I normally don't post threads on TS.COM unless it directly impacts me or the state that I represent as a delegate. So with that in mind I want to let the Executive Committe of the ATA know just how disappointed I am with your decision to cap the competition factor for state shoots at a 7.
In particular the Ohio State shoot last year was just a few shooters shy of having a competition factor of 8 and we were looking at the 2009 target year to move to this higher level. To accommodate the shooters needs and desires Cardinal Center is increasing the number of traps from 40 to 52 for the 2009 shooting year.
With this increase the logic was that more traps could accommodate more shooters since we maxed out in two events during the state shoot in 2008. With more shooters up goes the competition factor which in turn brings in more shooters because of the higher competition factor.
More shooters means more in daily fees for the ATA and OSTA.
Our board of directors for the OSTA operate under this 3 point principle when making decisions that affect our shooters.
Does this decision/action benefit the shooters Yes or No.
Does this decision/action benefit the clubs Yes or No.
Does this decision/action benefit the OSTA Yes or No.
If as a board we can not answer yes to all three of the above we do not move forward with the decision or action.
Let's look at this ATA EC decision and use the same priciple.
Does this decision/action benefit the shooters. No, since a reduced competition factor at a state shoot means an individual could be penalized points based upon the competition factor cap.
Does this decision/action benefit the clubs. No, since the capped competiton factor may keep some shooters away that only have a limited amount of resources to spend on shooting and want to compete where they can win maximum points.
Does this decision/action benefit the OSTA. No, for the same reason listed above. In addition to this the less shooters means less daily fees for both the ATA and the state organization.
It seems odd to me that at the same meeting you want to increase our membership in order to grow, but at the same time put a strangle hold on certain state organizations that want to continue to grow and use increased attendance and the corresponding competition factor as one of our drawing cards.
Thanks for listening.
Roger Edgington
Ohio State Trapshooting Associatoin
NorthEast Zone Director
In particular the Ohio State shoot last year was just a few shooters shy of having a competition factor of 8 and we were looking at the 2009 target year to move to this higher level. To accommodate the shooters needs and desires Cardinal Center is increasing the number of traps from 40 to 52 for the 2009 shooting year.
With this increase the logic was that more traps could accommodate more shooters since we maxed out in two events during the state shoot in 2008. With more shooters up goes the competition factor which in turn brings in more shooters because of the higher competition factor.
More shooters means more in daily fees for the ATA and OSTA.
Our board of directors for the OSTA operate under this 3 point principle when making decisions that affect our shooters.
Does this decision/action benefit the shooters Yes or No.
Does this decision/action benefit the clubs Yes or No.
Does this decision/action benefit the OSTA Yes or No.
If as a board we can not answer yes to all three of the above we do not move forward with the decision or action.
Let's look at this ATA EC decision and use the same priciple.
Does this decision/action benefit the shooters. No, since a reduced competition factor at a state shoot means an individual could be penalized points based upon the competition factor cap.
Does this decision/action benefit the clubs. No, since the capped competiton factor may keep some shooters away that only have a limited amount of resources to spend on shooting and want to compete where they can win maximum points.
Does this decision/action benefit the OSTA. No, for the same reason listed above. In addition to this the less shooters means less daily fees for both the ATA and the state organization.
It seems odd to me that at the same meeting you want to increase our membership in order to grow, but at the same time put a strangle hold on certain state organizations that want to continue to grow and use increased attendance and the corresponding competition factor as one of our drawing cards.
Thanks for listening.
Roger Edgington
Ohio State Trapshooting Associatoin
NorthEast Zone Director