Winter 2002 - National Rifle Association

LETTERSFrom Neil FawcettCompetitor MarkingI am disappointed at the way this matter is being handledby the NRA and protest most strongly both at the biasof the wording of the questionnaire and the grosslyunconstitutional manner by which the NRA seeks tocompel competitors to respond.The NRA view is abundantly clear to anyone readingthe questionnaire – the Association has absolutely nowish (intention?) to change the current system and has,quite disgracefully, loaded the questionnaireaccordingly.Not content with that, the Association then seeks amandate to enforce its view by insisting thequestionnaire is handed in before competitors are issuedwith their squadding cards.There is clearly some middle ground between ‘fullcompetitor marking’ and ‘paid marker’ systems and itis this middle ground the NRA should be exploring bycanvassing competitors’ views in an open, unbiased way.It is accepted that not all competitors wish to do markingstints and they should, therefore, be able to elect to buyout from marking duties.Competitors who do not elect to buy out would becommitted to do the marking stints for which they aredetailed and should not expect to be able to buy out onan ad hoc basis during the meeting. Thus, the NRA wouldknow well in advance the number of hired markersrequired and can plan accordingly.I would suggest among the reasons for a wish to returnto competitor marking is the apparent decline in thestandard of marking. Competitor markers are able toraise and drive up the standard of marking generally.In a similar vein to the NRA questionnaire the followingstatements might be considered:“A return to (a form of) competitor marking may necessitate aslight reduction in the shooting programme for the meetingbut the standard of marking will be improved.”There are many aspects to consider on the subject of apossible return to competitor marking and the NRA isperfectly entitled to its views on the matter. However, ifit is properly to serve its members, it must be seen to belistening to them, gathering information from them(fairly and without bias) and then act accordingly.[Reply from Martin Farnan, NRA Shooting ManagerThe actual number of votes cast in connection withcompetitor marking, as reported in the Umbrella TentMeeting, was as follows:Wishing to keep fully paid marking 595 (67%)Wishing to revert to competitor marking 269 (30%)No preference either way 6 (0.7%)Abstained 18 (2.3%)Total votes 888 (100%)The voting was therefore more than 2 to 1 in favour ofremaining with the present system. There were a numberof comments in the Suggestion Book suggesting that thequestionnaire had been biased. I point out that thewording of the questionnaire was put to the TR Sub-Committee and that proposed amendments wereincorporated before distribution. In addition a numberof those known to be in favour of competitor markingwere asked for further points in addition to those shown,but no suggested additions were forthcoming.I am sure that you will agree that it would have beenunfair to simply put the question “Do you want to revertto Competitor Marking - Yes or No?” without alsomaking the competitors aware of the consequent knockon effects. Since only two possible advantages had beenidentified against seven disadvantages the questionnairemay, at first sight, have been thought to have been biased.This possible misconception may have occurred onlybecause of a wish to give all competitors the fullestpossible information on which to base their decisions.There is no possible middle ground as you suggest. It iseither competitor marking or it is not. The reason (aswas indicated in the questionnaire) is to do with the timebetween shooting blocks mid-morning and midafternoon.With full marking this is only 15 minutes (togive the markers a breather). However, if we revertedto competitor marking, this would have to be 45 minutesto give competitor markers time to exit the butts, collecttheir kit and get down to the firing point in time for thenext detail. This is why a full hour would be added tothe shooting day plus all the other attendantdisadvantages which were listed in the questionnaire.]From Paul Charlton,Chairman of the Irish Rifle Club (Bisley)The National MatchI would like to thank, on behalf of the Ireland Team,through the Journal those many people who haveheaped heartfelt congratulations upon us since wesucceeded in winning the National Match for the firsttime since we first competed in 1865.Following our success, we have decided to invoke ourright to hold the 2003 National Match in Ballykinler,County Down, Northern Ireland. The Match itself willbe held on Monday May 26th. This will be precededby the Irish Open, which is normally a two day event.It is likely that all of Northern Ireland’s CommonwealthGames Gold Medallists will compete in theMatch, and this may help to generate some goodpublicity for shooting in Ireland.Entry forms and forms to allow possession of Firearmsin Northern Ireland will be available next year, but ifyou wish to be part of this unique occasion, pleaseregister your interest by following the instructions onpage 56 of this Journal.81