Clay Pigeon Shooting Association

[chippy]

The cpsa`s attitude is. The members have had their say but we didn't like the answer so we will keep asking until we get the one we want. Reminds me of the EU.

 

[Paul120]

I don't think a name change will make any difference to public opinion. TBH I don"t think 99.9% have a negative view of Clay shooting and not stupid enough to believe it's live pigeons being shot at. 

Almost everyone wiih an ounce of intelligence knows what a clay pigeon is. 

There's obviously the very noisy minority that would like to intentionally believe otherwise and some of the media seem to get caught up in their missleading tripe . I say some as even the BBC does have a shooting page in the sport section which reports achievements in International events and so on. 

 

[Hamster]

Not this again, there just has to be something else in the background  <_< , even if the public were so stupid as to think clay pigeon meant real live pigeon   so what it's not like the world hasn't got bigger problems to worry about. 

 

[Jan Powell]

As the title suggests that is what our association is called.

There are now moves afoot from HQ to have the name changed to Clay Target Shooting Association to become more PC and hopefully to attract more members.

If the general public have not got the sense to realise that a clay target is inanimate I think we could be better off without them.

Interestingly at The West Midlands CPSA AGM where this was brought up by a CPSA Director only two of us resisted change, others could not be bothered.

This has been debated and voted on before , why must we debate it again , at considerable cost to the association?

I've mixed feelings about this.

I don't think the association should be spending time discussing a name change or pouring members money into another vote. That said, a change from 'Pigeon' to 'Target' is long overdue. It will better reflect what we do and will bring us into line with most other national associations.

It's a shame the associations constitution won't just allow the board to change it

 

[Paul120]

I've mixed feelings about this.

I don't think the association should be spending time discussing a name change or pouring members money into another vote. That said, a change from 'Pigeon' to 'Target' is long overdue. It will better reflect what we do and will bring us into line with most other national associations.

It's a shame the associations constitution won't just allow the board to change it

If there is a need to change the name it shouldn't be just replacing one word with another. 

Clay shooting England, Shotgun hitting inanimate targets England  or English Pottery Smashing etc 

Seriously though I though this had been put to bed last time..  

 

[Darkside]

The cpsa`s attitude is. The members have had their say but we didn't like the answer so we will keep asking until we get the one we want. Reminds me of the EU.

Reminds me of the SNP!!!

 

[schmokinn]

Take no notice Richard. Not all of us out here are charmless morons.

Richard i am sure you do an admirable job......unfortunately some do not!

The problem is that when the sh*t hits the fan everybody gets covered!

 

[Salopian]

I don't have an issue with what we call it as long as we can do it and promote it .

After all the Scots and Welsh changed their name to CTA .

But we the CPSA have been down this road, voted against it . So let us stop wasting , time, money  and resources.

OR is there a hidden agenda?

Where we get swallowed up by British Shooting , NRA or some other august body and someone gets a Knighthood or Directorship out of it ?

 

[Hamster]

Once we've altered peoples perceptions that we shoot clay targets not real ones, do you think they'll all think that pigeon will no longer be shot by others not belonging to the CPSA ? 

 

[NickF]

As the title suggests that is what our association is called.

There are now moves afoot from HQ to have the name changed to Clay Target Shooting Association to become more PC and hopefully to attract more members.

If the general public have not got the sense to realise that a clay target is inanimate I think we could be better off without them.

Interestingly at The West Midlands CPSA AGM where this was brought up by a CPSA Director only two of us resisted change, others could not be bothered.

This has been debated and voted on before , why must we debate it again , at considerable cost to the association?

Peter, there are not "moves afoot from HQ" - you and I were both in the same meeting on Monday evening and the issue has been raised again recently by members, presumably prompted by the recent name change in Ireland from ICPSA to ICTSA. When the matter was put to the Regional Committee, a reasonable question to ask the members of that group at their AGM, all but 2 said they would prefer the Association to be called 'Target' rather than Pigeon - it was not a case of 'others not being bothered to resist'. Views were put forward on both sides of the discussion by CPSA members and there was a majority view. I think you do your colleagues a disservice to suggest they couldn't be bothered and it's also unfair and inaccurate to characterise this as 'the CPSA ignoring members' views' - it is members who raised the issue!

 

[Hamster]

I thought members had already spoken on the issue raised. 

 

[schmokinn]

Peter, there are not "moves afoot from HQ" - you and I were both in the same meeting on Monday evening and the issue has been raised again recently by members, presumably prompted by the recent name change in Ireland from ICPSA to ICTSA. When the matter was put to the Regional Committee, a reasonable question to ask the members of that group at their AGM, all but 2 said they would prefer the Association to be called 'Target' rather than Pigeon - it was not a case of 'others not being bothered to resist'. Views were put forward on both sides of the discussion by CPSA members and there was a majority view. I think you do your colleagues a disservice to suggest they couldn't be bothered and it's also unfair and inaccurate to characterise this as 'the CPSA ignoring members' views' - it is members who raised the issue!

So if it was discussed voted on before and not carried why are you trying to ram it down our throats again....can't you get on and do something constructive that would actually be of some benefit to the members.

Just did a quick consensus of a few CPSA members....answers ranged between what the f*** for to no way...........

Not sure your Regional committee really represents the feelings of the members on this subject,maybe do an online poll and see the results....inexpensive and accurate?

 

[schmokinn]

I thought members had already spoken on the issue raised. 

Problem is NF doesn't listen and if he does he tells you you are wrong or in my case you wouldn't understand.

My feeling is he wants to change the name so he can effectively rebrand the whole association......

Well Nick what say you?

