What is the VRA doing?

[saum2]

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.

Interesting Bob, I've never had the opportunity to decline an invitation to a meeting or forum on the subject the VRA wish to "trial". Yes, I receive emails from the VRA weekly but I've never been asked nor aware of any VRA "club only" membership until last week.I'm not surprised by the NRAA response. Yes I'm a club member but wish to continue with the NRAA membership. Do I have a choice? By June 30th I guess i'll find out. It could be the end of competition as I know it.

[PeteFox]

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..
?

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

Toecutter
Oh dear! - never let the facts get in the way of feeding the rumour mill.
1. NRAA fees have been fixed for a number of years they haven't " continually risen"
2. It was the states that voted in favour of the fee increase, it wasn't " dictated"

Please read the short statement below

200w.gif

[PeteFox]

In an effort to stop the rumour mill, I looked back through the files I have to find the NRAA subs from past years.
I went back 19 years, although three years are missing
The two images below show that the NRAA sub is going through its first rise in 5 years and that the rises aren't regular.

The recent static level of the subs shows restraint on the NRAA's part, not some sort of money grab.

NRAA Subs extract.jpg

NRAA subs.jpg

[bobped]

One of the things I was sometimes asked during my time on the NRAA Board, usually by one of the anti-NRAA Brigade, was "What does the NRAA do for me?" - why should I pay their Membership fee?

Actually it does quite a lot, but that's not the question being debated here.
That in turn begs the question - What does the VRA (or any State Association) do for me?
The STA does some things but I would argue - not nearly as much as the NRAA.

Let me give an example of how Tasmania has answered this question of fees for people who only want to shoot at their club range and don't want to take part in competitions or travel etc. etc. (permission granted)

TRA Full Member Fee $95.00
TRA Associate Member $45.00 (Club Shooting Only)
NRAA Fee $87.50 (Everyone pays this)

Basically the TRA is absorbing the costs of reducing the Fee for Club Only members.
If you want full NRAA membership you pay $95 + $87.50 = $182.50
If you want only Club membership you pay $45 + $87.50 = $132.50

Either way everyone is covered by full NRAA membership.

Why can't other States consider something similar?

[Ras]

Just to fill in a blank for you Pete the NRAA fee in 2019-20 was $65.

Richard

[PeteFox]

TRA Full Member Fee $95.00
TRA Associate Member $45.00 (Club Shooting Only)
NRAA Fee $87.50 (Everyone pays this)

Bob
Just to clarify, the Associate member category has some restrictions
1. No voting rights
2. Cannot stand for an elected position
3. No access to the TRA "shop"

It was created to help boost club numbers, while limiting the possibility of a takeover from forces outside the target/competition focussed membership. Full NRAA membership is required because of insurance and the TRA membership obligations to the NRAA. No shop, because full members funded its existence.
Over time, the associate members have largely migrated to full membership.
Pete

[Blade]

That in turn begs the question - What does the VRA (or any State Association) do for me?
The STA does some things but I would argue - not nearly as much as the NRAA.

The VRA runs/maintains and supplies all equipment required for the 1,000yd wellsford range (complete with camping facilities etc). (Feel free to go and shoot there)
The VRA "shop" bulk buys projectiles, powder, reloading gear etc (in bulk to ensure reduced pricing and ensure stock is avail) which members have access to..
Supplies funding/products to the junior development program
and some other stuff...which is "technical" with range accreditation, co-ordination of R/O accreditation etc...

[Potshot2023]

NRAA fees aside, I find that WARA Association fees are $235. That's on top of Club, DRA and NRAA fees. Obviously a rich man's sport in the West.

[AlanF]

As I see it, the main obstacle to alleviating an unfair fee structure is Section 7.4 in the NRAA constitution quoted by Pete above. It needs to be replaced with something which allows the NRAA to have a more flexible fee structure for its STA members. For example if STAs were each to supply TWO membership figures, the first requiring insurance cover and basic services only, and the second being the remainder who want full membership with all the benefits it brings. The first STA membership figure would incur a lower annual fee per member. Importantly, this could be done without the NRAA losing income, because the higher and lower fee amounts could be adjusted each year such that the total returns the revenue they need.

So this sort of change should be supported by all 3 tiers of governance, being NRAA, STAs and Clubs.

Now comes the burning question. Can anyone who has studied the NRAA constitution say what needs to happen to make changes to it? I know that changing my club constitution is not hard, but suspect the NRAA one is much more challenging?

