ZZ - not sure I can reply to this without butchering the quotes, so forgive me if I miss-quote or munge the formatting completely.
- Requirement to do the "safety course" in order to become a full member, regardless of your background.
The course is a requirement of the Ontario CFO. Remember, not all shooters come for the same background. The military and para-military forces don't require PAL's for their employees, nor do they follow the same safety procedures or even Federal laws. And not are all club members licensed; we get a lot of spouses, kids, in-laws etc that join. We get all people of all walks and skills joining the club.
I would've gotten the exact same score on the exam if they let me do it without taking the course first. Why not give people this option?
That's actually a good idea. Shooters with established providence could be expedited this way. Personally, I think its ridiculous that known competitors with established providence that shoot at RB have to take the course when they have been shooting competitions at RB for years.
Not only this course is totally useless, apparently there is a 5 months waiting list to take it.
As has been explained many times in this thread, the waiting course can be expedited by doing a walk-in and taking the spot of someone that didn't show, or rescheduled. Although its the genisis of this thread, if the OP had done a bit of research (like read our FAQ's) he would have found that many members take the course the same month they sign up for it. And some people do purposely choose a later date, because of other prior commitments.
Requirement to observe shooting disciplines that you have absolutely zero interest in. You might argue that some people might become interested after observing them, but its not an excuse to make joining the club so much more painful.
This is the current thinking. Myself, I'm not in favour of it. I'd like to see it done away with. Or made optional; maybe with a minor discount. Something to incent the new users to get involved in the various disciplines. Some ranges do this for work-parties.
Interesting, i didnt know it was CSSA's idea. Still doesnt answer my question of why some clubs can get away with no probational shoots, while some require 10+ to apparently please the same CFO (or CSSA). If CSSA is behind this, then why are they not imposing this requirement on most clubs in other provinces?
I don't know for sure that it was the CSSA's idea, just how it was explained to me by people that have been CSSA members (and OHA before that) for a very long time. And its not something they would impose, its a due diligence recommendation. Its still up to the clubs to decide.
You seem to have missed the whole point of my post. What i was trying to say originally was that this whole "We've been around for 50 years, have 1700 members and growing, therefore we must be doing everything right" attitude that you and other members or BRRC BoD seem to have is wrong. The reason BRRC is successful is in its location (mostly) and cost. If you actually tried to fix the issues that so many people complain about, you would be FAR more successful.
I haven't missed the point, there are things that can be improved. But by the same token, there is much that is working. Location is an aspect. So is good governance, low overhead, no material safety issues or policy issue with the CFO ...which drives expense down and keeps membership costs low. Which is another aspect in our favour.
on that post... sadly due to agreement (based on info given by many long time members and those that said #### it)
