC and BOD (Majority) feel they do not have to answer to the members, until that changes think "Hell in a handbasket" ... Anyone caught being a part of any illegal activities against the members(Association) should be procecuted to the fullest extent of the law ... The members should offer a bounty on anyone that can be proved to be a part of Illegal activities and or stealing from the organization (Members) in anyway at anytime, past, present, or future so they can stand trial and be made to pay ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

WPT I think the missing Traps would qualify for stealing at this point in time, There is no answer where they went.
Is that a qualification of Stealing? Someone profited in traps which were worth over $7,000 each total of over $56,000. I wonder if we can find out the serial numbers of those traps.

I wonder if Pat Traps the mfgr. has those serial numbers? Also where did they deliver, or ship those traps to?

There has to be documentation of them.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot