While I'm not in favor of the new 1000yd-only format, thats not really the part that gets my blood boiling. I know some of the people involved, and I don't *honestly* think there was much in the way of ulterior motives - they have their views about F-Class and LR and are certainly entitled to them as I am to mine. I don't believe there was any intention of excluding folks... although I do believe that will be the result.
What *really* hacks me off is the way the whole thing came about - and by that I mean the way the NRA-appointed HP Rifle committee functions in general w/ regard to new proposals or changes. I don't necessarily put the blame entirely on the committee so much as I do the NRA itself. Ironically for a rights-of-the-people organization, its never really been (as far as I can see) a 'for-the-people-by-the-people' org when it comes to the rules and such. This latest debacle is a classic example: someone had an idea. Whether we agree with it or not, they had a right to submit it along with their reasons and arguments *for* it. Okay, fine. Where the problems start cropping up is that *NOBODY* outside the HP committee or the people involved in submitting the proposal have any idea, or any opportunity to present counter arguments or opposing view points. NONE.
Some folks (here and elsewhere) have put forth that the burden of canvassing the 'body' of F-Class shooters to see what they really want should have fallen upon the persons submitting the rule change proposal. While I don't necessarily disagree with that in principal, it doesn't address the fundamental problem - there is no mechanism in place for anyone to see what proposals are coming up before the HP committee. The NRA essentially has them operating behind closed doors, rather than in a public and open manner.
What I would propose is something like this: Lets say the HP Committee meeting is October 15th (just picking a date, doesn't really matter). The closing date for submitting new proposals for consideration should be 4 weeks prior, or September 15th. The NRA Competitions department obviously has the mechanisms in place to publicize the *results* of the Committee meeting in the form of the emails (by opt-in subscription) and Facebook posts to interested parties... now let them publish a list of the proposals *before the meeting* with a 2 week comment period. Other competitors besides just the ones submitting the proposed changes would then have a chance to voice their opinions on the items. The comment period would close two weeks before the meeting, giving time to sift and collate the responses in preparation for the committee meeting.
Do I expect the committee members to read each and every response? Not realistically, no. But I do think that giving the members of the shooting community actually affected by the proposed changes an opportunity to voice their opinions for or against the docket items, and giving the committee members an opportunity to get a better feel for what the people they represent *want*, would lead to a better process all around. The current setup where competitors get blind-sided by the new rules changes every January, with no idea where the changes came from or why, seems to lead to a lot of discontent among the ranks, as well as animosity against the 'faceless' members of the HP committee who are volunteers doing a relatively thankless job. A little more 'connection' between the two entities I think would go a long ways to avoiding some of the more vocal dissent. There will always be times the committee has to make unpopular decisions, just as there will always be people who would, as my father would put it, complain about being hung with a new rope. Thats unavoidable. But the way business is done now... behind closed doors, with negligible input from the people most affected... is inexcusable.
YMMV,
Monte