HistoryBuff Responds to Neil Winston's Request

Neil,

As per your request, “ I wonder if you can find and post here some of the times I advocated two-hole targets in print as an officer of the ATA in official publications” my research failed to uncover one instance where you specifically stated in imprecise terms, “I advocate the two-hole target,” but that is really not what you asked for.

I am however, providing documentation from written sources which, at the very least, leads me to believe you did in fact support and advocate the regulation change to the narrower two-hole target setting.

It seems to me that many ATA members still hold the belief that the #2-hole angle was the ATA’s regulation target normally thrown at all clubs and also that the amendment of the Flights & Angles rule approved by the Board of Directors in August 1996 restored the old #2-hole target after the Executive Committee mandated strict use of the #3-hole minimum angle in 1993. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, every amendment to the Flights and Angles rules relating to the minimum angle setting never changed the official and primary concept of this regulation since at least 1955. The rules that year recommended the angle setting of not less than a straightaway from firing positions 1 & 5. In 1959 the rule was revised and provided more emphasis by requiring that the extreme angles be at least straight-aways from positions 1 & 5. That rule remained the foremost requirement for target setting for over 40 years, until the BOD voted during their August 1996 annual meeting, to reduce the minimum angle from 22 degrees to 17.14 degrees, effective for the 1997 target year.

I’m well aware that the #2-hole setting was officially permitted by the Executive Committee’s amendment in August 1989 and that many gun clubs across the country used this setting routinely every time they held a registered shoot. However, use of the #2-hole setting exclusively violated the Flights & Angles rule and targets registered at these events were not in compliance with the ATA official rules. The #2-hole was only permitted if it was able to throw a minimum left and right angle as a straight-away from posts 1 & 5, measuring out 15-20 yards.

The issue of using the #2-hole angle setting closely mirrors the problem we often see with shooters misconstruing of the Failure-to-fire rule. Many shooters believe they have two (2) FTF’s per sub-event for any reason. They always seem to be unaware of the exception VII (C)(2) under the Lost Target rule.

Now I offer the following summary to support why I believe many people, including myself, have held the belief that you did advocate the 2-hole target rule and opposed the 3-hole angle setting :

1. You implied in your 1995 letter that the E. C. was changing the rules to make the sport harder by mandating the straightaway angle from posts 1 & 5, acknowledging this was a “3-hole” target. Also remains the statement: “So we’re shooting 3-hole targets. But didn’t we just recently vote that down?”

2. Your 1995 motion proposed moving the minimum angle requirement from straight-aways from posts 1 & 5 to straight-aways from 3 ½ feet to the right of post 1 and 3 ½ feet to the left of post 5. Straightaway targets from these positions are approximately a #2-hole 17.14 degree angle. The fact that you made the motion verifies your support.

3. As Minnesota ATA Delegate, you cast a vote of YES in favor of your 1995 motion for a reduction in the angle setting.

4. On August 15, 1996 you again voted YES in favor of Indiana Delegate Moore’s motion for the normal angle setting in the #2-hole, a reduction from 22 degree requirement to 17.14 degrees.

Furthermore, there is possibly another time you appear to support the two-hole target setting instead of the 3-hole but I was unable to confirm it. I’m referring to the BOD annual meeting on August 19, 1993, and in particular to the results of the vote on Iowa ATA Delegate Bright’s motion to rescind the E. C.’s decision requiring traps to be set in the No. 3 hole. The ATA Official minutes only state the number of those voting For and Against and fail to provide how each Delegate voted.

In my view, those voting in favor of rescinding the vote, and the return to the written rules for 1992, supported the unconditional use of #2-hole. From your previous comments I am guessing you were in favor of Mr. Bright's motion, but admittedly, I could be wrong. The minutes also do not contain any opposition by Delegates to the E. C.’s unilateral decision to amend the rules. I believe there certainly should have been.

In closing, I encourage everyone to offer corrections to any and all inaccuracies in my statements or for any issues I’ve misinterpreted. Writing with accuracy and integrity is more important to me than being right or having my feelings hurt.

Kenny Ray

For those interested in a more comprehensive report, I have attached a 5-page document that provides a good history of the Flights & Angles rule and additional information associated with Mr. Winston's request.

 

Kenny, I think you missed the point of his request.

It isn't about what he thought about the subject, it's whether he advocated in print trying to convince others, as past ATA officials had done, as documented in your postings.

Everyone has their view on a subject, some of them get to vote on the subject, but to advocate your personal views is different from having views.

 

Thank you very much for all that work, HistoryBuff. It was a lot of effort but I knew I could count on you to look it all up and put it together so we - especially I - didn't have to.

I've only scanned it and the attachment, so my views may change on closer reading, but my first impression is that you seem to equate my carefully-chosen term, "advocate" - the one I used and is now being used to attack me here on americantrapshooter.com- is somehow the same as "support." It is not. The word I used was "advocate." I "supported" the two-hole as soon as I saw what was happening as I travelled the country, and have never said anything to the contrary, (as I recall.) And I have been in a unique position to make judgements about what was happening, since over my 32+ years of membership I have averaged over 18,000 registered targets per year. In doing so I visited countless clubs and talked to shooter all over the country. That experience convinced me that the two-hole was better for trapshooting at that time, 1995/1996, and remains so now, and so I favored it then and continue to favor it today. And I would "support" anyone with a vote at any level of the ATA, from club-board member to the EC who would oppose a change back to the 3-hole.

I know what "advocate" means and how to do it. "Advocacy" by typewriter or even by ATA official publication is not advocacy at all in my book. It's not what you write, but what you do, how hard you are willing to work, how much time you will invest, how much money you are willing to spend.

In 2008 I saw that the change in the target year which had just been adopted (9/1 to 8/31 instead of 10/1 to 9/31) was not supported by shooters, particularly in the Midwest. When I visited the Ohio State Shoot, for example, it was the only thing shooters sought me out to complain about and ask for my help in changing it back. So I set out to change it. As I traveled, I asked for time to speak at States' Annual meetings or zone meeting and advocated a change back to the old target year. Shooters in Illinois, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa will remember me talking to them at those meetings and pledging my efforts to get done what they were asking for.

When we all walked into the Annual Meeting at the WRSC I doubt anyone would have given a plugged nickel for my chances. But I talked . . . and talked - half an hour? an hour? longer than that? I answered their questions and made my points and asked them for their support and in the end they gave it. (edit: I had plenty of help, particularly from Illinois Delegate Jim Matteson (who made the motion), Frank Pascoe from Pennsylvania , D.Z. Price from Michigan, Tom White from Florida, and Eileen Williamson from California; without them the result would have been different.)

That's what advocacy means. Certainly not typing it, not even talking it; just doing it. Putting yourself in the line of fire, working, driving, being willing to talk to anyone at any time. Picking up the phone even though caller ID tells you you are in for a long tussle which, in the end, you will never win and which is unlikely to make any difference anyway. But it's not a waste of time; it's advocating and if that's what you do that's how you carry it out. It's an all or nothing commitment.


