I'm running for OGC Director of Safety and Security

[bstrawse]

Since you're running for the Safety and Security board seat, I've got a question.

As the Glock Match Program Director, I've been questioned as to the need, and safety, of having the firing lines for the Glock matches not under cover at the end of the range, but downrange nearer to the berms. (Tim, this would effect the USPSA matches, too.) What are your thoughts, pro and con, about continuing this practice?

Thanks,
Mike

Let me make sure I understand the question before I answer...

You're asking where I stand on the need for a match/competition to have the firings lines somewhere other than at the end of the range, under cover... correct?

B

[wrench]

wrench,
You mention pre-registration;
I assume that is to be included for lunch?

Yes, I believe it is just for the lunch. I always like the annual meeting, good chance to chat and meet some new folks.

[SkyRock]

Since you're running for the Safety and Security board seat, I've got a question.

As the Glock Match Program Director, I've been questioned as to the need, and safety, of having the firing lines for the Glock matches not under cover at the end of the range, but downrange nearer to the berms. (Tim, this would effect the USPSA matches, too.) What are your thoughts, pro and con, about continuing this practice?

Thanks,
Mike

Let me make sure I understand the question before I answer...

You're asking where I stand on the need for a match/competition to have the firings lines somewhere other than at the end of the range, under cover... correct?

B

Yes, that's correct. USPSA and the Glock Matches have their firing lines near the berm end of the range. How close to the berm depends on the stages; usually no more than 10-15 yards, and often less. I don't recall any being 25 yards or greater.

At the Glock Match, we do shoot one stage (5-to-Glock) from under cover on the Comp range, and we have shot the plates from the concrete pad on the 25-yard range (that one got a lot of gripes for being hot, dark and noisy!), but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

The reason I ask is that since I took over the Glock matches, concerns were raised as to the safety of the stages as they were setup, even though they have been doing the same thing for most of their 20 year history. I've had members complain at the top of their voice about the holes in the roof of the 100 yard range from the Glock Match shooters, even though we've never shot from under the cover there.

I've discussed this with all of the past Glock Match directors (I'm the 4th), and found there is no credence to the claims made that we "always" shot from under cover (with the exceptions I've noted above).

[rugersol]

concerns were raised as to the safety of the stages as they were setup, even though they have been doing the same thing for most of their 20 year history.

... again, people with zero experience, pretending they otherwise know better!

[bstrawse]

Since you're running for the Safety and Security board seat, I've got a question.

As the Glock Match Program Director, I've been questioned as to the need, and safety, of having the firing lines for the Glock matches not under cover at the end of the range, but downrange nearer to the berms. (Tim, this would effect the USPSA matches, too.) What are your thoughts, pro and con, about continuing this practice?

Thanks,
Mike

Let me make sure I understand the question before I answer...

You're asking where I stand on the need for a match/competition to have the firings lines somewhere other than at the end of the range, under cover... correct?

B

Yes, that's correct. USPSA and the Glock Matches have their firing lines near the berm end of the range. How close to the berm depends on the stages; usually no more than 10-15 yards, and often less. I don't recall any being 25 yards or greater.

At the Glock Match, we do shoot one stage (5-to-Glock) from under cover on the Comp range, and we have shot the plates from the concrete pad on the 25-yard range (that one got a lot of gripes for being hot, dark and noisy!), but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

The reason I ask is that since I took over the Glock matches, concerns were raised as to the safety of the stages as they were setup, even though they have been doing the same thing for most of their 20 year history. I've had members complain at the top of their voice about the holes in the roof of the 100 yard range from the Glock Match shooters, even though we've never shot from under the cover there.

I've discussed this with all of the past Glock Match directors (I'm the 4th), and found there is no credence to the claims made that we "always" shot from under cover (with the exceptions I've noted above).

Thank you, your clarification was very helpful.

My general stance on competition setups is that any safely designed course of fire should be acceptable in general. I don't at all believe that for these sorts of events (USPSA, Glock, etc) that they need to be under cover behind the line.

