Not the ATA - It's OVER HANDICAPPED DELEGATES see list. (about hard targets)

The problem of sissy targets is not repairable as long as we have "over handicapped delegates." I will give you names and states one at a time, yardage, and average. Help here is welcomed.

With averages like these what are the chances we go back to the 3 hole target setting?

 

MISSISSIPPI - LEN SAWYER
86 average from the 25. Do you think a fellow from MS is looking for harder targets? They pushed for easier yardage.

 

RHODE ISLAND - LOUIS DIPRETE
87 average from the 27. Do you think this delegate will vote for harder targets?

 

MONTANNA - JAMES JONES
79 average from the 23. Harder targets?

 

Do not stop now, keep listing them. Roger C.

 

Arizona - JOHN BERGMAN
87 Average from the 26.5 and that is mostly with "out west backgrounds." Who wants to bet this delegate does not bring up the idea of making the targets more sporting?

 

NEW MEXICO - ROBERT LEIBEL
81 Average from the 27. Up from last year's 79. Who out there thinks he is under challenged? And that average isn't on Ohio's or PA backgrounds.

 

So, you are trying to average shame ATA delegates? Clearly, they refuse reductions so that they can shoot with their friends, and do not care about their average. Are you suggesting that practice should be discontinued?

 

I think what he's also saying they'll never vote for a thirty line either because their personal prestige factor will be lost.

 

Wonder if they would like to shoot their inflated yardage if there was compulsory purses?

 

HistoryBuff is always asking me why the delegates don't step in and fix the EC and ATA's problems, as Smithy is showing they are the problem.

Yes TomK, when the need to "Shoot with your friends" is more important than the sport and its future the practice should be stopped. Brad Dysinger

 

Need more....?

ALABAMA - FRED JENSEN
74 average from the 25.5. Do you think Fred would vote for a sporting 3 hole target? In 9 years he hasn't had an average much over 84.

 

KANSAS - DAVID RHOADS
78 average now from the 27. That average is with a perfect KS background. A vote for him is for sporting targets? He is even on the Central Handicap Committee.

The last time David Rhoads shot over 91 was 2013.

 

It's all Neil Winston's fault!

 

MINNESOTA - MARK STEVENS
85 average from the 27 last year.

 

Thats just plain pathatic!

 

When the delegates will not make a change it is time to change delegates. Only the shooters can take back the ATA. When honorable men do nothing the system will be flawed. Roger C.

 

Don't stop now!

 

GEORGIA - RICHARD GRIFFITH is now sitting on an 82 average from the 25.

His averages are going down. Will he vote for the 3 hole targets?

 

SOUTH CAROLINA - JAMES FABER averaging 80 from the 26.

Would the old 3 hole targets help his average? Would he take a reduction? How would he vote?

 

NEBRASKA - JOHN BURKE 85 average last year on 4,000 targets.

 

Username by name of "Garry" wrote the following on anther thread.
And one's handicap average should not disqualify a shooter from being on the handicap committee, the EC or the directory as suggested in another thread.
Garry.....
You have missed the point of the thread. It is about the delegates making decisions that will help themselves not the sport. The delegate with an 81 average isn't looking forward to going back to the 3 hole setting even if it is for the best of the sport. None of the delegates so far that have been listed can compete at their yardage. They all are refusing reductions and don't want to be further embarrassed. In the meantime the handicap system stays broken.

I will give you more names and averages if needed. Let me know Garrry.

 

OK Smithy, I have changed my wording.

And one's handicap average should not disqualify a shooter from being a delegate or being on the handicap committee, the EC or the ATA director.

 

Dang Garry.....you still don't get it.
Where is WPT's toaster?
Show me where the post says it disqualifies someone. It might imply how they may be disposed to vote against a subject such as a target setting that is best for the sport but bad for them.

It may show why they have not been putting the issue up for a vote.

 

IOWA - HEATH J KASPERBAUER
27yardline - his scores at the WSRC range from a 72 to 92. He cant compete at the 27 with 2 hole targets. Who thinks this delegate will vote to return to the 3 hole setting if it is in the best interest of the sport?

 

More, bring it on!