Favoring? That's just a private thing: offering your opinion when asked, voting your best judgement. I always do that. And this was my crime? Well, I plead guilty.

Yours in Sport.

N1H1

I may post more here as I get more deeply into what you posted. It will probably take me a pretty long time to cover everything -there's a lot - but I'll try to break it into manageably small pieces. On the other hand, I think it more likely that I'll just see that what I wrote above covers it and I'll do something else. Thanks again for all your work.

 

Sure H1N1,

Sounds like Clinton arguing what the definition of the word "is" is.

Does this mean many of the posts will be removed overnight or over time?

Somehow someone quoting you and documenting your work is an attack?

 

". . .you seem to equate my carefully-chosen term, "advocate" - the one I used and is now being used to attack me here on americantrapshooter.com- is somehow the same as "support."

Connoisseurs of unconscious - nay, oblivious - irony will long enjoy "Somehow someone quoting you and documenting your work is an attack?"

N1H1

 

I'm glad to see that my memory of where "easy targets" started are correct. Keep the true facts coming Kenny, but don't expect to get any credit from those 2 hole supporters. Brad

 

I'll ask a question about the "easy targets" that surprised me. Kenny's research (not in this post) made it apparent that easy targets were being thrown at the Grand in the very early 1960's, probably the late 50's. That much seems to be a fact, but it really surprised me.

Now, I would guess (so this is not a statement of fact) that if they were ignoring their own rules at the Grand, it was likely because it was already happening to a great extent at clubs across the country at that time. So what's the story here, does anybody really know when this all started?

 

Bat, it's hard to tell when it comes to cheating our sport and that's what rule violators do. I recall well the first 34 degree angles I shot. How did I know? By looking for a true straight from all posts back then as I've done that almost from my beginning ATA shooting. That was in 1982 but that club didn't always set those easier targets either. Some clubs did while others tried to follow the ATA standards in following the rules.

It's a monkey see monkey do sort of thing when it comes to cheating and who is getting away with it with no consequences at all! That is a fact also and very shameful! Proud to endorse a cheating practice? Those responsible should be very ashamed for what they did!

HAP

 

N1H1: Did you ever go behind an ATA Presidents back by sending delegates letters to influence a proposal/rule change? That caused SAID PRESIDENT to send a memo to said delegates to clarify/or explain this devious procedure by NW's actions? Be truthful as it is in the ATA Minutes. Just trying to verify your honesty, that you so much defend.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Well, if it's in the minutes I guess I did.

It's true that I sent the delegates many letters over the years on many subjects, at least some of them about rules I thought needed attention. Similarly, I put copies of motions I intended to make on tables in the Delegates' locker room so they they could talk it over in the days before the meeting. And, of course, I gave the Secretary copies of the texts on motions so he could get read them aloud accurately prior to calling for a vote. I'm sure that much of that is in the minutes.

However, I can't see how any of this could be called going behind anyone's back. EC members, including the President, are usually still Delegates, and I think, though I don't remember specifically, that they got copies of everything I sent to the rest of the Delegates. Add to that the fact that I often got my thoughts printed in a national magazine, and I don't think my actions as an ATA officer could fairly be called "furtive."

I could probably add to this if you would favor me with some examples, much as I earlier asked HistoryBuff to do regarding my documented activities as an "advocate" and for which I have already thanked him.

N1H1

 

N1H1

I appreciate your "thank you" for the work in compiling records on the history of our Flights & Angles rule. Actually, I have been typing up reports and minutes on the subject for many years and had it readily available. Perhaps I could have and should have just focused on your request, but as all my friends know, I'm long-winded and always feel that I must provide more background than is actually needed.

In paraphrasing a Maryland friend both you and I have enjoyed a cold libation with: "I'm just a welder, you're going to have to break this down in plain words so I can understand it," I feel I'm in the same position since my vocation was "just an electrician." So, forgive my intellectual disability but I have always understood the word advocate to mean the public support or recommending of a particular cause, and I honestly never saw a difference, only a difference in the level of participation of an advocate. I accept full responsibility for my error and have no plans to divert blame to my 1988 edition of Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus in which I consulted to see where I screwed up. I could you know (blame), because it defines advocate (n) as an EXPONENT, champion, expounder, proponent, supporter; and advocate (vb) as ENCOURAGE, countenance, favor; SUPPORT, back, back stop, champion, side with, uphold. So I hope you can see the reason I misconstrued your research request.

I understand your statement above and agree that much ground - work on any issue must be done in advance in order to affect change. I think most of the folks submitting comment in forum style are aware they are expending a great deal of time and energy to produce little and more likely no change. In using your definition of "advocacy" I'm in the typist category. I only enjoy providing the history and sometimes my personal view on a variety of subjects. However, I have no desire in making public appearances in an attempt to overturn any of the rule changes made by our leadership. Nevertheless, I do disagree with some of those decision.

Also, it has not been my intention to malign anyone who have views that oppose mine, and likewise, I hope its clear to all that certainly did not take your comments as an attack.

The discussion of easy vs difficult targets is nothing new and just like today, shooters, gun club managers and even officers of trapshooting's governing body from the past, held opposing views on this very subject. One thing I know is that all believed their position was in the best interests of the sport. Neither side wanted to hurt shooters or trap shooting.

Here's a couple of examples (1906 & 1914) of discussions supporting the view that the game should not be easy but a test of skill. I assure you I have about an equal number of comments calling for easier targets from the same period. The reasoning used today is very prevalent in the debates of long ago.

Enjoy,

Kenny Ray

CHAMPIONSHIP CONDITIONS​

Did the championship contest of the '06 G. A. H. prove to be all that was expected? Or, in other words, were not the most excellent totals good proof that conditions are as, yet too easy? That the mere addition of two yards made very slight difference was evident from the fact that fully one-third of the contestants, in the wind and rain, made scores of 90 per cent, or better. The conditions were 150 targets each man, unknown angles, 18 yards rise. In a field of 72 amateurs 23 broke 135 or more, and in the professional class, numbering 47, 18 did the same, practically one-third of the contestants averaging 90 or more.

And yet the top-notchers strenuously object to 20 or 21-yard marks. That distance is not the score killer many think, the experience of two amateurs at the Ohio State shoot aptly demonstrates. To show the shooting qualities of their guns they started at 20 yards and stepped back a yard after each shot until at 35 yards the tents prevented ' additional long-distance practice. From 35 yards the more experienced shooter of the two broke several targets in succession. While we do not advocate the necessity of 35-yard handicapping, still an experts' match at 21 yards, or even 25 yards, would be none too much of a strain on the capabilities of either man or gun. In the first place, why not have the regulation tournament target shooting from 18 yards rise instead of 16, as at present?

Shortly after last year's Grand American Handicap, in view of the general excellence attained by many of America's trap shots who attended, comparisons were drawn showing the necessity for change in some of the contests. It then seemed timely to suggest that conditions be made more difficult, in order to conscientiously determine who was the most skillful of the many champions. In editorials of July, '05, the gun editor of "Sporting Life," the late Will K. Park, furnished figures showing 93 and 94 per cent, men as coming out at the short end of the horn during the big meet, indicating such a vast field of better performers as to account for all the high-gun monies. This year the untoward weather cut considerable figure, and 94 per cent, meant being among the leaders, but they were unusual conditions, furnishing the exception, merely, to prove the rule.

