Is this the end of the Rocky Range?

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

x2. Sounds like the kind of guy that would report his own F&G club to SRD for crossing a creek with a quad....

Gads, Robin does get in a lot of **** , doesn't he?

Grizz

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by diamonddave

It was solved the only way it could be solved. It was very black and white what needed to be done in order to keep our lease with srd.

Why not post the AFS proposal and the RRGC reply, so everyone interested can see what the real story is.

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by Jack Hardin

Why not post the AFS proposal and the RRGC reply, so everyone interested can see what the real story is.

Well diamonddave, what do you think, about putting both proposals up so everyone who is interested can see what happened?

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by Jack Hardin

Well diamonddave, what do you think, about putting both proposals up so everyone who is interested can see what happened?

I'm going to see if I can get a hold of a copy of each from one of the cowboy shooters. Just to see what went wrong.

[flipper62]

Nothing went "wrong", the party that was "invited" to the range couldn't accept the conditions and had no choice but to move their toys to another playground. The RRGC had to comply with their lease.

It was the AFS choice to move, plain and simple!

There is a press release planned to clear the air.

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by flipper62

Nothing went "wrong", the party that was "invited" to the range couldn't accept the conditions and had no choice but to move their toys to another playground. The RRGC had to comply with their lease.

It was the AFS choice to move, plain and simple!

There is a press release planned to clear the air.

It will be good to see the press release, in the Rocky Mountaineer I assume. Any idea of a date?

Cheers!

Jack

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by Jack Hardin

It will be good to see the press release, in the Rocky Mountaineer I assume. Any idea of a date?

Cheers!

Jack

Contacted one of the cowboy shooters and he is faxing me a copy of the AFS proposal and RRGC's response on Tuesday. Should be interesting.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by Jack Hardin

Contacted one of the cowboy shooters and he is faxing me a copy of the AFS proposal and RRGC's response on Tuesday. Should be interesting.

That will be interesting to see.

It was the AFS choice to move, plain and simple!

At the meeting in Leslieville it was pretty obvious that AFS did not want to move but wanted to come to an agreement with the rod and gun club to take possession of their buildings in order to meet lease conditions.

There must have been something wrong with their proposal or the committee was not willing to accept it or negotiate. From what I hear the committee had a "counter proposal" that AFS could not accept.


The gun club is apparently going to eventually have their AGM and elections and hopefully at that meeting all the details will come out.


I have not "taken sides" in this issue, actually I did not think there was a need to "take sides". I was just hoping for a solution where everyone could get together and solve the problem that surrounded all of them.

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by duffy4

That will be interesting to see.

It was the AFS choice to move, plain and simple!

At the meeting in Leslieville it was pretty obvious that AFS did not want to move but wanted to come to an agreement with the rod and gun club to take possession of their buildings in order to meet lease conditions.

There must have been something wrong with their proposal or the committee was not willing to accept it or negotiate. From what I hear the committee had a "counter proposal" that AFS could not accept.


The gun club is apparently going to eventually have their AGM and elections and hopefully at that meeting all the details will come out.


I have not "taken sides" in this issue, actually I did not think there was a need to "take sides". I was just hoping for a solution where everyone could get together and solve the problem that surrounded all of them.

Just received a copy of the RRGC counter proposal to the AFS proposal. Haven't received the AFS copy yet.

[Cement Bench]

the written word of AFS means nothing, the REAL negotiations are what counts,

facts that i was personally involved in

1. AFS went over the heads of the local government people without following proper channels, ASK AFS THE DISCUSSIONS THEY HAD WITH THE PROVINCIAL SRD IN EDMONTON, that will tell the real story

2. ask why they tried to submarine the annual meeting by saying about the constitution not being filed when the MEMBER LAURIE ?? JENNINGS WAS ON THE EXECUTIVE FOR 4 YEARS, AND HE NEVER FILED THE CHANGES, so what decisions are invalid, oh the one to try the AFS at the range then is invalid, as they never got it approved formally at the annual meeting nor by the executive, so it never should have been allowed in the first place,

3. executive metings where AFS and silly wet asked for executive resignations but offered no reasons, and kept just belly aching about no camping and no drinking RATHER THAN COMPLY AND OFFER SOLUTIONS