 

Smithy, trust me, I get it. Many of the above posts are based on pure speculation on what a delegate would or would note vote for.

 

'dawg all the same......
PENNSYLVANIA - SKIP KLINGER Shoots from the 27 average 85.
PA has tough targets. That hurts the average. Even more reason to turn down a better setting. And FYI, he helps run one of the best shoots on the planet.

 

It is only "speculation as to the "future". None of the above have pushed for a return to a setting that would help the handicap system. The past is "fact".

 

"SPECULATION"? Just for giggles...how would you speculate the 81 average from the 27 would vote. Feel free to use your own metric.

 

None of these guys mentioned will ever have hopes of making it to the "30".

 

Most should be shooting 20-23

 

NEW YORK - DAVID CICHELY 82 average this year from the 26. That is down a little from last year. How would he vote this year?

 

Why speculate, ask you delegate.

 

If you can't shoot scores in the low to mid 90's a

So you're speculating these guys might vote for the "30" when they can't shoot from the 27? Please!

 

Yeah except for one thing.

There isn't a roll call vote on the record. This is done so no one is held accountable for their votes. Your delegate can say

"yeah I pushed for those sporting wider targets cause I knew it would fix the handicap system. Those other guys wouldn't record the vote or discussions. Vote me in again. I'll try again next year."

"I also asked for another investigation of Pull2012. Gotta put them bastards in jail. Like I said. We'll get'em next year.

 

If someone on the EC can't hold an average on his yardage why wouldn't they vote for a 30yd? It wouldn't matter to them. And what you think 3hole 30yd targets will make the sport better?

 

Of course it would matter to them. The problem is ego-they're simply pretending to be competitive with Harlan while not playing a dime in options. They'll soon realize they're in way over their heads at the old fence and there's no longer any prestige hanging at a yardage where they stink. I certainly believe the 30 yd. line is needed for those shooters carrying far higher handicap averages than the typical singles shooter.

 

Standing on the same yardage with Harlan is not being competitive! Do you really think that's the reason they want to stay there? Add 3yrs and in a short to me Harlan will be there still winning!

 

Well, at least you finally admit there are shooters who are not sufficiently handicapped at the 27. Good for you. Now what do you propose we do about it? That's what I thought-nothing.

 

They would not vote for a three hole setting. I don't understand why people have to explain this to you. New to the forum?

 

Then this is a major flaw in the current rules. The votes cast by every delegate, the EC and the ED, regardless of subject, should be posted on the ATA website no later than 10 work days after the voting. In my opinion this should be priority number 1. Without this rule change, the light at the end of the tunnel is very dim and getting dimmer by the day.

To those that knows the rules better than I do, is is possible for the membership to directly petition the EC and ED requesting this rule change via a petition signed by thousands of shooters?

 

Would it do any good to have MANDATORY reductions ?

Allow 1 decline at the yardage, and if the shooter cannot come up with scores to stay there, then reduce him/her at the next 1000 target review.

Just an idea that would probably never fly.

 

Why would it help for the "membership to directly petition the EC and ED", to change the "actions" of the "EC and ED", when "they" are the "problem" that needs the "correction" ?????

To date, there has not been a way for any type of "self-correction" to "happen" .....

 

Garry,
The delegates do not represent the members, their job is to inform the members of the EC's directives, this is by their own statements. The members are only informed of actions of the EC on a need to know basis. This is also by their own statements. There is no pathway in the bylaws for the membership to negate anything the EC institutes into the organization.Read them and then comment again. Roger C.

 

FWIW,the pathway in the bylaws for members to negate anything the EC institutes is through the BOD. The BOD has final say, they can overrule the EC.

That said, if thousands and thousands of members really want 3 hole targets, why isn't anyone throwing them???? They are perfectly legal for ATA without any rule changes. Just do it instead of writing about it so much. When the option payoffs grow, maybe we will see more of it. You guys don't care about averages or All American points, same with thousands of others, so explain why you don't institute 3 hole targets at your shoots?

 

"the pathway in the bylaws for members to negate anything the EC institutes is through the BOD"

Damn "Bat" ..... there is no "bottom of the barrel" post for you ..... that is so stupid, it would be funny if someone else would have offered it .....