In those same editorials Mr. Park applauded a co-worker's idea of having a championship race at 150 targets from 18 yards, though that part, wherein the use of two barrels was to be permitted, he ruthlessly cut out as defeating the very object sought. Experts of the present day use their first barrel so quickly that it would be easy to successfully train the second barrel on the few targets missed at 18 yards with the first. He considered, also, that the distance should be greater than 18 yards, and time proves him to have had the right ideas. The co-worker's suggestion has been tried by the Interstate Association, and shows conclusively that harder conditions must be imposed to bring forth the premier shot at inanimate targets. What we sorely need is decidedly more variety to the work. This monotony of angle, position and event, which the sport of trap shooting has drifted into, is against its best interests. A remark from a spectator at, the recent Eastern meet hit the nail on the head in our estimation. After watching for some time the various squads fall in line, to hit or miss 15 targets, as the case might be, he turned away in disgust. "Do you call that sport? I don't. It is the same thing over and over again."

Let us go back to first principles, if necessary, and for genuine tests of marksmanship install the one-man-up, unknown-trap system. Why not include some pairs to better show the skill of participants?

At the Pennsylvania State shoot the exhibition of double shooting in one of the trophy events was truly remarkable, so few targets were broken. And it was possibly the most interesting event of the shoot because of the novelty. If the one man-up system is too slow for these rapid days let us have something in the way of reform, to render target shooting less sure and more interesting.
SPORTING LIFE, August 4, 1906

PRIDE OF RESULT​

That good shooting under hard conditions is to be preferred to high scoring under easy conditions was conclusively proved by the results of the recent Southwestern Handicap, at Oklahoma City, Okla. On the Handicap day a 40-mile gale of wind was blowing accompanied by a terrific dust storm. To smash targets under such conditions required the very finest kind of shooting. It was a severe trial and tested the mettle of the shooter to the limit. The scores were naturally far below normal, yet remarkably high for such conditions. The very difficulty of making scores spurred the shooters to go beyond their usual speed in scoring, and we venture to say that the winners in that shoot did the very best shooting of their careers. The most interesting thing was the pride displayed by the shooters who were fortunate enough to win prizes or score about the 90-mark. They considered that they had indeed been shooting, quite a contrast to their attitude when breaking 100 straight under ordinarily easy conditions.

This convinces us that the great majority of the shooters would rather win under extremely hard conditions with an 85 per cent, score, than break 98 out of 100 with conditions easy. The trap shooter is not different from the ordinary mortal. He appreciates most what he works hardest to attain.
SPORTING LIFE, May 2, 1914

 

Reminds me of the windiest day at one of our past Grand's here in Tucson. It was a Thursday handicap event and the winds were blowing hard as I got out of bed at 5:00am. The winds were steady at 40 mph plus harder gusts now and then. I won the 27 yard belt buckle with my 95 as high for that group!! I think some of the top of the food chain guys shot scores down into the high 70s that day!

HAP

 

"The most interesting thing was the pride displayed by the shooters who were fortunate enough to win prizes or score about the 90-mark. They considered that they had indeed been shooting, quite a contrast to their attitude when breaking 100 straight under ordinarily easy conditions."

"The trap shooter is not different from the ordinary mortal. He appreciates most what he works hardest to attain."

Free yardage and free reductions are not attained by work. And the faux-pride from easy targets is for those who fight to keep it that way.

Kudos to History Buff and American Trapshooter dot com ... "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain.

 

Absolutely no problem at all, HistoryBuff. I asked for a big job and you did it as you interpreted the question and believe me, I don't blame anyone. Well, maybe the people who seem to think I had no right to be an advocate of anything I chose to, especially since I, in contrast to them, set myself to do more than bitch and attack. I saw some things I thought needed work and ran for delegate and won election to that post for another score of terms.

What I really can't understand is "Where were they?" Was the fact that there was going to be a vote on this, twice, some kind of secret? Why didn't they run for Delegate, "advocate" their heads off for all I cared, and make sure the three-hole survived?

Even now, as I read their pathetically ineffectual "plans" for an overthrow, I marvel at how little they have learned. They somehow think that typing and attacking me will get them what they want. Over the years I've laid out to them on the other site exactly how to do it and not one single thing has been done for almost 20 years.

As I described above, changing an ATA rule against opposition is (generally*) a multi-year proposition involving a lot of work, personal risk, persuasiveness, and money. If you are want to do it anonymously or without both a plan and commitment there's no point in even starting. You have to put you own reputation on the line. You have to learn how the ATA works and the place to start is the By-Laws. You have to be ready to do all that work, spend all that time, and lose anyway. Over and over again.

I don't see anybody in this site who seems to have the qualifications (except dbw, but then he did it, didn't he?) But I've been heartened by the last couple of Annual Meetings where I see reason to hope.

I'm serious, HistoryBuff. I appreciate the work you did to clear all this up. Thanks again.

N1H1

*Jim Bradford and I decided to try to change the malfuncton rule based on the dangerous things we saw at the North Dakota State Shoot one year. In a year we got it done. And that was another year of what I call advocasy. Hap and Roger may remember me addressing the annual meeting at the Arizona State Shoot. They held a vote which I lost overwhelmingly. I went to shoot after shoot and probably drove shooter wild but, in August, the rule was changed. One year is probably a record. But change is possible; it's just far, far more work that this crowd seems to be willing to put into it.

 

Neil, please explain what you are talking about, "malfuntion rule based on dangerous things we saw at the North Dakota State Shoot".
What are you talking about....???

Birddog

 

Well, Lew, I think you never shot under the one-time malfunction rule so you would have no reason to know what I am talking about. The heart of it was that if a gun suffered a malfunction - not go off, basically - the shooter was to stand still while the puller/scored left this or her stand, came down, and "examined" gun, had it opened it to see what had happened. Was the gun loaded? Was the primer dented? Would it fire if the trigger were to be pulled? that sort of thing; I doubt that is a complete list. In many cases the scorer had no idea what to do or even how to deal with any gun at all, much less one which might be about to go off at any time without warning. It was easy enough to fool the scorer anyway. If you had just flinched, for example, you could just move the safety and the gun would not go off when the trigger was pulled. In other words, it was far from a fool-proof system since the chances of the scorer being able tell a Perazzi with the safety on from one with the safety off were near zero.

The danger occurred occurred in that period of time between the onset of the malfunction and the scorer checking the gun. Too often the shooter did not wait, but turned, with the gun, to the scorer. What we saw in Fargo was a shooter who, holding a gun which was loaded, cocked, and in who knows what kind of trouble, turned and swept the whole crowd with the muzzle. We'd seen this before, of course, everyone had, but never in such slo-mo, graphic detail. It was a situation which could well have killed someone. Maybe several someones. We thought it was time to prevent that from someday happening if we could, and we did.