4. withholding CFO documents and discusions from the new executive,

5. they never listened to the mediator that was involved, but instead CHOSE TO SUBMARINE THE PROCESS AND NO HAVE SUFFERED THE CONSEQUENCES,

the AFS should only be allowed to use their own range, they were offered a new range just west of the Rocky range and they said NO, THEY WERE OFFERED TO STORE THEIR EQUIPMENT UNTIL THEY COULD FIND AND BUIlD A RANGE, THEY SAID NO they should have listened and got the land just west of the rocky range, then they would have had the protection of the range so their equipment was not damaged,

and my opinion is the locals have had more COWBOY experience than all the Mr. dress up types that are drunk on the range both day and night, they should have had more decentcy to respect the rules,

and as for the other shooting disciplines leaving, ask yourself this

1.0 the silly wet director has never and I repeat NEVER filed a profit/loss statement in 5 years with the club, and never handed in a dollar to them (maybe money is missing from entry fees?) and so the Rocky club had to pay the 13 $ ? insurance fee if the shooters were listed (but they never were as no report was ever filed) so the incompetence continues, so silly wet needs a new director, not the suck up boy to the cowboy director,

2.0 maybe the 50 cal incident could have been solved as follows-----suspend the member for 6 months and then put him on probation for a year, but the directors did not want this new COMMITTEE to review the incident to make sure DUE DILIGENCE was being followed at the range, (if the CFO asked as they saw the incident on you tube and asked what is going on out there), (the suspension could have been made after the fact just to be legal on making sure range rules were being followed, and not to punish ther friend of the ex pres)

and what about the CFO member employee who stores horses at the ex-pres land, could that be why he only dealt with the horse owner in discussions with the rocky range, corruption at the cfo office mmmmmmm needs looking into, as spruice grove had issues so maybe they needed to offer horse storage in return for better decisions,

there is far more to this story than meets the eye and the AFS is not some organization I ever would be in bed with, or even on the range, so try to get at the facts and not just stir the pot with HALF TRUTHS

and yes I hope this AFs remembers to pay the bill for cutting the electrical at the range to leave it in an unsafe condition, and other stuff to come out,

they as an organization is in trouble, once the govenment finds out how they really conduct themselves,

cement bench,

[Duck Buster 1187]

Now that Jacky boy has run his mouth.
I wonder who on the planet would allow him to join their club?

As for Duffy being the perverbial chit disturber, good luck getting a renewal at the Rocky range there Robyn MacDonald.


It seems a lot has happened at Rocky, and a lot of folks cant figure out that shooting ranges are no longer a free for all.
Booze inside the range fence is a great big mistake no matter how you try and paint it.
Leases need to be followed, or I guess the lease holder might just tell you to vacate.

Whats so friggin hard to understand?

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by Duck Buster 1187

Now that Jacky boy has run his mouth.
I wonder who on the planet would allow him to join their club?

As for Duffy being the perverbial chit disturber, good luck getting a renewal at the Rocky range there Robyn MacDonald.


It seems a lot has happened at Rocky, and a lot of folks cant figure out that shooting ranges are no longer a free for all.
Booze inside the range fence is a great big mistake no matter how you try and paint it.
Leases need to be followed, or I guess the lease holder might just tell you to vacate.

Whats so friggin hard to understand?

I haven.t even started yet, still waiting for the AFS proposal to see what caused the draconian response from RRGC.

[The Elkster]

Its always interesting to see how different sides interpret stories

Seems like a pretty simple thing really. SRD has rules that have to be followed. There is nothing to debate or argue about there. It is what it is and rules are in place for a reason and not established by the gun club. Who'd a thunk drinking and shooting might be a bad idea? If some members of a club want to go by their own rules counter to SRD rules then quit pouting, suck it up and just start another club at another location and have your planned activities cleared with SRD. No biggie. But I hardly think its reasonable to expect another user group to assume your "liabilities" under their name whilst you go about breaking established lease rules with anonimity. That would be pretty stupid of them.

[gopher]

Nothing wrong with drinking after a shoot! Beer companies actually sponsor some shooting events Budweiser in particular.

Shooting and drinking is another matter entirely. Camping is a part of shoots as well most gun clubs are accommodating if not all.

[diamonddave]

Totally incorect Gopher. Insurance will not touch a range that has a campground. If you have a campground that is deemed your temporary residence. Therefore you are allowed to have alchohol at your temporary residence. This is why you CANNOT have a campground at your gun range. There are some ranges that have a campground beside their range, but not on the range.

[The Elkster]

I like my drinks as much or more then the next guy but I'll say this. If I were underwriting or in charge of overseeing a gun range lease any mention of booze and guns in the same area would have me reviewing the insurance/lease. My common sense tells me its simply not worth the risk.