This ..... "so explain why you don't institute 3 hole targets at your shoots?" ..... Could be a much, much, much, better question, like ..... Why don't you institute 3 hole targets at your shoots, WITHOUT THE "ATA" ?????

 

Bat, I did not mention 3 hole targets. The EC will not let anyone or thing loosen their hold on the organization. The BOD is as worthless as tits on a bore hog. Most are of minimal intelligence or the EC would never have been able to get the strangle hold that it has on our organization. Wake up and get your head out of the sand. Roger C.

 

Smithy, why don't you post their singles and doubles averages also to be fair? The ATA now throws 40 yard doubles instead of the 50 yard ones they threw when the ATA had 100,000 members. Brad

 

Huh? Bat?
Did you say that?
The objective of the #3 hole in a Win Trap was to achieve the objective of the stated rule. Targets no less than a straightaway from post 1 and 5. So in a light wind from any angle the setting would accommodate the rule.
A 3 hole target would have been legal 10 degrees outside that. Are you saying that is a legal target setting today?

Taylor stopped a chain shoot for easier targets than that?

 

Well, if there is not a realistic way to get the ATA rules changed withing the current process, it appears to me like majority of ATA shooters should consider voting with their wallet, by not shooting ATA targets until the delegates, EC and the BOD agrees to change the rules and policies that need changing. My guess is the ATA leadership would raise the white flag if 80 percent of the current ATA shooters would stop shooting ATA targets from Jan,1, 2019 to Aug. 12, 2019. It might very well take a drastic action like this to save and grow the ATA.

 

Garry, Our hope is to change the mind set of the EC. Not to destroy the organization. If nothing else works then your suggestion should be answer to our problem. But take the idea one step farther and remove the whole upper management of the ATA. To quote THE DONALD, lets drain the swamp.
I'm have been a member for 44 years many of them as a life member, Have registered over 345,000 targets. The ATA is short changing their members, with their lack of fore sight. Roger Coveleskie

 

When I started shooting (45+) years ago the 27 yard line was a big deal. Generally not more than a squad of long yardage shooters at small local shoots in south central PA. The 70's were funny here in PA, some clubs threw 48 yard targets and some clubs threw 51 yard targets. A lot of shooters would not shoot the "hard" targets. IMO: We will never see a change from easier targets and more "points" for more categories. The current mentality is everyone's a winner. Thirty years ago Grand Trophies were a big big deal, now not so much. Someone should pull out a Grand Program from the 70's - 80's and compare the number of shooter & trophies for a Grand Handicap Event to the numbers available at last years Grand. Today the serious shooters are few and far between. Shooting is now secondary and where you are going for dinner or who's party you're going to is more important than shooting. Also, you gotta be long yardage to prove that you're a hellofa shot. The fact that you broke 84 in the days handicap is not important as most of you friends did no better.

 

Roger, I did not make any mention of you talking about 3 hole targets, just stated that the subject was being discussed here. Despite what you guys (that does not mean you specifically Roger) keep saying about wanting members to vote to put 3-hole targets back, the fact remains that a 3-hole target, or straight-away from 1 and 5 if you prefer, is perfectly legal at any ATA shoot today. I am still waiting for reports on someone that actually steps up and does it, sounds like many, many posters here want it...so just do it. Why spend time arguing about it?

Butterly, I was clear in what I wrote. Setting machines to throw straight aways from one and five is perfectly legal today. If the wind sends one significantly outside that, it is illegal and you don't shoot at it. Don't make excuses, just set 3 hole targets. You are within the rules and Taylor nor any EC member is going to be able to overrule you at your shoot. 100% shoot management decision. Stop typing and set the targets!

 

So in your infinite wisdom we would stand there and wait for legal targets? What idiot sets targets that way? And it would not have to be significantly outside that........isn't that right? And of course you knew that before your post.

How about a graph to show how many targets would be illegal with a 10 mph crosswind?

Where does it say we can set targets now at less than straightaways from 1 and 5 with a 10 mph crosswind and all targets will be legal? Please quote that. Include graph.

 

And Bat tell everyone what the difference is in the distance setting. Or as you say they are the same?

 

.

I agree.