N1H1

 

It would be nice to not have a job, have plenty of wealth and time to travel extensively in "advocating" for what you personally believe. Most trap shooters are not so lucky. To belittle them for not having your passion is not justified. Forums, such as this, talking with their Delegate and participating in their local and state organizations and shoots is the only opportunity most have. Many work just as hard as you do for our sport. They just don't get the notoriety because of their limited opportunities. Smugness is not a attribute but a fault. Jimmy Borum

 

Neil Winston:
For the record I started trap shooting in 1971 and ATA shooting in 1976. compared to your 1982.
No, I have not shot as many targets as you or traveled all over the country as your past time may have allowed, I was buzy working at my job and raising a family.
I have to agree with Jimmy Borum, "Smugness is not a attribute but a fault".
Birddog

 

I remember shooting under the old rule where guns sometimes mis-fired after calling for a target. It was the same as todays shooting, depending on how well trained the scorekeepers and pullers were and how safety minded the shooters are. That applies to todays shooters as well.

The puller would dis-mount his seat to watch a shooter open his gun and to look to see if the primer was dented only. If it wasn't dented, it was declared a loss. If the shooter opened his gun first and ejected the shell, it too was declared a loss.

I can't ever recall seeing anyone hand a shotgun to a kid that knew nothing about handling a shotgun and barely knew how to keep score and pull targets! Giving that it did happen in front of EC members didn't justify the end conclusions they came to either. Safety first, then shooter responsibility, no do overs for their own neglect of placing a shell in the chamber or flinching on an attempted shot either. No penalties for negligence of any kind in handling or using a shotgun wasn't the best remedy at all.

HAP

 

I like Hap donot recall any shooter handing over their gun to trap personal after a perceived misfire. Usually the trap person would come down from the chair ask the shooter to pull the trigger, if the gun did not fire the shooter was asked to open the gun. Usually if a shell was in the chamber the shooter got to repeat the shot. Most trap personal did not know enough about the gun to even inspect if the primer was dented or if the shell ejected indicating the trigger had been pulled and the shell did indeed misfire before allowing the shooter to repeat the shot. Sometimes but not always another shooter on the squad would be with the scorer and see if the primer was indeed dented. If this happened more than once the shooters on the squad became involved.

 

I don't either but it was in the rules at one time. I have the American Trapshooting Association rules from circa 1919 which state :

Rule 11 - Lost Target

( c ) "If the contestant has a misfire, or apparent misfire, he, without removing the cartridge or cartridges, shall forthwith hand his gun, without opening it, to the Referee for his decision; otherwise the Referee may declare it a "lost target."

Of course this is back when they had a Puller, Scorer, Referee and a Judge and the latter two were not school kids.

 

The only thing I recall hearing why the change of the misfire rule was brought about is that it slowed down the game of trap
shoot to much. It took to much time for the score keeper to get down from their chair and check with the shooter
if there was a dented primer or not, so the present misfire rule was put in place. Now, I may be wrong as this was just talk among trap shooters.
Officially, ATA trap shooting started in 1900, and now Neil Winston is telling us that some 80 years later things
were so bad they had to change the misfire rule. Did you and Jim Bradford observe only this one situation, why didn't you
not conduct any testing. You only had 80 to 90 years of ATA shooting to look at for comparison.
If the Rule of Firearm Safety had been enforced, no change would have been needed..
Point of Interst: How many of you have ever seen a ATA score sheet turned in at your ATA shoot, indicating F/F by a shooters name.
I never have....cause nobody keeps track of them.
Birddog

 

I write F1 or F2 myself. See it all the time.

 

I have seen this done several times at the Cardinal Center on a squad I was on. I think Brad can back this up if he saw the score sheets brought to his attn:
Dr.longshot

 

I was on a squad at the Ohio State Shoot in the 1970s, A shooter had a problem with his 1100 Rem not firing, had a broken firing pin spring, he got another gun to finish, I shot the guy next to me pulled up and called for a target (CLICK) he said bad primer, opened his gun, no shell, he forgot to load it,(LOST TARGET) scorer wrote no shell above the 0, he ended up with a 98 on the Hdcp. WoW came in 2nd.
Dr.longshot

 

Mr. Borum, I think your comment is misleading. You wrote:

"It would be nice to not have a job, have plenty of wealth and time to travel extensively in "advocating" for what you personally believe. Most trap shooters are not so lucky. To belittle them for not having your passion is not justified."

and that tells readers here that I have belittled members less lucky than I for not having passion for the game to match my own. It certainly would not be justified to disparage them for that. I did not.

A fair reading of what I wrote will show that I never brought anyone's "passion" into the discussion at all. What I instead cited were "action," and "inaction." I did not aim my criticism at any but a particular group, a group whose membership I specifically laid out from the start. Here's what I wrote:

"I don't blame anyone. Well, maybe the people who seem to think I had no right to be an advocate of anything I chose to, especially since I, in contrast to them, set myself to do more than bitch and attack. I saw some things I thought needed work and ran for delegate and won election to that post for another score of terms.

What I really can't understand is "Where were they?" Was the fact that there was going to be a vote on this, twice, some kind of secret? Why didn't they run for Delegate, "advocate" their heads off for all I cared, and make sure the three-hole survived?

Even now, as I read their pathetically ineffectual "plans" for an overthrow, I marvel at how little they have learned. They somehow think that typing and attacking me will get them what they want. Over the years I've laid out to them on the other site exactly how to do it and not one single thing has been done for almost 20 years."

As must be clear to you now, I was talking only about posters here on americantrapshooter.com. And a tiny but voluble subset of them at that. Regarding them I would not change a word.

To try to cast this as some sort of class warfare is to counter the facts I posted above.

N1H1

 

Birddog, I thought you were probably not familiar with the old rule since the Shooter Information Center only has you down post 1992 (and my whole record is there.) I regret the error, but I did do my best to answer question in the most accurate, complete, and polite fashion I could.

N1H1

 

I called the ATA about the same thing a few months back. The person I spoke with said the ATA Website only show targets shot
back to 1992. He also said they did not have the resources or help to put up someones record back to 1976 as mine. I will call the ATA
Monday and demand that my shooting records back 1976 be posted on the ATA Web site. I will let you know what I find out.
Sorry about the smugness comment, not intended

Birddog

 

There was a time when the records were fully digitized whenever a shooter asked about his or her own. They once were set up to do that without much trouble. I think you may get more cooperation if you "request" rather than "demand," however.

