2009 Agenda Items

B

BMF

Guest
Numerous people have ask me about the agenda items and how they should vote. You need to vote on what you think is right for the discipline you shoot. I will tell you how I'm voting on certain items. TP#1 - Agree, The committee needs to create a lesson plan on the Referees training and send it to each club. so that the clubs can train the shooters and everyone is on the same page regardless of what club you referee at. SC#1 - Agree, The IBS should provide the first reticule free of charge to each club. After that, charge them for any additional one's. SC#2 - Disagree, The shooter is responsible for knowing if they have shot a record and notifying a match official. That's the extent of his responsibility. They should not be handling targets to go get signatures. The official should call all the referee's in and have them sign it in the scoring room. SC#4 - Disagree, The only guns that should be fired at a registered match, are the one's that are registered in the match to count for score or group awards. Load development and practicing should have already been done days before the match. LR#1 - Agree, All the other Disciplines have there own committees for good reasons, They are the shooters. They more than likely have shot at most of the ranges and understand what each range is capable of doing when it comes to making rules. Its not really fair to have 7 - 600yd shooters govern and making rules for the short range guys. LR#2 - Agree, Every match should be a SOY match and the club sends in your best 5 matches for SOY points. There's times a shooter can't make a scheduled SOY match and the way the economy is he can't afford to travel much. This would eliminate that problem. These rules are supposed to be shooter friendly and to attract more shooters. Not turn them away. LR#3 - Agree, The nationals should be scored for SOY points the same as a regular match. By the number of shooters that attended, not double the points. That's not much of a title of SOY when a shooter hasn't done anything all summer and has one good weekend at Nationals thus becoming the Shooter of the year. BL#1 - Agree with the Long Range Committee. Disagree with any rule that changes the current 600yd Match format or number of rounds that LG and HG fires. That's my thoughts and votes. You have to make up your mind on these items.
 
At the IBS nationals in Ohio last summer there were some petitions up for us to look over and sign. They were regaurding rules changes in IBS 1000 compition. A couple of them delt with the use of muzzle brakes on HG's or letting guns legal for LG compeat in HG with a break. I didn't see anything anywhere in the IBS packet I recieved a while back about those issues. I don't see them on your post , either. Is this something that the membership votes on, or is up to the rules commity to deal with?

Just wondering.
 
IBS Site

Tod

Check the IBS website for the agenda items that made it to a vote. If the items at Nats didnt garner enough signatures they would not have made it onto the agenda for a membership vote.

Rob
 
I could have sworn that I read somewhere that there was to be a vote on a temporary (1 Year) rule to allow a legal light gun to compete in HG class with a break. Is this not the case?
 
Rob Ashcraft. said:
Tod

Check the IBS website for the agenda items that made it to a vote. If the items at Nats didnt garner enough signatures they would not have made it onto the agenda for a membership vote.

Rob
Click to expand...

It seems to me that as far as IBS rules chatter amonst the membership at the matches I attended, I never once last year heard about any of the ajenda items up for a vote. Not one. The only issues I herd dicussed at all last year was the muzzle brake issue. And it was a big issue for some (like me :eek:).

It seems to me that as far as the issues up for a vote, the only people who would even care about them are the rules commity guys who have to deal with those issues. Don't get me wrong.....I feel that the rules commity, the Pres, VP, sec, tres., board of directors......ect.......are the most important part of our sport. They do the work. They have the passion. It just seems to me that with all the chatter about the muzzle brake issue it would eventualy make it to a vote.

Just my .02, for what it's worth.:)
 
Ted

the agenda items you are talking about was for 2009 Winter meeting next Jan 2010. Under the present IBS rules for agenda items, the agenda items voted on today had to be the LR committee by 1 Jul 2008. They had 30 days to look at them and get them to the Executive Board who had them until today (almost 4 months).

Everyone needs to understand, that under the present IBS bylaws, any agenda items signed at the Nationals (Sep) are aleady too late for that years Winter meeting and vote. They can only make the next years vote, which in this case is the Jan 2010 meeting.

Nothing was ever published in PS last year about approved changes either, so that left us with only 2-3 months to "guess" what was approved and get in new items if possible. Basically it was too difficult with that short time, so they will be in the 2009 Winter meeting agenda in Jan 2010.

It seems that there has been a "tradition" of publishing all the proposed items in PS magazine. However, the bylaws only require that they be published, which could be done on the IBS website as anyone can go to a library and view them. This tradition takes 3 months alone out of the agenda cycle for the publication lead time.

There are five agenda items and sign up sheets which will be sent as PDF files to each of the club contacts for them to take to their clubs and get signatures before the 1 July deadline this year. So look for them and make sure someone sends the sign up sheets to the LR committee by 1 July.

one of the 2009 agenda items deals specifically with this issue and advocates changing the bylaws to basically allow each of the respective disciplines the opportunity, if they choose, to vote on their respective discipline agenda items at their national championship instead of the Winter meeting. The items would still go their respecive committee and the Eboard. If they do not want to and want to handle it at the Winter meeting, no problem. Plus all multi discipline agenda items and by law changes would stay at the winter meeting. Only discipline unique items could be handled at the respective National meetings. The respective committees would be responsible for the meeting and vote, not the club sponsoring the Nationals. That item was discussed a year ago and vehemently opposed by some Eboard members, but might receive a more positive look now. You never know, the EBoard might come up their own version of the 21st century that works better.