Garry

 

With BAT's faux 3 hole you can just shoot the straights for number 2, 3, and 4. They would be the only legal targets. That would be close to the targets we shoot now.

 

Gee, You complain about not having 3 hole targets, are told 3 hole targets are legal and always have been, and now that's not good enough.You can clearly have 54 degree target spread, and likely could go further than that as the rule isn't written very precisely (note that 10% excess is not a hard limit (it is only an example of "significant"), it is not specifically applied against the minimum spread, but actually against your "normal" spread (which could be 44 degree) and remember 34 degrees is only the MINIMUM spread). So, if you set straight aways from 1 and 5 as your normal target distribution, who do you think is going to make you change them at your club, and on what grounds? Yeah, yeah, don't give me Taylor, he or any other EC has no say over what management chooses to throw as long as it is within the rules, and 44 degree (3 hole) targets are perfectly legal.

Of course, it seems some just like to type and not throw 3 hole targets. Seriously, everyone here seems to want 3 hole targets, just throw them and get it over with, nobody is going to call you out on it as being illegal. Now you are afraid of the wind making them illegal... geez just throw them and make everyone happy.

If any of you really don't understand this, write a letter to the ATA asking them if you can set your machine to throw 22 degrees right and left of center and still be legal. Then post the reply here.

 

Now you are making yourself foolish. As you noted the targets are only legal if they fall within your 2 hole standard.

What is normal distribution Neil? As long as the targets fall in the 2 hole distribution that would be normal?

 

Bat
Some would rather collect lifetime achievement awards like being instrumental in changing targets to the 2 hole setting. So are you happy with that outcome? Is that an award to be proud of?

How about a graph showing that?

 

Just to show how dumb your post was you added the above making the point the setting would be legal but the targets would not be legal.

 

Sounds like a fair question.

 

This is the place where Neil runs and hides from his own past. The question that never gets answered.

Some would rather collect lifetime achievement awards like being instrumental in changing targets to the 2 hole setting. So are you happy with that outcome? Is that an award to be proud of?

 

Here is a shocker.......

From Minnesota Neil Winston average over 83 percent from the caps. What argument do you expect from him?

 

What are you talking about??? What 2 hole standard??? I made no "note" that targets are only legal if they fall within some 2 hole standard, what are you talking about. 2 Hole is only a minimum setting. I have very clearly told you that a 3 hole target setting is perfectly legal, and a target can fall outside that setting and still be legal. What in the world is difficult to understand about that, and why do you want to argue against setting 3 hole targets??? Just do it!

FG, 2 hole target setting is no lifetime goal of mine, I really don't care about it much, other than all the typing that goes on over it. I personally don't think 3 hole targets are that big of a deal.

 

OK, let's get down to the real agenda! I believe most posters (not all) want the ATA to MANDATE a return to the old settings that were in the official rulebook for many years but often ignored. Some believe the rulebook now encourages much narrower target settings for which I now tend to agree. Others believe a wider setting is a panacea to right all ills with what's wrong with ATA trap and something I tend to disagree with. It's obvious the ATA is not willing to return to a mandated 3-hole setting for questionable reasons. Realistically, great Singles scores were pretty common on wider targets and today, with the many improvements in guns, shells, voice calls and orange targets, a wider target is probably meaningless.

That said, one of our local clubs throws pretty much a 3-hole target. Turnouts are quite good and the best shooters generally see little change in their personal scoring after a bit of adjustment. My personal opinion always was that clubs shooting against poor backgrounds or faced East and South should probably throw a 2 hole target. The only thing that really needs fixing is the broken handicap system that adding more yardage for top shooters can correct.

 

Of course you didn't. You said the setting was legal. It is the targets that would be illegal with a crosswind. 10 degrees outside the 2 hole standard would be legal, not so if they were 10 degrees outside the 3 hole.

 

Smithy posting Neil's "overhandicap yardage" must have hit a nerve with BAT. hmmmm

 

From Illinois, Lynn Gipson, is sitting on an 83 average this year. Altho he had a whopping 85 last year from the 25. Do you think the ATA Director is going to push for a return to 3 hole targets?