N1H1

 

From several years of observing the slow downward spiral of our sport and the continuation of the present policies (less difficult presentations and more classes), it is hard for me to understand the stance many (such as you) take in the governance of our association. I guess we will continue on that course until we are as insignificant as skeet shooting is today. I don't mean to disparage skeet shooters that enjoy their sport but, the fact is, our sport is becoming not as much a game of skill but a game of endurance. I've been in this sport since 1972. I can't compare with some but I do have over a quarter million targets shot. I have not been as active in participation for the last several years because of health and financial reasons but have worked diligently behind the scenes in its promotion. I am disillusioned by the continuation of policies that are, in my opinion, detrimental to the sport. The old saying; "If you continue with the same policies you reap the same reward", applies here (or something to that effect). We will always have a dominate class of shooters. I grew up in this sport in the 1970's with the likes of Larry Gravestock, Britt Robinson, Gene Sears and Neal Crausbay as local to me. There were others just as competitive as these from other areas, many of them my friends, who I also include in the dominate class. But even with these great shooters, many large events were won many times by the less talented because of the difficulty of target presentations and a good day by them. Weather used to also be a big factor in who prevailed. Scores, such as middle 90's, were many times the big scores for events. With the advent of adjustable shotguns, voice calls, instructional clinics and softer target presentation, our rules are not keeping up with fairness of our sport. Keep on doing and keep on reaping. Just my opinion and I stand by my earlier comments. Jimmy Borum

 

If we shooters do not make a stand for more competitive targets, the results will be what I and Jimmy Borum & many others have stated.

I have been standing for a change now over 3 years, nothing has happened, went to the GAH to speak about it, was denied, wrote letters, not even a reply. Just sent another one 2 weeks ago.
Gary Bryant Life Member 40-10126 Dr.longshot

 

My averages are listed back to 1968, but no individual scores, and they are wrong, that would require the ATA Office to pull out every shoot record where I shot, and post the scores, over 12,000 shoot reports would have to be checked.

 

My average are there back to 1977. Individual scores don't appear until 2001.

 

Dr. I called the ATA today and the lady I needed to speak with is out till tomorrow. I did leave a message with name, ATA number and
my question about getting my target data up dated to 1976 or when ever I started ATA shooting. If they just list the averages for each
year, I guess I will have to live with that.

Birddog

 

I don't care about the angles or other conditions as long as everyone is shooting at the same target presentation I think it's fair...Bill

 

It seems to me the point is that we don't shoot the same angles. Get rid of the ATA All American points and we can get back to just competing.

 

When I was new to this sport (early 70's and right out of Vietnam) and got to know Neal Crausbay he told me the worst thing the ATA ever did was establish the average book and its average awards. I did not understand it at that time but have grown to appreciate the wisdom of his words. Jimmy Borum

 

I have been on these site now for only three years or so and this has been talked about ever since I have been on these sites, GET OVER IT. Come up with something more interesting because this ANGLE/ATA thing is dominating a good site and to tell the truth, pointless..

 

I've been doing this for 43 years. The ruination of our sport is not pointless to me. JBB

 

jmunsel,
The problem is you do not know enough about this sport and its history to make a judgement call and tell the long time supporters to get over it. Its a shame when a sport that has had it all, and I mean competitiveness and honor is subverted by people that are less than honorable . I believe the ones responsible should be outed. Roger

 

Roger I will tell you to get over it, if you and the other long time supporters had got off your butts and done something through the delegate process or other channels you wouldn't be having this discussion. The horse got out of the barn a long time ago now you want to put it back in. It is gone. Try working to better the current system.

Part of the shame is that the "long time supporters" don't have any respect for today's shooters and their accomplishments because it isn't under your old system. That obviously makes them less in yours and Borum's eyes. Perhaps if either of you had half of NW's passion you might of changed things.

Then you question others honor when they again don't agree, now that is getting low. I believe I have a right to comment if I only had 500 targets but let me assure you I have been around a day or two, long enough to accumulate over 250,000. This is my ATA also and I will be damned if I am going to set around let others continually rip it apart. I don't agree with everything they do but it's what we've got and I enjoy every bird I shoot at and I don't care what hole it comes from.

Lefty

 

Is his passion deleting his posts? As per Neil he was not an advocate for these changes. Are you calling him a liar. It seems he was an advocate after saying he was not. Which is it? GW lost that bet and disappeared.

Left out. This is the system. Educating the shooters on these issues bothers you?

 

Who is left of the original people responsible? Hasn't this problem been traced back to the 70's thru thru 90's? Anyone from that era still in the EC?

 

Smithy I assume you just want to continue the crap throwing contest. First of all take a reading comprehension course. First I don't believe I mention what Neil did or didn't do. Educating shooters is one thing but continual bitching, whining and moaning and pointing fingers at who ever gets in the way is not educating. You are not educating, you are dictating how they should think.

Educating is putting out your info once and letting the shooters make up their own minds. You and your friends just want to keep beating dead horse.

Not once did I hear the over 700+ shooters at the Southern mention what hole the targets came from. They were worried about what the wind would do with them.

I know nothing I say on this site will count with you doom sayers but it needed saying.

Lefty

 

Leonidas,

Based on the history that has been posted on various threads here, I was amazed to see that the proverbial "barn door" was left open going back (probably) to the late 1950's, certainly to the Grand in the very early 1960's! Who knows who shot what angles over the last 55 years!

 

There's always been a cheating element involved in our sport, nothing new there at all. Except that it wasn't nearly as widespread till the early 80s, then the lid blew off on the cheating practices! Championed into a rule as if that practice was the best thing since sliced bread.

Our sport has been stagnant since so to speak in our growth numbers ? We don't have a problem getting new shooters to try out sport. We do have a heck of a time keeping them around long enough for them to hook themselves with substantial numbers?

Bat, should we believe there's no cheating in our sport today?

HAP

 

Hap,

Sure there is cheating, there is in just about every activity available.

I don't think cheating in trapshooting is very widespread, at least in my personal observations. I'm very surprised at the things that seem to have been going on in PA, I will admit. That said, I won't call throwing 2-hole targets today cheating, since it isn't under current rules, if that's what you are getting at. I just would not be as quick as some others here to paint with such a broad brush when calling people "cheaters" (that is not aimed at you).

I don't have a solution for declining numbers, but I do not believe for a second that throwing 3-hole would reverse the course. Maybe it is the right thing to do, but it won't reverse the course. It could also accelerate the current trend. That is the issue.

I'll be shooting either way.

 

That's my point Bat. You throw a tougher target you will lose people I would think. That's why all this is pointless and won't do any good here anyway. Just a place to vent and blame.

 

You do not have to be part of the discussion and you wont be a part of the solution.
Right now we are having problems retaining our shooters. The perfect score game has ruined the sport as it did in skeet. Those unaware of what happened to that sport and how it relates to Taylor and easier targets need educated.

 

I personally don't think many would drop a sport they love doing because of a rule change.

The "cheating" I make reference to is the same one you used above in questioning the validation of scores shot from the 50s to the BODs (official) rule change in 96. That rule was in place even before we had a 27 yard line, straights from posts 1 and 5? If my math is even close, the years of cheating the setting rule was outrageous as some clubs did while others followed the book. For our ATA leadership to do nothing but condone that practice says a lot for our leadership by invalidating our own book of rules, wouldn't you think?

Don't fret or worry about targets getting any tougher, they will get easier long before that ever happens again. As a shooting organization we'd best hope out leadership has the foresight the skeet org. did after all their easy target rule changes? Incorporate and include other shooting venues in just to survive.