Today, we basically had only 12-15 LR members at the Winter meeting voting on the LR agenda items for 600 plus LR shooters and 11 clubs all the way to the West coast. Something is wrong with this process.

BH
 
Last edited:
BountyHunter

I would like to see a system where the shooter's are issued a number that is registered to them. When the winter meeting comes around and they can't make it to the meeting, the week prior to the meeting they would be able to vote on agenda items by E-mail. Taking a vote at Nationals won't work to well when the National are limited to a small number of shooters. Example - Oak ridge Nationals had about 36 shooters. Now you have 36 shooters voting on issues where other shooters never had a chance to because they didn't make the cut off for Nationals. Just something to think about.
 
Brian

Hopefully, the E board would consider that and take it upon themselves to come up with a better system before this agenda item comes up next year. Right now with not even an IBS number for each shooter that is kind of hard.

BH
 
BH,
What happened with those petitions we signed at Quantico this year about rules changes? I am most interested in the rule change that would let us shoot a light gun in heavy gun as long as no changes were made.
Thanks
 
Cut off at the Nat'ls?

Brian,

There should never be an entry cut-off for a National Championship. If so, it becomes more of an "invatational" match. What was the cut-off this past year? This type of practice would lend itself to limiting who would be allowed to shoot the match. This would also cause a lot of bad feelings in the sport and a very bad name for the range in question.

Danny
 
Danny,
There was no cut-off at the IBS 600 yd. '08 Nationals at Oak Ridge that I am aware of. We could have accommodated a lot more shooters. If there were 36 shooters that was all that showed up too shoot. There was talk of having a cut-off at 48 shooters at some point in the planning of the event but there were never that many shooters that signed up.

Rodney
 
Danny

There was talk about limiting the number of shooters at the last Nationals, but one of the reasons for the low turn out was because it was a working Nationals for the shooter's and alot of them did'nt want to pull targets all day. Now Piedmont runs into a problem because of the number of benches they have. If they shoot the 8 targets per gun in 2 days, they can only handle 48 shooter's. if you drop it down to a 4 target Nationals like a regular match, than they would be able to handle 96 shooter's. They don't want to drag it on to a 3 or 4 day Nationals. This is an issue that the Long Range Committee is going to have to look at. Do we shoot more targets and turn away shooters or less targets and welcome more shooters? When rules are being considered, they need to look at all the clubs in that discipline and their capability.
 
Brian,

I don't believe that under the rules, by any interpretation, can a club limit the number of entries to a National Championship match. The rules committee should address this now. If the club wants to host the "nation", then they should be prepared to do just that. If it takes 3 or 4 days to complete the match, the true competitors will be ready to do just that. If not, then they can stay home.

The group guys take all week to shoot their Nat'ls, and as this longe range shooting gets more popular, you folks better be ready to do that also.

Danny
 
I called several people on other committee's and there is no rule in writing in regards to limiting Nationals. It was a spoken rule only. The way i feel about spoken rules is this. If it's not in writing, it did'nt happen. I need to be able to read things for myself. It's my understanding that there is alot of these spoken rules only. We will have to work on this when we come across one of those rules and get them to the winter meeting and the committee's to get it a written rule so others can look it up and read it for themselves and it is an actual rule.
 
Brian,

What was the spoken rule? To limit or not to limit, that is the question?:D

And when will Piedmont hope to host the Nationals, Dave?

I might hit the lottery and be able to attend:cool:

Danny
 
I think the idea of restricting nationals is ridiculous. If the host club can't accomidate the shooters then they should be held elseware.

Just the uneducated opinion of a rookie!!! Take it for what it is worth.

Tod
 
PGC withdraws bid

IBS Long Range Committee


It is with regret, I must inform you that Piedmont Gun Club is withdrawing our bid for the 2009, 600 yard nationals, due to the negative opposition of having a limit of 48 shooters.We agree that our sport would be better served if the nationals were held at a range with the capability of accommodating an unlimited number of competitors. Piedmont cannot do this.
After numerous requests from the shooters, and after taking into consideration the number of shooters that have attended this event since its inception, and the eight target format, we decided we could handle 48shooters which I believe exceeds any attendance thus far. Piedmont is making this decision to prevent ill feeling within our organization, and we hope by doing so at this early date it will allow ample time for the IBS to secure another club for this event.


Sincerely;

Tommy Williams (PGC)
 
Mr. Williams,

If the club thinks that it can only handle 48 shooters in two days for the match, why not extend the event by a day or even two if attendance warrants it.

I can understand why the first two events did not have a large attendance, geographically speaking, and last years should have had twice the previous amounts, but that would be based on having paid target pullers.

It is my understanding the Piedmont club has a great facility for the match. I believe that if the economy improves and gas prices don't double, you would have a better attendance than any of the last three years.

Just my $.02 worth,
Danny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top