 

I would think that basing one's character and intent on shooting scores is a bit arbitrary. I would think an examination of voting record or perhaps inquiries of who they represent might be more indicative.
Our club installed a new Pat Trap 5 years ago, other that height and distance we made no changes. After following this thread at the shoot yesterday I made a point to watch birds from post 1 and 5..... absolute straight away targets. Walked over to another trap and watched....... same result. We have not experienced any complaints either from kids or "Pro's" about targets.
Has there been any Polls from ATA or any other organizations about shooter preference? Might be a good way to get a national "thread" going on the topic.....or perhaps its something that could be checked on a State organization level?? Larry

 

OK Larry I will bite since you missed the post, or ignored it, where it was explained there is no voting record! There will never be a voting record. The record is hidden. No one is accountable. How many more ways to explain it?

But when it comes to record - - no one has voted or pushed for the return to the old successful setting. It was changed under Neil 20 years ago. What more record do you need?

 

Larry,
Tens of thousands of the shooters have left since the handicap system was destroyed by the change. How many more polls do you need Larry?

 

Larry, glad to see someone is throwing 3 hole targets without getting shut down as some ardent posters here seem to believe.

Just throw those 3 hole targets and lets see what happens. Will shooters flock to your shoots because the money comes back? It will certainly take time. My guess...there won't be much change at all, but that is just my guess.

 

We throw the 3 hole targets for the meat shoots then have to reset the traps for Bat/Neil putz game called ata. We get more shooters for the meat games. ATA....dying dinosaur.....thanks to Neil/BAT.

 

Jim, why complain about it and go through the trouble of changing out of 3 hole targets if that is what you want?? Just throw 3 hole targets for ATA, perfectly fine under ATA rules. Nobody from the ATA is going to shut you down or disqualify your scores for throwing 3 hole targets.

 

Because we care a lot about our members and are not going to have them continuously turn down left and right angles because they are illegal with a cross wind. Turning down targets increases our cost. What a dumb ass statement? Like I said, our meat shoots throw the tuff targets...ATA throw your girly targets. Just not many.

And we are not complaining......it seems you are. Get over it. We throw fewer ata targets every year. Don't you?

 

QUEBEC - PETER GRANT (Delegate) 86 average from the 22. He has been shooting since '79.

 

Family guy, its obvious someone burned your toast this morning.....
I missed the post about voting record but I bet the individual state organization could ask "How did you vote?". If no one has "pushed for or voted for" changing back I suspect a state organization could force the issue? Get it on the agenda? Make it a topic of discussion? I did not ask for "More polls", I ask how many had their been. If it is important to make a change then somehow the discussion/vote/consideration must make it to the national level or it will never get to the table.....and it would seem direction to the state delegates is the way to make that happen.

Bat, we have never had even one comment about targets being too wide. Comments about height and speed and distance are about all we hear. Shoots in this area at other clubs are games, meat shoots and one or two 50/50/60 events. The largest club only has one ATA so they qualify for insurance and we host 2. We would do more but 20 to 25 shooters that would attend is basically a lot of effort with limited benefit..... I have been visiting with some area ATA shooters about having a few of the tiny (5) shooter events.... simple and inexpensive way to get registered birds and perhaps interest more to attend our 2 larger shoots..... seems many are going PITA as first choice...... Larry

 

Now Bat, I realize you weren't around the trapshooting world in the 70's when the 3-hole/2-hole argument began. I remember some clubs in our area cheated the rules while others remained steadfast in following the rulebook as printed. I also remember drilling and tapping 2.5 holes in those old Western plates. I recall one of the finest, best attended area ATA shoots that threw 3-hole targets and drew over 50 200 target squads on a Saturday. Today, they're lucky to draw 10 squads on 2-hole targets. Quite frankly, the average shooter today wouldn't know the difference and will stink regardless of what hole the machine is set. So, would you rather increase the difficulty factor for under-handicapped current back fencers with a wider target or add 3-yards of concrete?

 

Larry, thanks for some real-world observations on throwing 3-hole targets without getting shut-down. I am not surprised at all that you hear little or no complaints, as dawg said above, many, many shooters would not even know the difference unless you told them.

dawg, I don't care about 3-hole targets v 2 hole targets myself, I'm fine either way. As to handicap, I am in favor of the added yardage as opposed to other things mentioned. IMO 3 hole targets are going to do nothing to the best of the best shooters.