HAP

 

Well that is why I started to read the multitude of threads on the subject was to try to educate myself but I soon found little education and just seem to see the same ole blame game not solutions to what the problem is. Not that I have the problem in the least as I'm not really sure what the problem is. Everyone who says they want it back to the old days makes it sound as they are now hitting 100 straight every time they go out. Is that the case?

 

A 90 used to be considered a very good score. Out of 4000 shooters at the grand in Vandalia you would have fewer 100's than you would now with a shoot with 800 shooters.

Maybe you could quote 1 that implied that.

 

The PA shooter vet that had a 98.3 average on 16's might not have broken 100 straight every time but he came close. He even had 400 straight in one day at a club in WV. On a January day yet.
Looked like he broke 100 almost every time, or at least every other time he shot at that club.

Flyersarebest

 

Yep, a 97 in caps in the Prelim on Thursday of Grand week would pay for MONTHS of shooting and traveling. AND, you could buy a new TM1 with the rest of the money.

A 97 today would get you enough gas money to maybe get part way home.

Flyersarebest

 

What surprised me was how long it took for that crap to finally come to light. What didn't surprise me were the names involved.

Flyersarebest

 

Smithy: do you not give shooters being better, equipment being better any credit for higher scores? It isn't a game of perfection but it is a game higher scores.

Money gone: The top dogs ran the money out of the game. Shooters got tired of donating with little hope of return, some shooters may be slow to learn but they are not stupid. If you think that changing the hole back will bring the money back you are dreaming.

Mis-classification of shooters does more damage than which hole it comes from. Classifiers don't even look at the paper card anymore, if it isn't in the computer they don't use it. It is strictly % average not wins or ties or what you done in the last 10 days to 2+ weeks.

There are things that need to be adjusted in our sport, such as doing away with the 18 yd handicap, categories and category rules plus others. It's far from perfect.

Lefty

 

Specifically:
Those unaware of what happened to that sport and how it relates to Taylor and easier targets need educated.

Please give brief explanation and how this "Taylor" relates to circumstances.

 

Smithy, I'm in need of an education. I googled how did Taylor ruin skeet and came up empty.

I've never shoot competitive skeet, just a little casual event over the past 30 years. I haven't noticed a difference in the target presentation at all.

 

The future of our sport is the youth. The SCTP program has exploded over the recent years and the college programs continue to be strong.

Some one should go to SA this week and talk to many of the college shooters to see which clay target game is their favorite. I think it's fair to assume that once the school/parent subsidy dries up these kids will reduce their participation to one main clay target sport. Which will that be and why?

 

I cannot believe the negativity from what I thought were dedicated shooters saying, " Don't fret or worry about (TARGETS) getting any tougher, they will get easier long before that happens! What it is going to take is Support of dedicated shooters like me who want change to happen, for it to go forward the change to targets that are a challenge, I would think top shooters Like Harlan Campbell, Chris Vendel, Ricky Marshall, and others would be the standouts for the change to happen, the change to 44+degree angles and 50-52+ yard targets, I will not give credit to shooters who are shooting the vastly re-designed trapguns, shells, to shoot easier targets. That is like changing from a tack hammer to a sledge hammer to break targets.

You supposedly dedicated trapshooters absolutely amaze me when you speak different stories out of each side of your mouth. You are just like our leadership, you do not want to rock the boat.

Well I want the boat as it is to CAPSIZE,ROLL OVER AND SINK, we need a new complete organization with a leader like Mr. NEAL CRAUSABY TO TAKE THE HELM. HE WILL TAKE THE REINS TO RULE CHANGES WE NEED AND REMOVE UN-NEEDED RULES.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

It will not be the least challenging of the sports. It will not be the one with a broken handicap system. It will not be the sport they have to drive 12 hours to compete in at the largest shoot. It will not be the sport where you have to stay an extra day because you tied for the shoot the previous day.

 

Gary, You take 2 days off and you still come back with the same BS, you don't even shoot ATA targets, but yet you want us all to go back to the harder targets.I personally don't care, I was weened on 3 hole targets.As long as your ass is on the back, the ATA and the mass majority of American shooters want the targets that they have now...

 

2/3 of our shooters have left. We cant keep what we got and the minority controls the majority in the ata. Rhode Island has the same amount of vote as PA or OH. Keep talking two dogs. Maybe you will stumble onto some facts.

And two dogs, maybe you could enlighten readers as to how many registered shooters your delegate represents.

 

Gary Bryant, your comprehension skills are severely lacking again! Dedicated shooters like yourself? Heck guy, you don't even shoot ATA targets anymore yet your still trying to get shooters to see your ideas of change is what's needed by harping on them? Try educating new shooters for a change instead of badmouthing everyone all the time.

I still shoot because I love the game of trap and would shoot if they mandated all straights from post 3 also! My health problems limit me to a few days of pain free shooting per month yet I continue shooting. Does that mean I'm in agreement with those having the balls to actually change our rules? Not at all in your wildest imaginations! What you have managed to do is turn people off to a new idea of change's that may benefit our sport long term. That and give them the impression all Ohio/PA shooters share in your thought process and that just isn't true at all.

We got here one small change at a time and it must be reversed in that same fashion, one small benefit for our sport at a time, not a huge splash as you want or think is possible! You're creating more battles than can be fought, knock off the crap! Help elect delegates that want what's best for our sport rather than their own shooting egos!! You can't do that if you don't shoot and participate, today?

HAP

 

Smithy....All of them...

 

Two Dogs
How many registered shooters are represented by your delegate? Not many huh. Then don't tell how much you know about the majority.

Hap,
We have to overcome the fact that the minority has the largest vote in our org. A group of registered shooters felt the same way decades ago.

 

Hey Smithy...clean out your ears and open your eyes....I said all of them...

And I said the majority of the bitchers, not the reg. shooters..

 

Hap don't support both systems, I am having my left foot amputated soon, but I will always support our original target settings, after finding out cheating has been going on for years I did not know about really upset me, as it should have you. I will get back to shooting my games again as soon as I get fitted with a prosthetic, Doctor said it should not hold me back. you say one thing and support another, just like the ATA officinado's. You disgrace me.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Hap I am a life member and I still have a vote, have you written any letters to the ATA supporting the 44 degree angle targets, I suspect not.
Dr.longshot

 

I asked how many shooters are represented by your delegate.? You wont give a number because it is around what......150 shooters that your delegate represents? But you are in an area that is like the majority.

