TargetTalk

Hello Ian.
- Firstly, welcome on board. :-)
- Secondly, thank you for augmenting my lacunous knowledge: I actually was aware (somehow, somewhere), of the existence of the Island Games, but apparently I did not parse the presumable consequence that foreign competitors in pistol disciplines would have had - necessarily - some kind of permit to get their guns to Wight. So, thanks for the info.
- Thirdly, the restrictive practice that you attribute or infer to the Home Office w.r.t. section 5 authorties for the purpose of mere transit is certainly credible as you narrate it. From my perspective as a jurist, it is even very easy to understand, as an application of a typical (and very predictable) bureaucratic mindset: "We already have issued a high number (probably a high two digits figure) of section 5 authorities for the very purpose of safe and legally compliant transport and transit, to many specialized companies, so why do not entrust one of those with the transit?" Thus spake the bureaucrat and closed the ledger.
- Fourthly, I am myself a prospective application case, though maybe a bit atypical in being a jurist specialized in administrative law (firearms law, military arms law and export control law being my main livelihood there). I would like to attend one of the shooting events / tournaments, maybe the Easter Shooting Festival on the Isle of Man (as I have hopefully correctly understood, a part of Great Britain, but NOT of the United Kingdom, and of course having its own firearms law)... but it would appear to be somewhat of a, ahem, "challenge" to attain the island from continental Europe without transiting through the UK or through the Republic of Ireland ;-) . Any suggestions?

Best regards and thanks,
Alexander

SlartyBartFast wrote: So the difficulty of holding a separate competition is no different than the difficulty of having a sanctioned CG event.

Far from it, it's much more difficult.

Going back to '96/'97 it was made clear to us that exemptions would only be made for major multi-sports events.

There was even difficulty getting approval for the 2012 World Cup / Olympic Test Event and we only got it because we were testing the security aspects for the Olympics.

David Levene wrote:

SlartyBartFast wrote: So the difficulty of holding a separate competition is no different than the difficulty of having a sanctioned CG event.

Far from it, it's much more difficult.

Going back to '96/'97 it was made clear to us that exemptions would only be made for major multi-sports events.

There was even difficulty getting approval for the 2012 World Cup / Olympic Test Event and we only got it because we were testing the security aspects for the Olympics.

Then I think that the problem of inclusion in the CG is the least of the problems for shooting sports in Britain.
And the more I try to understand how shooting sports are organised in North America, the less I feel that the sport really has much of a future. When a sport is dependent on top down support and doesn't have a robust grassroots, the end is coming.
If I can't easily find and participate locally, I don't see how I can have an expectation of seeing people in my sport at an international event.

I am not a Solicitor or Barrister however it seems that the future of a Sport such as Shooting should not
be completely in the hands of Committees and Boards unless the decisions are acceptable to a majority of it’s members. This is especially true if Committee level decisions are made that will diminish the popularity or even put at risk future growth or even viability of a sport.

It is my view that Committees should be representative of the best interests of the people/sports and when things “go wrong” surely a legal challenge is possible instead of accepting what is perceived as inevitable.

I look forward to hearing opinions from others.

An unpopular question: Given the limited number of events and athletes, why should shooting sports be priveledged over other sports or worthy of suing the committee?

As the media have reported publicly (nah, not the British press or BBC, but the well-informed media, namely insidethegames.biz), India, Jersey and some other Commonwealth members are set to enounce their discontent about the decision soon 2018 in Australia. Obviously, alliances and support are right now being sought behind the walls or beneath the sheets.

That said, I should like to remind of one fact. The actual running and administration, otherwise said, the "delivery" of the next few games had been outsourced. Commercially. To Lagardère Sports.
https://www.sportindustry.biz/news/comm ... very-model
http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/laga ... alth-games

It is the (not illegitimate) aim of them, as a commercial entity, to make profit. They are not a charity. That is how it runs.
Hence, any alteration in the number of sports and disciplines, more so any addition will hardly be supported by them unless it does NOT in any way cut into their hitherto calculated profits. Draw your conclusions.

Alexander

Alexander wrote:As the media have reported publicly (nah, not the British press or BBC, but the well-informed media, namely insidethegames.biz), India, Jersey and some other Commonwealth members are set to enounce their discontent about the decision soon 2018 in Australia. Obviously, alliances and support are right now being sought behind the walls or beneath the sheets.