[Martin]

Right now, we’re stuck in a situation where everyone is working flat out just to stay afloat—and it’s not enough.

According to the NRAA’s December 2024 report, national membership has stabilised at around 6,500. As Pete pointed out earlier, gains from recruitment efforts—such as through Sporter—are barely offsetting natural attrition.

Meanwhile, rising inflation has significantly increased our operating costs. Without growth in membership, the only way to sustain services is to raise fees. On top of that, global instability and tariffs continue to drive up the cost of components.

These rising costs make recruitment even harder—and the cycle continues. If we don’t intervene decisively, we will keep circling the drain.

Tinkering around the edges is no longer enough. What’s needed is a full, ground-up rebuild of how we operate. For example:

How many full-time staff do the STAs and NRAA employ to service 6,500 members?
Are those staff tied up in low-level administration instead of growth-focused work?
Could we improve productivity by digitising routine tasks and shifting resources into recruitment and club support?
Would one centralised online retail warehouse be more efficient than a handful of smaller ones?
Most importantly, how can the STAs and NRAA better support the volunteers who are keeping clubs alive?

As a sport we can't move forward by staring into the rear-view mirror.

[AlanF]

"...Tinkering around the edges is no longer enough. What’s needed is a full, ground-up rebuild of how we operate...

Yes it's clear that a lot more needs to be done to get the sport back onto a sustainable path, but it's going to involve fixing many different things, and each one that's fixed in the meantime will help in a small way. The one being considered here could significantly increase the attractiveness our sporter/hunter class for prospective new members. Even if a major rebuild is undertaken, its going to take a long time and many problems will persist. In the computer world, there was a saying "If a system is mess, and you computerise it, you'll end up with a computerised mess". We don't want to end up with a re-organised mess.

[PeteFox]

So the fly in the ointment is $87.50. All this trouble over $87.50.
And this makes a difference in whether people will shoot or not? Or join or not? Really?

In a world where a barrel costs $1500 chambered, a scope from $3~$5k, a stock is $2k, and even a basic factory sporting rifle with a scope $2~$3k. Then there's reloading gear and components. Factory ammo is $2.70 a round.

It stuns me that there is argument over whether paying $87.50 to the NRAA is excessive or perhaps unaffordable.
I wouild argue that if the amount is stretching a budget too far, then shooting is not the best choice of a sport because in the longer term the economics will become unviable and staying the course, not possible.

So the idea that taking $87.50 out of the equation is a panacea for our future survival is an unrealistic fantasy.
Pete

[AlanF]

.
So the idea that taking $87.50 out of the equation is a panacea for our future survival is an unrealistic fantasy.

Wow! Did I say anything remotely like "a panacea for our future survival"? Now that IS a fantasy .

[Guy]

United we survive Divided we fall The anti gun movement must be loving this , please everyone look at the Big picture
Guy

[bobped]

Some of us are beginning to ask the question - "What will happen on Victorian Rifle Ranges after July 1st?"

Even if I pay my NRAA membership through the VRA will the NRAA accept and recognize it?
If the NRAA has withdrawn the right to use the SSR's on our Victorian Ranges, what happens then? Also what has happened to the usual Insurance Cover provided for me through the NRAA?
Use and regulation on our Rifle Ranges is usually accepted by State Authorities on the basis that the overall umbrella of operations is covered by the rules regulations and procedures overseen and promulgated by the NRAA. I am certain if the relevant State Firearms Authority found that we were operating under Rafferty's Rules that the range would be closed rather rapidly.
The VRA's response to this will probably be that they will invent their own sets of rules and regulations, but they don't have a very good record of efficiency over the last couple of years. Anyway, why not have one set of national rules for everyone? Much simpler.

The simple fact is that WE ALL NEED TO HAVE MEMBERSHIP OF THE NRAA in one form or another.

Maybe we do need to come to some agreement about different forms of membership to take into account something like "Club Membership" but it needs to be done on a national basis with discussion and collaboration by all States and the NRAA.
Perhaps the VRA has decided to do this because it feels the NRAA is not listening and have chosen to bludgeon their way through.
Scuttlebutt has it that some other States are privately in agreement that it is a problem.

Whatever has happened the VRA has been fairly clumsy in the way they have done it and created a lot of angst for people.

Lets hope they can get together and sort out the problem, because we as ordinary shooters are the one that perhaps will suffer.

I hope someone can give us a clear message before the sh.. hits the fan.
-
-