 

Lefty,
My problem is not with the people that do not agree with me. My problem is with people that are either blind or ignorant as to what has been done to the sport by a few that have subverted a sport that many love.
I have asked these questions several times before on here.
#1 What was the deal that was to good to be passed up by the EC in cancelling the quotes on the purchase of new trap machines?
#2 where are the extra 8 machines?
#3 Who was the driving force behind changing the flights and parameters on targets?
#4 Were these changes made to accomadate machinery that could not perform to the rules in force at that time.
#5 What good has come to this sport due to these changes?
I am sure there are people that can honestly answer these questions, if you do not want to go on this public forum, then send me a private message. I give you my word it will stay private.
These are just a few of the questions that all trap shooters should be asking of the people in charge. Many of you believe that the cheating on was wide spread, It was not as bad as some people would like you to believe. But it was rampant in some parts of the country. I was in the trap machine business I had machines shipped to my facility from all over the northern hemisphire. I could tell if the 1 or 2 hole was used for more than throwing into a head wind. That was when the 2 hole was supposed to be used. Then the wind would spread them to the 3 hole area.
You new shooters that have come on board after 2003 should read every one of Kenny's posts, you will learn more honest history there than with a lot of the other posters. He is giving you actual data, not slick sales job. Some change their stories to cover their seats.
This discussion should not be between differing sides of shooters it should be between the shooters and the men that were entrusted to uphold the honor and integrity of the sport. That is the only way it will be resolved, ask them why did you do this. What was the expected outcome of the action? What is going to be done to correct the problem we now have.

 

Each and very shooter deserves a equal vote.

That means that each state has an equal vote! Each shooter from that state gets their vote through their delegate.

Why should a more populous area control the whole country.

Like I stated before, (and please answer this question if you have a civilized answer) Would you like California to tax the rest of the country to pay their bills they have run up just because they have the highest population of the other 49?

Same thing!

I sent an e-mail to the ATA. What have you done Gary? You always ask others but have never stated what you have sent.

 

Leonidas,
Are you sure your delegate always votes the way the majority in you state feel about a item? We had a delegate tell us in a meeting last month that his job was to inform the state members as to how the ATA wanted things to be done. I was amazed I thought he was to inform the ATA what the shooters wanted. How many of the other delegates have that same idea?

 

Leonidas take a civics lesson and math course.

Each and very shooter deserves a equal vote does not equal each shooter from that state gets their vote through their delegate.

No one on the board thinks that 80=1.

 

So you two are on board with the Democrats in changing the US Constitution also? They want to get rid of the way the Senators represent the States and go to a representation by area population like the House.

 

I may not have shot much in the last 3 years, My ATA target totals in singles exceeds yours and my Hdcp far exceeds yours, and my comprehension skills far exceed yours too, and I have not been bad mouthing anyone, except on an occasion when they bad mouth me about what I know is the truth. Hap you have no grounds to bash me, my ATA skills and averages are better than most, and above average. I also have been an ATA member since 1968, part of the good ole days.
Gary Bryant, Dr.longshot

 

Leonidas,
I advocated nothing in my post. I just wondered if you ever checked up on your delegate. If you do, great as most do not. Roger

 

Roger, Actually yes we have.

Last year the delegate was voted out and it looks like the new one will be also this year. Reasons are not for anything that has been posted on this forum at one time or another but for not following other promises.

 

Gary Bryant, it's far better to keep your pie hole shut and let people think you're a fool rather than open it and confirm their thoughts! You certainly don't know me very well at all!

I'm not bashing you, I'm just being truthful with you, it's your ways of portraying your ideas and wants that turn others against you AND your ideas even if they may be the best thing ever for our sport! No matter how many times you say you want the old target settings back it's useless attempting to portray that message here and everywhere over and over till people get sick of your writings? That isn't working out too well either is it?

AND, I've more than likely written as many or possibly more to ATA than you might imagine also. Like yours, mine fell on deaf ears or blind eyes while headed toward the circle file in addition.

Both life and yearly members are the ATA and we all get one shot at making a difference, that's voting for the right man as your delegate. Other than that, it's just mouth work on all the shooting sites.

HAP

 

Leonidas,
That is what must be done to keep control of this sport. Many times new delegates are leaned on by one of the older members. They must listen to the shooters of their state.

 

HAP you've given folks one of the most important reminders for this year. Except I would have included "right man or woman."

What our ATA does not need is "Bobble Head" Delegates who place more importance on voting in unison with the Executive Committee or their other Delegate friends instead of closely examining the question at hand, forming a list of pros and cons and then voting in the best interests of the Association.

At every annual meeting there are Delegates on both sides of the issues, just like in Congress. All believe (most of the time) they are acting in the best interests of the ATA. But every so often we get a majority of Executive Committee members who think it is within their authority to make changes and inform the Board of Directors afterwards. Our governing rules as well as past practice say otherwise.

There are a couple of gleaming examples of authoritarian managing going on and it will be interesting to see if our present Delegates are paying attention and speak to the issues.

The examples of which I was recently informed of are the changing of the date of a Satellite Grand, positioning it between two State Shoots (all in the same Zone) without first discussing it with the Zone Delegates or the Delegates of the two States affected. (My information is from a very reliable source but I have not seen anything official) Yes, I'm going out on a limb on this one and it would be much wiser of me to wait until I have confirmation.

The second is a recent letter from the ATA advising of rule changes made by the E. C.

Many readers here are aware of the discussions relating to the changes to the Flights and Angles rule in the mid 1990s. One important point that came out was the vote by Delegates rescinding changes made by the E.C. without any discussion or vote being recorded by the BOD during their annual meeting.

Even if the rule changes currently being advocated by the E. C. are all excellent and supported fully by our Delegates, they should be given the opportunity to discuss, debate and possibly further amend those rule changes before giving their approval. That's the duty of the Board of Directors who are the State and Provincial Delegates we elect each year at our annual tournaments.

Any elected Delegate who does not understand the importance of providing oversight of the Executive Committee does not deserve the honor of serving in that position.

Hasty, ill-advised decisions will not happen if we all work together for the betterment of our ATA. That means the E. C. tasking the Rules Committee to investigate the impact of making a rule change as well as the historical record of such changes in the past and then providing a recommendation. Recommendations should be sent to all Delegates who should be given adequate time to discuss proposed changes of our rules with the State/Provincial Association and their respective shooter members, whereupon they will vote the following year during the Annual BOD meeting.

With the exception of matters of imminent danger to life and death, is there any rule that must be changed without a thorough debate?

I thank the Executive Committee for assuming the leadership role, however, good/great leaders take the time to get everyone involved before a decision is made.

Kenny Ray

 

From Roger's post,

#3 Who was the driving force behind changing the flights and parameters on targets?

I'll take a WAG at it.

The people that purchased the machines then found out those machines couldn't throw a 3 hole target without a lot of extra adjustments and time?

Like I said, just a guess.

Flyersarebest

 

Flyersarebest,

I honestly don't think that was the case. I believe all traps were capable of throwing a much wider angle that the old "left and right angle as straightaways from firing points 1 & 5.

Over many decades, a variety of people wanted to tighten up the parameters in the Flights & Angles rules. Gun Club managers wanted to narrow the field in order to throw a more desirable target so high scores could be made and shooters would return. Shooters liked carding those high(er) scores. Even the ATA leadership at times decided to allow targets during Grand American Handicap tournaments which did not meet our regulations as stated in the rulebook.

I don't know if the folks making motions during the annual BOD meetings were aware of the prior history of if it really mattered to them. I have not doubt they thought they were acting in the best interests of the sport. Some may still feel that way while others may have changed their mind. I know I've changed my mind on a few things over the years after receiving an education on the history.

