What is the VRA doing?

[PeteFox]

Yes Geoff you have it correct
Everyone pays the full NRAA fee

[Lithgow]

I don't know what the fee structure is in Vic, but in NSW full membership is $238 ($150 NSWRA + $88 NRAA) plus whatever your club puts on top of that.

For the $150 the NSWRA takes you get a plastic card. They run a shop which is no cheaper than the normal commercial suppliers and organise State Championships once a year that cost another $350 to participate in. The NRAA for their $88 provide insurance and the competition and safety rules.
Comparatively, the NRAA might be the better deal.

Insurance is about $10/shooter, SSRs and their changes are managed by Volunteers.
NSWRA has Australia's Premier Range, NRAA doesn't have a range.
As for the NSWRA shop, perhaps you should drop in some time to check out the cost in comparison to other shops, not online stores.
With NRAA insurance, if you aren't shooting to the SSRs, you aren't insured under NRAA anyhow, that's the beauty of insurance options.

[Ras]

I've just been looking up the fees from the last 3 returns for NRAA/ SARA they are:
23-24 NRAA $75 SARA $135 Total $210
24-25 NRAA $75 SARA $143 Total $218
25-26 NRAA $87.50 SARA 147 Total $234.50
This is a 16.7% increase in the NRAA fee compared with the SARA increase of only 2.8%. Has the insurance that much?
Richard

[PeteFox]

I've just been looking up the fees from the last 3 returns for NRAA/ SARA they are:
23-24 NRAA $75 SARA $135 Total $210
24-25 NRAA $75 SARA $143 Total $218
25-26 NRAA $87.50 SARA 147 Total $234.50
This is a 16.7% increase in the NRAA fee compared with the SARA increase of only 2.8%. Has the insurance that much?
Richard

Ras
not quite, you're not comparing apples with apples
From the earliest NRAA fee schedule I have access to (dated 19/2/21) , the NRAA fee was $75 at that time. Therefore in four years the fee has risen by $12.50 or an average of 4.2% per year (not compounded)
The STA fee you quote has risen by $12 in two years or an average of 4.4% per year for the years quoted. And I'd bet the fee was not static like the NRAA's for the two years before that.
Pete

[PeteFox]

I think that there is a flaw in the logic of some of the arguments put forward here.

A few observations first:

(1.) It seems to me that there is a perception that less frequent range users especially if they don't shoot competitively are somehow unfairly paying a disproportionate fee than those who are regular range users and or comp shooters.

(2.) There is also a perception that somehow the NRAA is rolling in cash and everything it rakes in after paying the insurance premium is going to the piggy bank. I think this idea feeds the perception in (1.) above and is demonstratively false.

(3.) I don't know the exact truth of this, but the rumour is that the NRAA has some $1.2 mil in the bank. With some 6500 members, that represents $184.62 per member. I would call this working capital or possibly a sinking fund, and at scale it is a piddling amount.
If for example legal case had to be run to defend shooters rights, that amount of money would only get us into a fight, but wouldn't see us through it

(4.) The NRAA is essentially a business. It has like any business, rents, wages, travel expenses etc and bills to pay. I am guessing here, but 2.5 staff@ $100k = $250k, 2x rent @ 75k (total), 2 x office exp (Bris and Syd) $50k, Insurance $100k plus travel, accommodation, IT, we get to $500+K pretty easy.

(5.) If all 6,500 members were to pay $87.50, gross income would be $568,750 this year. Again a piddling amount of revenue, especially when set against expenses, because there is no slack.

========

So the question remains, why should infrequent shooters who don't do comps pay as much as frequent shooters who do shoot comps.
If you notice in the points above, none of the expenses or revenue relate to comps, teams or anything else that could favour frequent shooters.
What we have above are the fixed costs of running an organisation that protects the interests of shooters. Its not a pro rata thing, it's just the cost of owning a firearm and then wanting to shoot somewhere in a regulated way and having the backup of an organisation that is there to protect your interests.

So where do the comp and teams shooters fit in?

These are the people who do the heavy lifting. They pay the entry fees to comps and they pay their own way when travelling and entering teams events. They are buying food and beer, supporting the Association store, putting their hands up for working bees, unpaid positions, setting up targets, mowing the range, being the RO and the list goes on. This is how the frequent shooters pay and contribute way more than the casual shooter.

These are the people doing the work and paying the money that makes it even possible for casual shooters to have a range to visit.

They are the variable costs.

So there are casual shooters who get the benefit of all the extras contributed by the regulars, and then don't even want to pay the "flag fall". And worse we have people who should know better, promoting the idea. WTF!

Pete

[Benji]

You make some excellent points there Pete! And in the grand scheme of shooting as a sport our fees really are a drop in the ocean.

[Barossa_222]

As an outside observer, it would appear that what the VRA is doing is violating their constitution. What is the general consensus from the membership given that their range certificates will certainly be called into question?

[Therook]

I back the VRA the fact is it never intended to brake away from the NRAA but offered an option for cheaper membership shooting isn’t a big growth sport.
Fundamentally the target shooting fraternity has its priorities skewed. Favouring Target rifle a dying smaller percentage of the population and geared and granting disproportionate discount to veterans.
If you want the sport to grow we need to support younger shooters and disciplines most likely to attract and keep them. Unfortunately the SSAA has facilities that cater for them and we don’t.Most just want to turn up shoot a box of ammo or sight their rifle in and not interested in spending all morning for 12 shots.
Question is how do we go forward if we can’t keep our ranges open .Only way to do that is keep existing members and try our best to attract new shooters.Well done VRA for trying something different.
Rather than attack try and come up with new strategies.