I wonder how many people requesting leniency would assume the club liability under their personal name. Somehow I doubt it. But its somehow reasonable that someone else should accept the risk?

[Rocky7]

As an outsider reading these posts, it sounds like time for a divorce.

Anyway, I hope the Rocky Range survives this because I have always wanted to bring some of my very sober rifles - and a kid or two - out for some long range shooting. I just needed to find a year when I can make a few trips, to justify the membership cost.

[gopher]

Originally Posted by diamonddave

Totally incorect Gopher. Insurance will not touch a range that has a campground. If you have a campground that is deemed your temporary residence. Therefore you are allowed to have alchohol at your temporary residence. This is why you CANNOT have a campground at your gun range. There are some ranges that have a campground beside their range, but not on the range.

Diamond Dave dose that have more to do with it being an SRD lease then privet property for liquor?

So I am illegally camping at shoots in Alberta I take my trailer all the time and so do hundreds of others?

I am Not being snotty

[gopher]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

I like my drinks as much or more then the next guy but I'll say this. If I were underwriting or in charge of overseeing a gun range lease any mention of booze and guns in the same area would have me reviewing the insurance/lease. My common sense tells me its simply not worth the risk.

I wonder how many people requesting leniency would assume the club liability under their personal name. Somehow I doubt it. But its somehow reasonable that someone else should accept the risk?

I think the key word here is lease I know of one club that even had a liquor license for the club house.

[1911]

DRACONIAN synonyms CRUEL, HARD, HARSH,

AFS synonym BS

[duffy4]

When I attended the "information meeting" at Leslieville this is what my impression was.

There were a number of problems the club had to deal with in order to remain in existence. The facilitator running the meeting seemed very concerned that tempers would flare up and a shouting match would evolve. She did very well to see that did not happen.

After awhile it seemed to me that there were not two "sides" battling. I know that I was just interested in seeing the Rod and Gun club range survive.

Getting renewal of the lease from SRD was one TOP PRIORITY problem. In order to do this a number of rules that SRD have for this rec. leases had to be addressed. A representative of AFS was there and talked and it seemed to me they wanted to do what was necessary to help the gun range to comply with SRD. They had a proposal to turn "their buildings" over the the Rod and Gun club.

The next thing I hear is the RRGC rejected AFS proposal and gave them a proposal that they could not accept. I just would like to see both proposals.
I don't see how that is "disturbing chit". I am not on one side or the other. I am still on the side of seeing the range continue.




There were also issues with range insurance and compliance with Alberta's Firearms Officer.

Camping on the range lease and drinking on the range property are issues mixed in with SRD and the insurance.

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by duffy4

When I attended the "information meeting" at Leslieville this is what my impression was.

There were a number of problems the club had to deal with in order to remain in existence. The facilitator running the meeting seemed very concerned that tempers would flare up and a shouting match would evolve. She did very well to see that did not happen.

After awhile it seemed to me that there were not two "sides" battling. I know that I was just interested in seeing the Rod and Gun club range survive.

Getting renewal of the lease from SRD was one TOP PRIORITY problem. In order to do this a number of rules that SRD have for this rec. leases had to be addressed. A representative of AFS was there and talked and it seemed to me they wanted to do what was necessary to help the gun range to comply with SRD. They had a proposal to turn "their buildings" over the the Rod and Gun club.

The next thing I hear is the RRGC rejected AFS proposal and gave them a proposal that they could not accept. I just would like to see both proposals.
I don't see how that is "disturbing chit". I am not on one side or the other. I am still on the side of seeing the range continue.




There were also issues with range insurance and compliance with Alberta's Firearms Officer.

Camping on the range lease and drinking on the range property are issues mixed in with SRD and the insurance.

As an RRGC member, I would like to know the reason why five shooting disciplines have left the Rocky range. And as soon as I receive the AFS copy I can at least see why one of them left. Stay tuned.

[flipper62]

One of the disciplines the Defensive pistol group did not leave but was displaced when AFS moved their buildings in and built their town.

Robin wote "The next thing I hear is the RRGC rejected AFS proposal and gave them a proposal that they could not accept. I just would like to see both proposals.
I don't see how that is "disturbing chit". I am not on one side or the other. I am still on the side of seeing the range continue."

The side you should be on is the club who holds the lease, make a decision..

If RRGC had accepted the AFS's proposal that would have been akin to handing them over the range. The RRGC were advised by legal counsel not to accept it unless they didn't want the range. They then countered with a proposal drawn up by a committe that was chosen from a hat with names of those who were interested in being on a committee, this list had some names collected at the previous meeting a the Legoin.