I don't think it really matters at this point who was behind the changes. Those changes were properly and fairly made and are widely accepted by the masses. Its the watering down of rules and procedures in America. Lower the standards so the applicant can pass the examination. I believe the examination was properly constructed to weed out those who just don't have the ability to handle the job, sport, etc.

We've done it some many times to the sport we love and it will continue until we throw straightaway targets so all shooters can post high scores and get in the shoot-off and the back fence will be at 50 yards so all those who worked hard and achieved punches are so handicapped that they will never be in the money. After all, it has been stated on this Forum that the long-yardage shooters (top dogs) ruined the money game. I just can't bring myself to agree.

 

Kenny, you are so right in your post above this last jewel also!! I was in somewhat of a hurry to get back to my NCAA tourney I wasn't thinking so clearly. The women delegates I know can do any job at hand and do it well, sorry for leaving them out of my post above!

Shooters will follow strict enforced shooting rules just as they do in the International Shooting Sports!

Love your last paragraph too concerning leadership roles!!

HAP

 

HAP,

I knew it was an oversight my friend. You and I both know that there have been many great ladies elected to leadership positions in gun clubs, state associations, ATA Delegates and manufacturers' representatives.

Believe it or not I even keep a history file on our women in leadership roles.

 

Smithy...You don't know Jack...

 

Is this in minutes or a guess?

8 machines worth a lot of Jack.

Some machines throw better angles?

 

It has got to be somewhere as the ATA paid the invoice. I'm sure someone knows where the figures are posted.. I'll let you know as soon as I get more PM's Roger

 

Flyersarebest & Got Beagles,

I withdraw my comments.

I was speaking in general of the evolution of narrowing the parameter of target angles over decades and the traps marketed during that period.

It is clear to me now that your discussion was regarding a certain named trap, missing traps and details which led to the decision on the purchase of those traps. This is a subject I had not heard about and therefore have nothing to contribute. Likewise, I cannot speak to the attainable angles of the PAT trap. I yield to Mr. Roger C. who seems to have a vast knowledge on the issue and I look forward to his summary.

If there were cases of misappropriation, it should be investigated and reported and not hidden from the membership.

 

"Part of the shame is that the "long time supporters" don't have any respect for today's shooters and their accomplishments because it isn't under your old system. That obviously makes them less in yours and Borum's eyes. Perhaps if either of you had half of NW's passion you might of changed things."

leftout- Sorry but the quote above just goes to prove your lack of knowledge of who, besides your idol, have a passion for this sport and who, besides him, contributes to its success through that passion. Your spouting off on something you have no knowledge of and are only guessing about. I have nothing but respect and admiration for all who participate in this great sport. I fear for its future on the path we are now following and to ignore its continuing decline is blindness or ignorance. Jimmy Borum

 

Beagles, I think your 'not what' is right but not for any of the reasons you've listed. I'll ask my son to poll his team mates and I'll post the answers here. The majority of his team mates have never shot registered trap.

 

These are the big questions?

Any answers?

Just crickets chirping.

 

Roger,
I think you hit the nail on the head, Delegates (some) say one thing to get elected and then do what they are told to do once they get where it matters ... The Delegate we had was a suck up from what I saw and was told of his actions (or lack of) from people who were there ... If the Delegates cannot control the EC they will be a run away train ( like they are now ) and the ATA will continue on the path to no where and or destruction ... I was always told to "Stand up for what you believe in even if you stand alone", have lived my life that way and was not always the most popular because I told it like it was (or how I felt it was until proven otherwise) ... When I was involved as the club President, I felt I was a "mouth piece " for and of the members and never wavered from that ... We need a strong Delegate to act on behalf of the shooters no matter who those shooters are and to do the right thing no matter what ... The shooters of the State should stand ready to assist the Delegate if need be to accomplish what he is set out to do ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Family Guy,
These are questions that very much need answers. I'm looking for them as every shooter should also. Something smells about this whole situation, and all ATA shooters should be asking WHY,WHO, and was there an ulterior motive involved. Did anyone profit by their actions? If so WHO?
I think some of the actions taken on the machines evolved into all the changes that came into the sport in the aftermath.
What good came of all of these changes? Can anyone answer this question?
I am not just referring to anyone change, I am referring to all of the changes. When grouped together have had a negative affect on our sport.
When a bad decision is made it should be corrected, not more bad decisions made to try to justify the bad one.

 

Roger I just read all the ATA Minutes from 2001 that nwere posted on the ATA website, there was postings some were delibertly deleted from posting by the EC. only one I did find was dated December 27th 2003 on purchase of trap machines, voice release systems, on line , 39 & 40, and more on lines 366-395. then more on trap house modifications for the Pat Trap on April 13th 2004 Lines 1228-1231 on the minutes pages.

What I did find interesting was the EC members refused to sign was a Confidentiality agreement on the Sparta purchase, were they hiding something from us?

April,10-April,14th, 2002 VP Tom Acklin requested all members of the Competetion, and Industry Advisery Committee,to respond to him on 3 subjects, #1 Shell Velocity, #2 Lead Problems, #3 Target Setting Requirements & report to him by April 15th 2002.

Exec Director Norris informed that ATA Trap Mechanic, Bill Kranenberg will inspect and repair all 1524 trap machines before the 2002 Ohio State Shoot and the 2002 Grand American.

In 2004 Pat Traps were advertising the Official Trap of the ATA. I could find nothing in the ATA minutes of any Bidding on trap Purchases. Which is out of the ordinary.

Although I did see Mr. Hampton speaking on behalf of IDNR Sparta, about purchasing or leasing trap machines, and Voice Controllers for use by the ATA, then contradicting himself about some machines delivering different angles.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Gary,
There was letter asking for bids, but before they could be submitted we received a letter stating we received an offer we could not refuse letter No explanation of any kind just do not submit your quotations..
If they refused to sign the agreement it should be in the minutes somewhere. If they did not sign it that means they did not approve of it, so maybe it would be ok to publish what it was if it can be found.

 

Before you get people making false assumptions, exactly what do you mean by "Confidentiality agreement on the Sparta purchase..."?

Is that your wording or the ATA's? It's hard to pin down what timeframe you are referring to for that quote. We didn't purchase the shooting property at Sparta, bought admin bldg. later, and I believe (but could of course be wrong) we purchased at least most of the new Pat Traps prior to the move. Are you referring to the trap purchase, the office space, something else, or aren't you sure?

 

Neil you have a unique way of mis-interpreting and changing the point of discussion, your support of the 2 hole angle/
and in President Tom Acklin wanting to hear your rules committee on flights and angles I quoted Mr Acklin, and you saying he would have your report with the other delegate writing it out, you said it and quoted it in the minutes of that ATA meeting, I gave the date and line number of those minutes in a previous posting, showing your support of the 2 hole angle. There was no discussion of target year in History Buffs reply to you.
Gary Bryant DLS

 

There was no mention of target year dates in History Buffs reply to you.
DLS