[Ras]

I have found a couple more NRAA fees:
2014-15 NRAA $50 SARA $85
2017-18 NRAA $55 SARA $ 95
Pete I was only comparing the increase over the last year not over the long term. If you look at the increase over the last decade the NRAA fee works out at less than $4 a year while the SARA fee comes out at comes out at about $6 pa. It's the States where the biggest increase is, are they going to lower their costs to keep members?
Richard

[PeteFox]

Fundamentally the target shooting fraternity has its priorities skewed. Favouring Target rifle a dying smaller percentage of the population and geared and granting disproportionate discount to veterans.

In order to have a sensible discussion, it needs a foundation of facts, not opinions or hearsay.
1.
In the NRAA newsletter dated 18th Dec 2024, a breakup of the NRAA disciplines was given as follows:
For the approx 6.500 membership
50% is Target Rifle (on the decline)
13% - Sporter (on the rise)
37% - F class (the balance)

I don't see given those figures that TR is a "smaller percentage"

2.
The NRAA subscription for all membership classes is given in the image below. I can't see any discount for veterans, let alone a disproportionate one.

Screenshot_20250603_112030_Proton Mail.jpg

Pete

[Therook]

Fair call Pete.
My observation has come from visiting clubs and OPM’s kings events not based on who is reported as members . When a competition has Vets and Super Vets something is wrong.I’m fast approaching vets myself but not my point but sort of.
Townsville and Canberra is worth looking at as to where we might be heading I love the tradition and history.
My point is how do we grow .I think YouTube videos of events might just get people interested .
Even some locals are unaware they have a rifle range in their backyard.

[PeteFox]

.
My point is how do we grow . .

My view is that we are not going to see growth'. I think what we have is equilibrium. A path to growth is not going to happen by hollowing out organisations and reducing the membership of our parent bodies, it can only occur by presenting ourselves as a professionally run, enthusiast driven organisation that is worth joining because it is so well run.
The alternative is providing a paddock where you can go plinking, at a minimum cost and where someone else is doing the work. You can pay your 50 bucks a year, rock up, sling lead and go home. People wanting this type of shooting are not our future.

The quote below is from my post in January this year on an allied topic.


Well no, I'm working my arse off to keep members and get new ones every day but the reality is that the attrition rate is about equal to the sign-on rate. I'm coming up to five years as TRA secretary and although we have had membership growth in that time, I've still got a few spare fingers when I count the increase.

When I joined Roma Rifle Club in 1984, the sport was in decline and was headed for disaster. Ten years left at the most. then the Army chucked us out, that was going to be the end, then some sneaky buggers started bringing handloads, bloody hell, blasphemy, a looming disaster.
Its the same story year after year, I think all sports are experiencing the home entertainment/head in ipad/online everything driven downturn. It will keep going until a new equilibrium is found. Check out the numbers of country towns that can't field a footy or cricket team.

This sport had numbers in the past for three main reasons:
It was encouraged by various governments
It satisfied the National Service obligation, and;
The ammunition and firearm was subsidised. All of these things are a recipe for getting a crowd.

With the finish of those things, the demographics are vastly different. There is no more shooting for the masses.
The sport can now only attract people who have the means, the time, the will to be different and the will to turn off the tennis and get off their arse. Sadly there are too few.

Pete

[Barossa_222]

I have found a couple more NRAA fees:
2014-15 NRAA $50 SARA $85
2017-18 NRAA $55 SARA $ 95
Pete I was only comparing the increase over the last year not over the long term. If you look at the increase over the last decade the NRAA fee works out at less than $4 a year while the SARA fee comes out at comes out at about $6 pa. It's the States where the biggest increase is, are they going to lower their costs to keep members?
Richard

SARA put their fees up inline with CPI. It saves having to increase by large amounts when you realise that you're losing money. Association costs have risen dramatically post COVID with insurance, power and wages being the main culprits. The fees gathered are used to run the association and run the range at Lower Light. It doesn't cost nothing.

[bobped]

Was at a Teams match last weekend in Victoria. Had a meeting after the shoot to discuss the issue. There were about 40 people there. Of that number there were about 35 who could perhaps have been classified as "Club Only" members if they had so wished.

The net result was a unanimous decision to write to the VRA Council asking them to cease and desist and revert to the "normal" system of membership fees with everyone to pay the full NRAA membership as per previous years. Not one member spoke in favour of it.

Interesting.

[Toe Cutter]

i think the question needs to be asked of who the NRAA is representing?

If the answer is that they are representing the states - then are they?

The VRA has asked the NRAA to hold up on continually raising fees every year as they feel it’s pushing numbers away from all states - other states feel the same way I believe.

Did the NRAA listen?

NO…

No consultation - just a dictated FEE RISE.. while putting on more full time staff..

Ask yourself - are the National Titles held at an appropriate time? - are they held in school holidays so that more people can get to them - especially junior r participants? - No?

Are the National Titles always held in QLD and not rotated to other states thereby the other states are always Subsiding QLD?

Do you think the NRAA listens to your concerns or just go their own way and you have to like it or lump it!!

I think that sometimes you have to make a stand to make things fairer again and so that the NRAA starts listening to the States concerns and fairness of National Events..

Without the States - then NRAA is nothing - its high time they started listening ..