The RRGC can now move forward with items in the agenda that will benefit the membership as a whole. $ collected at each shooting event will go to through the club etc.

[duffy4]

Flipper said: The side you should be on is the club who holds the lease, make a decision..


That is what i thought the problem was. You approached the problem solving with an "us against them" attitude. I have the feeling that no matter what the AFS proposal was you would have rejected it because you wouldn't want to "accept" anything from "them" (the enemy).

When or if I see the AFS proposal and "our"(I am a member) proposal then I can decide if I support what "we" did.

Too bad its raining again today, I would have liked to go to one of the best ranges in Alberta to do some shooting.

[flipper62]

Originally Posted by duffy4

Flipper said: The side you should be on is the club who holds the lease, make a decision..


That is what i thought the problem was. You approached the problem solving with an "us against them" attitude. I have the feeling that no matter what the AFS proposal was you would have rejected it because you wouldn't want to "accept" anything from "them" (the enemy).

When or if I see the AFS proposal and "our"(I am a member) proposal then I can decide if I support what "we" did.

Too bad its raining again today, I would have liked to go to one of the best ranges in Alberta to do some shooting.

Too bad you didn't get a chance to "vote" on it.

The AFS made the choice to move. The history on how the AFS came to the range was not voted on by the general membership to start with and there wasn't a proposal or terms that were agreed upon by either party. So the dirty laundry had to be washed sooner or later.

If the AFS had been upfront on their intentions before they moved in, then I am pretty sure the general membership would have not voted in favour of letting then in site.

When ALL the details come out, you will be enlightened.

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by flipper62

Too bad you didn't get a chance to "vote" on it.

The AFS made the choice to move. The history on how the AFS came to the range was not voted on by the general membership to start with and there wasn't a proposal or terms that were agreed upon by either party. So the dirty laundry had to be washed sooner or later.

If the AFS had been upfront on their intentions before they moved in, then I am pretty sure the general membership would have not voted in favour of letting then in site.

When ALL the details come out, you will be enlightened.

Any idea when the press release is going to be made and in which media? Just want to compare it with the AFS proposal and the RRGC counter proposal.

[diamonddave]

Originally Posted by gopher

Diamond Dave dose that have more to do with it being an SRD lease then privet property for liquor?

So I am illegally camping at shoots in Alberta I take my trailer all the time and so do hundreds of others?

I am Not being snotty

I didn't take it as snotty gopher. It has everything to do with insurance. We ran right up the ladder of insurance companies. Insurance will not cover a shooting range that allows liquor on sight. If something happened at said shooting funcion that was allowing liquor, insurance would wash their hands of everything, and the range would be soley on the hook for damages.
If anybody does not believe that, feel free to call your local insurance company and see what they say..... Be sure to get it in writting

[nekred]

I have been watching this post with interest as there seems to be so much between the lines...

So the AFS decided to leave because insurance would not allow alcohol on the range.

Folks in reality here is how it works. If you declare the range closed then it is no longer a range and becomes like any other piece of private property.

Alcohol is obviously not allowed on an active range.

All I can say is that to me it is a black mark on all parties that there is an impasses and what could have been a great co-operative venture and a way to create unity in shooting sports has been submarined by self interest, jealousy, envy , malice and hatred.

I would love to see the proposals that were submitted and the rejections. It would be very enlightening for all shooting enthusiasts in Alberta. Not to lay blame on any club or association but how to prevent this type of conflict within other clubs and associations.

This stuff kills me because everytime we have a split, schism, etc. it keeps us from being nited in our pursuits and to protect our recreational pursuits.

Now I do not shoot IPSC, IDPA, Frontier shooting etc., but I do enjoy competitive archery and can appreciate the time effort, work and energy it takes to build a club or association and seeing it all ****ed away through malice is not a good exmple for any sport.

I see it enough in archery between target paper shooters, 3D archers, bowhunters... and it huirts our sport and while somewhat unrelated all the same undercurrents are there for all of our sports to learn a lesson from.

[diamonddave]

That's not the reason the decided to leave Nekred.

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by diamonddave

That's not the reason the decided to leave Nekred.

Well then, tell us why, diamonddave. Let's clear the air....show the members the AFS proposal and the RRGC counter proposal. I can see why you are hesitant in doing so, as I have seen them and the RRGC counter proposal was not very diplomatic, in fact, it was very draconian, especially para 2 and 3.