 

Larry .... you want it on the agenda. Laughing at your innocence. The delegates (BOD) are told they do not represent you. They represent the Corporation. Check this thread.......even at the OSTA. Delegate doesn't have to answer publicly.
http://www.americantrapshooter.com/...-property-committee-question.3864/#post-35644
You are not permitted at the big meeting and there is no record of BOD's individual votes. The closest you get to a national discussion is this forum. Enjoy it. It is the only one.

The last big poll that was paid for by the ATA was the poll as to where it move the Grand if anywhere. The ATA ignored that poll.

Welcome to ATA politics 101. FYI .... the advanced class is the same crap all over again.

 

Having watched the late Frank Little break 25 straight wobble targets using only one shot I'd say he wasn't affected by wider targets even a little.

 

Huh? The record shows Frank shot thousands of handicap targets at Vandalia's 3 hole targets and they chewed him up. He did well in the singles but like everyone else the caps chewed up the 27s.....3 perfect 100's in the GAH in 50 years from the 27.

Maybe dawg can post the years he won or had a perfect score at Vandalia. It wont happen.

 

"Has there been any Polls from ATA or any other organizations about shooter preference? Might be a good way to get a national "thread" going on the topic.....or perhaps its something that could be checked on a State organization level?? Larry"


The shooters we need to poll are not the ones that are still shooting ATA targets but rather all the ones that have stopped shooting registered targets. I think it would give us some very useful information if we could somehow reach the shooters that have elected to stop shooting registered targets. There are some on this forum that have elected to stop shooting registered targets and have told us why. I'm sure there are many different reasons but it would be nice to know if there was an underlying cause that a majority stated as a reason for not shooting ATA.


There is nothing the State Associations can do to influence the decisions of the ATA EC. When changes are made by the EC or the BOD a memo is sent to the secretaries of the various State Associations letting them know what has changed. The ATA does not consult with the State Associations regarding proposed changes. Its a one way pipeline from the ATA out to the State Associations. Each State has an ATA Delegate that is a member of the ATA B.O.D. but they typically only meet once a year during the Grand American tournament.

 

Ditto to what Don Cogan said but also note the BOD voted away most of their power to the EC. Good luck with talking to your delegate. He gets a free ride to the WSRC.

 

Don, the term dysfunctional comes to mind.........
Lets see now..... national association where all power lays with the EC? BOD gave EC any power it might have had? national association sends its EC/BOD decisions to the state organizations and says "this is the way it is"? state delegates are "pawns" on the take for a free trip?
My terribly under average handicap scores are preventing me from understanding this..... Perhaps I qualify for the BOD or EC group??? Low as they are I could easily shave off a few more..... matter of fact I did that yesterday without even trying.
No wonder some other associations are on the increase while ATA is diminishing...... Larry

 

Maybe you should also remember how many changes were made after that time period to make back yardage shooting far easier. Try voice callers, quality, fitted recoil reducing stocks and hot handicap loads. I'm sure, a younger Frank, if alive today, would do quite well. If you spent any time at the fence in those days you'd understand.

 

At any time our way overhandicapped delegates could vote to return to the successful 3 hole or the EC could do it alone. Who knew these guys were so bad at trapshooting? One hole is next?

 

Don, 70 Thousand fewer ATA members today than 1981, I'd say the vast majority of Registered shooters have already expressed themselves. Throw in the 2500 shooters who no longer attend the grand, add to that the number of gun clubs that have either closed or quit shooting registered targets and we get the Fantastic Direction that Lynn Gibson was so proud to talk about a couple of years back.

Don you idea makes too much sense for the AAA million shooter categories crowd that is the ATA today. Neil should be so proud he got what he wanted. Brad

 

Or, as so plainly put to me:

Membership will be notified on a need to know basis.