 

[NickF]

So if it was discussed voted on before and not carried why are you trying to ram it down our throats again....can't you get on and do something constructive that would actually be of some benefit to the members.

There's lots of good work going on but you've missed the point again Mark - this is an issue that's been raised by CPSA members some 10 years on from the last time the topic was debated. No one is ramming anything down anyone's throat but members have raised it; listening to members and seeking their views is a valid and democratic way for a membership association to work. If you're saying your fellow members are wrong even to raise, they'd no doubt take exception to that.

 

[CharlesP]

I can't help but ponder just how much money it might cost to make such a change. It's not just a "search and replace" thing with a word processor, it's a fundamental root-and-branch redesign of every printed example of every document that incorporates the CPSA acronym. Every web page, every occurrence of the logo. Every club that's affiliated and uses that logo. The bank account, the membership cards, the badges, publicity and marketing material. The list goes on.

Realistically it would mean a redesign of the logo, it's a rebranding exercise after all, not just a new name. And if we were to go about such an exercise - on the grounds that "if we're going to do it at all we might as well do it properly" - surely we should go to great lengths to expunge all connection with the pursuit or persecution of live targets. We surely shouldn't be calling "Pull" as that's a hang-back from the days when the cages (or even hats) released the live targets on the pull of a string, and that single change means the magazine has to be called something different. Nobody should have a "Monte Carlo" stock because we all know where that sort of thing originated.

We shouldn't have "No Bird!" called, nor should we  pop down to practice in the "Game Area", and we should avoid the "Grouse Butts" and the "High Pheasant" stands, similarly there should be no reference to "Teal" or "Crows" or "Rabbits"

The logical extension to this policy of rewriting history might be the banning on all grounds of all cartridges whose brand names might refer to live quarry, or whose packaging might bear a likeness of anything that has fur or feathers, so for example no more "Clear Pigeon" or "High Pheasant".  Naturally we must expel any members who insist on wearing caps sporting any trophies (such as feathers) that might have once adorned an actual bird. Of course we should immediately call a halt to the barbaric engraved representation of so-called quarry species on guns used by some in the sport, particularly those with glittering ducks or the like depicted on their actions.

I would also go so far as to suggest that if anyone's vehicle is spotted in a club car park bearing the logo of rival organisations who actively promote the pursuit of live quarry, it should be covered up on pain of expulsion. Anyone found wearing or carrying any article of clothing or other kit that has any graphic or written reference to the possibility of live game being involved (Browning logo anyone?) must be cautioned and asked to obscure it.

All of us would be expected to sever all social connections with any shooter who actually pursues live quarry, and to do the job properly we shouldn't be seen speaking to anglers. Or beaters. Perhaps we should learn to view with deep suspicion anyone wearing predominantly greenish or brownish clothing, anyone who has a Spaniel or a Labrador, and of course anyone with a Range Rover.

It's all a nonsense, isn't it?

 

[schmokinn]

There's lots of good work going on but you've missed the point again Mark - this is an issue that's been raised by CPSA members some 10 years on from the last time the topic was debated. No one is ramming anything down anyone's throat but members have raised it; listening to members and seeking their views is a valid and democratic way for a membership association to work. If you're saying your fellow members are wrong even to raise, they'd no doubt take exception to that.

Missing the point...i think not i suggested a way to be sure of the members opinion on the matter at very little cost to ourselves.

The majority of members never have any contact with their County nevermind Regional committees but as an association they should still be consulted on it and the only way for this would be a poll,online being the cheapest option.

Your belief that those at the top should be the only people asked about such a massive decision with far reaching consequences does not surprise me.

In the same vein as the vaunted live scoring system which turns out to  be a glorified spreadsheet at ridiculous cost and still not implemented...how many members actually had any choice in that.

The cost to the masses should be a major consideration.

 

[Salopian]

Thank you Nick for your replies, it is interesting to note the comments on this forum .

I stated my opinion and my reasons . It is amazing how in a debate that facts can become distorted in favour of an argument.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate for you to have mentioned that at The West Midlands Regional AGM , when Terry Bobbett raised this issue and canvassed the opinion of members present , there were only two members against the change , but the majority either could not be bothered or happy for you to do what you want.

In my time as a CPSA member I have always complained about membership funds being wasted on trivia and litigation. 

Once we all realise that money and assets belong to the membership and spend it wisely maybe , just maybe we can move forward and promote our sport..

 

[Lord v]

All this has made me realise that I have grossly underestimated the popcorn consumption required to be involved in this sport.

 

[Sian]

It is not something I would change.  I don't see the point of the change.  You will have to wait for an awful lot of current shooters to pop their clogs before anyone would use the new terminology.  Refs still refer to kills even though that was outlawed, clays/targets are still birds - and most of the shooters I know use the same language so if you change the wording now it will be about 50 years before they start using the new terminology in any event.

 

[Critter]

As a recent returnee to the world of clay pigeon shooting, after a 35 year gap, I have to say I’ve read this thread with increasing dismay.  Back in the day I was a CPSA member, but was like most members, I suspect, uninvolved in the machinations of how the association was run.  More recently I’ve been a BASC member and, whilst not being involved in any way, I have taken an active interest in how the association is run and the work it does on behalf of members.  I sense no overt discord in the BASC, although I expect, no doubt, some are not happy.

I shoot clays mainly just for enjoyment, rather than wanting to be particularly competitive.  Nonetheless I had intended to join the CPSA and enter a few competitions, but reading this thread and a few others recently, I wonder if I really want to now.  Someone please put a positive spin in favour of the CPSA – or are the majority of members fed up with the organisation?