That said, I should like to remind of one fact. The actual running and administration, otherwise said, the "delivery" of the next few games had been outsourced. Commercially. To Lagardère Sports.
https://www.sportindustry.biz/news/comm ... very-model
http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/laga ... alth-games

It is the (not illegitimate) aim of them, as a commercial entity, to make profit. They are not a charity. That is how it runs.
Hence, any alteration in the number of sports and disciplines, more so any addition will hardly be supported by them unless it does NOT in any way cut into their hitherto calculated profits. Draw your conclusions.

Alexander

Geez. Any more conspiratorial stuff? They'll make their profit based on the CG paying them. A professional organisation running an international event is a good thing.
Have you read the limits for the number of sports and athletes at a commonwealth games? Are the 2022 games leaving spots unfilled? Which sports that have been announced shall we demand to be dropped?

As the media have reported publicly (nah, not the British press or BBC, but the well-informed media, namely insidethegames.biz), India, Jersey and some other Commonwealth members are set to enounce their discontent about the decision soon 2018 in Australia. Obviously, alliances and support are right now being sought behind the walls or beneath the sheets.

Possibly the thin edge of the Shooting Sport wedge.

If I look at the list of the 52 Commonwealth members, I see that not all of them have shooting federations at all, leave alone such federations that would have enough clout to influence their general sports representative in the CGF.

Alexander wrote:Hello Ian.
- Firstly, welcome on board. :-)
- Secondly, thank you for augmenting my lacunous knowledge: I actually was aware (somehow, somewhere), of the existence of the Island Games, but apparently I did not parse the presumable consequence that foreign competitors in pistol disciplines would have had - necessarily - some kind of permit to get their guns to Wight. So, thanks for the info.
- Thirdly, the restrictive practice that you attribute or infer to the Home Office w.r.t. section 5 authorties for the purpose of mere transit is certainly credible as you narrate it. From my perspective as a jurist, it is even very easy to understand, as an application of a typical (and very predictable) bureaucratic mindset: "We already have issued a high number (probably a high two digits figure) of section 5 authorities for the very purpose of safe and legally compliant transport and transit, to many specialized companies, so why do not entrust one of those with the transit?" Thus spake the bureaucrat and closed the ledger.
- Fourthly, I am myself a prospective application case, though maybe a bit atypical in being a jurist specialized in administrative law (firearms law, military arms law and export control law being my main livelihood there). I would like to attend one of the shooting events / tournaments, maybe the Easter Shooting Festival on the Isle of Man (as I have hopefully correctly understood, a part of Great Britain, but NOT of the United Kingdom, and of course having its own firearms law)... but it would appear to be somewhat of a, ahem, "challenge" to attain the island from continental Europe without transiting through the UK or through the Republic of Ireland ;-) . Any suggestions?

Best regards and thanks,
Alexander

Firstly not a problem you will certainly be welcome to attend the Isle of Man Easter Shoot. The entry form can be found via the Peveril Rifle Club website. However there is a problem (isn't there always) of the five airlines that fly into the Island two cannot carry firearms of any type (Flybe and Aer Lingus Regional) this because their aircraft ATR72 are not certified to carry as the hold is accessible from the cabin during flight (Actually the planes are owned and operated by Stobart Air registered in Eire). EasyJet say they will only carry one single-shot firearm per passenger plus that you cannot interline the baggage and carrying a box containing firearms through Gatwick from arrivals to departures is so not going to happen. Eastern Airlines will only carry two firearms per passenger (this is non-negotiable). BA is probably the only hope as you can interline by travelling through London City from Paris Orly and have in the past been quite happy to carry multiple firearms in one box.


How do I known all this - I live in the Isle of Man, and twice a year I and a friend travel to Alencon in Northern France to shoot in a competition there and due to airline changes have had the last two times borrow guns from friends (Channel Islanders who attend the same shot).

Transiting through Eire is not a problem, I did research it last year, and provided you are not carrying ammunition and not stopping, especially overnight, then the transit document is easy to obtain. I was looking to travel IOM to Belfast to (via coach) Dublin to Paris CDG, then on to Alencon. Overnight stops in Belfast each way, due to Eastern only carrying two firearms per passenger thsi was a no-go. The box was going to have 8 assorted toys in it.

In trying to educate myself in all things Commonwealth shooting I found that the 2017 Commonwealth Shooting Championships were held as a test event for the Brisbane Games.

Sadly, you have to go through all the results pages on Shooting Australia to try and piece together the medal counts and participating countries.

And then I ended up at Wikipedia again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwea ... mpionships

A sad inconsistent list of championships.