For example, I know the care that Tim puts into designing and implementing his setups for USPSA - it's done primarily with safety in mind. I know you run these events with your own RO staff as well to ensure that the competitors are engaging in safe behaviors as well...

This is why the Director of Safety & Security needs to be someone with practical experience that is professionally certified in such things (NRA Chief RSO, NRA Instructor, etc) in order to approach the review of courses of fire appropriately.

Hope this helps - and I appreciate you reaching out.
Bryan

[SkyRock]

Thank you, Bryan.
Mike

[OldmanFCSA]

You have my vote Except that I'm not allowed to vote, or eat.

[bstrawse]

You have my vote Except that I'm not allowed to vote, or eat.

I appreciate your support in any event

[bstrawse]

Thanks again to everyone for your support.

John Opheim (the current Safety & Security Director) and I had a brief cordial conversation after the meeting. As I have mentioned, we do not know each other personally and this was the first time we had met. We agreed to get together right after Christmas to go through the work that has been completed, the previous range audit and analysis, and transition all of his knowledge. I hope to continue to use his expertise in the year ahead.

I'll continue to be as transparent in role as I have been campaigning for this role - and will look to all of the members to hold me accountable to expectations I outlined for myself in this thread and in my comments before the vote today.

Thanks again!
Bryan

[katmandoo]

Congratulations. I am sure john is a nice guy and all, haven't dealt with him personally, but i have a strict policy against people who walk around all day with their Bluetooth in their ear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2 - its GROOVY

[rugersol]

This is why the Director of Safety & Security needs to be someone with practical experience that is professionally certified in such things (NRA Chief RSO, NRA Instructor, etc) in order to approach the review of courses of fire appropriately.

... this is something new... put in place by the previous regime! Before that, "match directors" needed no approval... THEY were the "experts"!

Is it your intention to continue having folks who've rarely, if ever, even competed in a USPSA match, let alone RO one... or run one... "review" and "approve" such courses?!

[bstrawse]

This is why the Director of Safety & Security needs to be someone with practical experience that is professionally certified in such things (NRA Chief RSO, NRA Instructor, etc) in order to approach the review of courses of fire appropriately.

... this is something new... put in place by the previous regime! Before that, "match directors" needed no approval... THEY were the "experts"!

Is it your intention to continue having folks who've rarely, if ever, even competed in a USPSA match, let alone RO one... or run one... "review" and "approve" such courses?!

I don't know the history of when this went into effect - and from my perpective, most of the range policy/procedure documents are out of date and in need of a major update. That's something I intend to fix with involvement from as many folks as possible. I'd like to see us get to a place where this is done fairly seamlessly through whatever process works best for the club and its members.

Bryan

[rugersol]

This is why the Director of Safety & Security needs to be someone with practical experience that is professionally certified in such things (NRA Chief RSO, NRA Instructor, etc) in order to approach the review of courses of fire appropriately.

... this is something new... put in place by the previous regime! Before that, "match directors" needed no approval... THEY were the "experts"!

Is it your intention to continue having folks who've rarely, if ever, even competed in a USPSA match, let alone RO one... or run one... "review" and "approve" such courses?!

I don't know the history of when this went into effect - and from my perpective, most of the range policy/procedure documents are a mess and very inconsistent. That's something I intend to fix with involvement from as many folks as possible. I'd like to see us get to a place where this is done fairly seamlessly through whatever process works best for the club and its members.

Bryan

A simple "yes" woulda sufficed!

FWIW, before the prior regime, it worked purdy damn seamlessly, when the match directors didn't hafta dick with someone about it!

[bstrawse]

My term ended this morning after my successor was elected. I had chosen last month not to run for re-election.

I want to thank all of you that supported me in the 2012 election and throughout the last year. As I said in my year-end report today, it was truly been my honor and privilege to serve the members at the Oakdale Gun Club over the past year. Tim (the new Safety & Security Director) and I will transition over the next two weeks and I'll be around to help him throughout the rest of the year.

Thanks!
Bryan