 

And that does say it all Brad's friend.
A question for you.... other than using site's like this to voice opinion how would one go about making changes meaningful to the sport? Is there any avenue or path? Appears to be very similar to Oregon politics.... Liberals are in control on the West side of the state, Conservatives pretty much live East of Portland and have little or no say in anything. Larry

 

Larry,
Sounds like you are talking about the State of Illinois, Cook County (Chicago) runs and makes the rules for the rest of the state like it or not ... The politicians from every where else in the State will do anything to be recognized by the Politicians from Cook County (Chicago) or get it stuffed down their throats and have to do it any way ...
The ED, EC tell the BOD what to do and when to do it or else ... Its been that way for way to long and that has cost the association its appeal so they lose members faster than the little clubs all across America can replace them ... The State of Illinois is known for its corruption, the ATA ED, EC and many on the BOD fit right in ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Brad,
Those 70,000 shooters are the ones the ATA needs the information from. I agree that they have expressed themselves by not shooting registered, but exactly why they stopped is what the EC and B.O.D. should be interested in. I suspect if we could gather that info we would find many different reasons. Some have passed on or their health no longer allows them to participate. My guess is we would also find many reasons that can be traced back to the changes made by the governing body over the years. For example, if someone says they no longer shoot ATA because the money options no longer pay good enough to justify the risk. Or they used to shoot enough targets each year so they could shoot the Grand without penalty, but they no longer attend the Grand so they stopped shooting altogether. Some might say that the handicap system is not working fairly and they feel they have no chance against the "Pros". I know you and I have heard many others reasons. I feel many of the reasons can be traced back to making the targets easier while at the same time improving things such as voice releases and faster shells. I doubt we would hear a shooter say "I stopped because the targets are too easy". Well, Dr. Longshot might say that but if the softer targets didn't have a negative impact on the money options or attendance I doubt he would have cared. The problem is these gradual changes that have been made over the years have had a cumulative effect on the scores needed to win, money options and eventually participation. It didn't happen overnight, it took many years to get where we are now. I know your not a big fan of the Virus, but I doubt he would have pushed for the changes if he knew it would lead to a 70% decline in membership.

 

Larry,

I found that making any constructive suggestion was always met with controversy.

Thus to answer your question, this is the only place that one can "suggest" and see if that suggestion may have merit.

I gave up, and now go to clubs, shoot for FUN, and don't bother to register targets.

I will paraphrase one member who always says something like this, "I didn't give up on the ATA, The ATA gave up on me"

 

That seems to be the consensus. It seems that an adversarial relationship is mostly what exists between shooting and the ATA on a national level and at least in Oregon at the state level also..... PITA which has almost exactly the same rules and is a growing organization "out here" and seems to be a shooter friendly bunch.... My son (very good with a gun) refuses to shoot ATA.. I shoot a few because some shooters from other area's attend our little shoots.....
Worthy organizations are those folks feel comfortable being part of..... not usually the ones you have to fight to understand of struggle for inclusion....... Larry

 

I think he was the first 27 yarder to tie for the Grand American Handicap Championship (99).

When I started shooting in 1972 Frank Little moved to the town I lived in, Mechaniscborg PA. I probably shot more targets on Frank's squad than any other shooter. I need to make some comments.

Can you say AMMO? Frank always shot Remington and before 1987 their ammo sucked. I don't remember any other big guns, back then, that shot Remington. In 1987 Remington started sending some good ammo to Frank. His average jumped that year & stayed up. The last six full years Frank shot his handicap average was about 3% higher than it had been, with one 100 straight. Frank and I discussed, several times, how the NEW Remington ammo had changed handicap shooting. For those same six years Frank's average was 0.8% higher than Leo's & Kay's. Considering that Frank shot lots of targets in the Eastern Zone I would say he did OK. My guess is he would have done very well with the easier targets & voice releases.

 

I always considered it amazing when Frank broke the scores he did with that garbage Remington ammo. They never patterned worth a crap in my guns.

 

You could not buy Frank's ammo until you got to the grand. The ammo manufacturers put the hot loads aside for their shooters. I know a guy that tested Frank's free shells. They were much faster!!!

It doesn't matter what shells the BOD/Delegates have, they don't want a more sporting target. They are embarrassed shooting with their friends shooting a 78 and turning down 3 reductions a year. The system is a joke until the members find a way to control the delegates.