Googling "Commonwealth Shooting Federation" only comes up with championships. I then finally found that that there is an organisation called the Commonwealth Shooting Federation (European Division) http://www.csfed.org/

Why the F! is it so complicated to discover all these things and how does my national federation (Shooting Federation of Canada) align with other Commonwealth Federations?

Besides a link to Commonwealth Games Canada I find the following by searching "Commonwealth" on the sfc site: http://sfc-ftc.ca/assets/docs/selection ... nships.pdf

So the Commonwealth games seems pretty much irrelevant to most Canadian shooters. 4 athletes, 2 support staff. 2 rifle, 2 smallbore.

Unfortunate that 2022 won't have shooting. But I'm more depressed that that's the focus when there's such a lack of clear communication to the general shooting public and a lack of promotion of local competition. Reading the annual reports from my national federation is disheartening. According to the 2017 report, pistol participation at Nationals was low last year and at the time of the report no organisation has stepped forward to organise and host 2018. Meanwhile the "Latest news" scroll on their homepage shows reports from 2013.

Let's drag this rambling post back on topic:
The concentration of big multi-sport events isn't the sport. For Commonwealth Games Canada it's "Building a better Commonwealth through sport".

To build and support a sport, you run and support local competition leading to international competition in the sport. The focus has gone all wrong. Seems to me that more and more effort is put into supporting the big stage productions while the local sport withers.

IMO, for shooting to be considered a big thing in the Commonwealth the Commonwealth Shooting Federation (whoever they are) needs to organise regular championships. And those championships need to be held on a regular schedule with perhaps the only concession that they occur to place the championships before the Commonwealth Games like the test event for Brisbane.

On years with Commonwealth Games, if shooting is included GREAT! If not, the sport still develops and is supported in the Commonwealth and the federations serve the need of the participants.

And I could say the same things substituting the ISSF for the Commonwealth Shooting Federation and the IOC/Olympics for the Commonwealth Games Committee.

As this matter relates to Pistol, Rifle and Shotgun I am moving it to the Shooters' Lounge.

Regards to all, with a hope that shooting can be put on the programme for Birmingham,
Spencer

deadeyedick wrote:I am not a Solicitor or Barrister however it seems that the future of a Sport such as Shooting should not
be completely in the hands of Committees and Boards unless the decisions are acceptable to a majority of it’s members. This is especially true if Committee level decisions are made that will diminish the popularity or even put at risk future growth or even viability of a sport.

It is my view that Committees should be representative of the best interests of the people/sports and when things “go wrong” surely a legal challenge is possible instead of accepting what is perceived as inevitable.

I look forward to hearing opinions from others.

With respect to the Commonwealth Games, it normally is. A bid is normally scrutinised by all CGF Member Nations and in order for a Host City to be ratified they must be approved by >50% of Members. In this case, the many smaller and island nations who count >50% of their squads as shooters get their voices heard because everyone gets the same, single vote - whether they are the Association for India (with 1.3Bn citizens), or the representative for St Helena (pop. 4500!).

Birmingham is different because it is all a panic having taken it off Durban and they just want there to be a Games, so the Brum Bid was appointed by the executive committee and what they say is what we get. In legal terms, I suspect they might claim "necessity", provided that the award of the 2026 Games returns to the usual bidding/voting process.

SlartyBartFast wrote:Why the F! is it so complicated to discover all these things and how does my national federation (Shooting Federation of Canada) align with other Commonwealth Federations?

Yes, as far as I'm aware, the CSF is effectively dead. It has no purpose other than to run the CSF Championships which generally serve as a test event for the CWGs in the same way the ISSF run a World Cup in the Host City a few months prior to an Olympic Games.

It's unfortunate that information is so gard to come by in Canada considering that most countries have it easy - their Commonwealth team and basically analogous to their Olympic/National team. Compare to the UK where we have a GB Pathway and then individual pathways and squads for each and every home nation (England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland/Isle of Man/Gibraltar/Jersey/Guernsey!).

The CSF(ED) is basically an attempt to keep some semblance of a match going in Europe (i.e. affordable for Home Nations to travel to in absence of CWG budgets) and give development shooters somewhere to experience away-competition.

SlartyBartFast wrote:But I'm more depressed that that's the focus when there's such a lack of clear communication to the general shooting public and a lack of promotion of local competition. Reading the annual reports from my national federation is disheartening. According to the 2017 report, pistol participation at Nationals was low last year and at the time of the report no organisation has stepped forward to organise and host 2018. Meanwhile the "Latest news" scroll on their homepage shows reports from 2013.

Let's drag this rambling post back on topic:
The concentration of big multi-sport events isn't the sport. For Commonwealth Games Canada it's "Building a better Commonwealth through sport".

To build and support a sport, you run and support local competition leading to international competition in the sport. The focus has gone all wrong. Seems to me that more and more effort is put into supporting the big stage productions while the local sport withers.

I couldn't agree more. I recently had a thing circulate around the club reading "Please share and let's find the next Olympian!". It would be amazing if the next Olympian came from our little club, but personally I'd trade that for another 30 club-level shooters to bolster our membership from 80 to ~110 and keep me company on the range of an evening. Some night I turn up and there are maybe 3-5 other people shooting (the club has firing points to handle at least 25 shooters over an evening depending on discipline split). It's not exactly heaving...

Participation first, and Performance will come with it.

SlartyBartFast wrote:IMO, for shooting to be considered a big thing in the Commonwealth the Commonwealth Shooting Federation (whoever they are) needs to organise regular championships. And those championships need to be held on a regular schedule with perhaps the only concession that they occur to place the championships before the Commonwealth Games like the test event for Brisbane.

Well, they are "regular" in that they are every 4 years. The difficulty with a full CSF is that it's expensive. Whether we're all trying to get to Australia or Canada, the Caribbean, or making everyone else come to Europe. The sun never set on the British Empire! Countries can pitch for funding to travel to the current CSF on the basis it's on the CWG range and it's a good reconnaissance exercise that will improve the potential for medals at the Games.

As an annual or bi-annual event? Not so much. Funding is directed at ISSF World Cups, major regional events (Pan-Asian/Oceania/Pan-American/European Championships), World Championships and of course the Olympics.

A CSF Championship that is not tagged 6 months prior to a CWG has to negotiate a very full calendar. After a CWG, it's a run up to a World Championship, and then nobody cares about anything other than events with Olympic Quota places on offer. Bounce out the other side of the Olympics and you're back into the 18-24month run up to another CSF and CWG. I'm not sure where you would "put" a second one on a cycle.

I would not call it "good news" yet. That might be much premature. But it is an important step into the right direction:

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... ngham-2022

Keeping my fingers crossed,

Alexander

I have learned a big lot from Hemmers' responses in this as well as in the smaller Stirton forum, and I am very grateful for his willingness to share and to invest time in composing his thorough answers. Thank you !

One issue that he has repeatedly explained is the Commonwealth Games' differentiation (according to bye-law 14 of the CGF Constitution) between 20 "compulsory" and 16 "optional" sports. Shooting, in spite of its popularity esp. with the smaller Commonwealth member nations - but also with large India - was and is merely 4 out of the 16 "optional" sports, as I understand.

Her Majesty's Government in its (in?)finite wisdom, uses this distinction very readily and very netly whenever the question shooting's planned exclusion at Birmingham is addressed to it. This is true for the aforementioned more rceent speech by Under Secretary Tracey Crouch, and it is crisply represented by her terse and nominally correct answer to a preceding written question, on 16th May 2018:

"In 2015, at the Commonwealth Games Federation General Assembly, the entire Commonwealth of Nations made the decision for shooting to be an optional sport at all Commonwealth Games. This was reaffirmed in 2016 when the new CGF Constitution was approved. Its status as an optional sport is not, therefore, a decision for UK government."

Source: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 08/141721/

Now my question is the following: if there are so many small nations in the Commonwealth Games Federation fond of shooting, as Hemmers has explained above, and some large ones very positive about it too, then why was it not possible to uplift shooting in the pertinent 2015/16 Assembly General decisions into the status of a "compulsory sport"? Something does not quite rhyme then...

Alexander

Update:
The executive board of the CGF has confirmed the exclusion (or rather omission) of shooting from the 2022 Birmingham Games.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... nnis-added
The final decision has now to be taken per majority vote by the CGF general assembly.

Alexander

Here is the statement of the ISSF:
https://www.issf-sports.org/news.ashx?newsid=3340

And for measure (not "good" measure for sure), here is the statement from British Shooting:
https://www.britishshooting.org.uk/article/1604

Alexander

My Opinion:
Find a Commonwealth country that has existing permanent infrastructure and hold a shooting event simultaneously with the Commonwealth games under the auspices of the Commonwealth Shooting Federation.

Shooting sports should be run and contested on their own right at all times to match major world sports events.

Maybe the Toronto International Trap and Skeet Club Pan Am Shooting Center is available. https://titsc.ca/

Some Indian sports functionaries are now raising hell and are threatening a boycott of the Commonwealth Games. Why? See here:

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... nt-reveals