The FCP *without* the NARGC?

Sparks

Leading on from comments on this thread (and this has been asked more than once)

BattleCorp wrote: »

However, if nobody will sit down with NARGC, why not move on without them. If everybody else is ready to move on together, why not rekindle the FCP.

I'm just curious (this isn't a case of "vote for this and we'll do it today!", it's me wondering if people really feel this way) - if this was to happen, if we cut the 20-odd thousand hunters and shooters out of the sole official representation path to the DoJ and Minister and excluded them from all future discussion of legislation that directly affected them, what do people think the reaction would be from those shooters in the NARGC; and how would people feel themselves about that?

It wasn't me!

On the one hand, take the people who are willing and ready to engage with the PTB and move on. On the other, is it really a representative project if you've excluded such a significant demographic?

(And isn't it going to give someone shouty an annoying soapbox? Because let's face it, they're going to shout louder about how they're excluded than anyone who's going to calmly explain that they shut the door themselves.)

rowa

Surely the nargc have the largest membership of any irish shooting org by a big margin . so would excluding them be fair ?

meathshooter1

I would disagree as a shooter & hunter that the NARGC be excluded or any other NGB from any discussions with any of the PTB.IN my view the NARGC are the most influential body in Irish shooting sports who look after the interests of all shooters.what is needed is that all the NGO's get behind each other.and not be lead down the garden path again,I agree that some form of discussion should take place but it needs to be unified.In my opinion the LAST FCP was used by Ahern to test the strenths & weakness of the shooting community.we all saw what happened to the weak.

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

I would disagree as a shooter & hunter that the NARGC be excluded or any other NGB from any discussions with any of the PTB

While I'd agree with that, I'd have to say the rest of your post.... well, let's be polite and say I strongly disagree with both its sentiment and its factual accuracy, and we've talked ad nauseum in other threads about that. But in just this one thread I'm not asking what you think we need to do; I'm asking a really specific question here, so could we answer that and not go off on tangents, even if it's just in this one thread? We've lots of others for tangents and if the tangent's big enough, you can even start new threads for it.

meathshooter1

maybe a poll would be the best way .

cavan shooter

Lads you can't exclude the NARGC they represent a massive amount of people it would be like excluding the GAA from sports council or something similiar.

It wasn't me!

Part of the reason the avenue for communication is closed is because of perceived unfairness towards a group (NARGC) who are indeed representative, but who have said they don't want to talk to the administration. It's effectively a coup. "Your organisation wouldn't be representative without us, but we don't want to play ball, so we're taking our controlling stake and undermining any independent efforts by alternative bodies."

BattleCorp

cavan shooter wrote: »

Lads you can't exclude the NARGC they represent a massive amount of people it would be like excluding the GAA from sports council or something similiar.

To answer Sparks question, yes they are probably too big to be left on the sidelines. In fairness, they do represent a huge number of shooters.



But what happens when the NARGC won't sit down with the authorities like they have said they won't?

Does that mean that the other shooting groups can't meet with the authorities either?


Like it or not, we have to foster a good working relationship with the DoJ/Minster/AGS etc etc. So if NARGC won't sit down with them, who will represent the rest of the shooting community?

As Alex Ferguson at Man U said "No "one player" is bigger than the club".



Sorry Sparks. I know you only wanted a yes or no answer but I had to throw the few comments in.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry Sparks. I know you only wanted a yes or no answer but I had to throw the few comments in.

I don't mind the comments BC, I just was hoping we could stick to the specific question about this one single possible option, rather than going off on lists of what we ought/could/should/shall/have to/need to/would like to do.

I don't personally think it would work, for various reasons, but I figured it was worth at least talking about (seeing as how that doesn't cost anything).

It wasn't me!

I agree in that I don't think it's feasible to purport to represent a group while a critical component of that group is represented by a body that refuses to engage with the same mechanism. However, I also think it's totally unreasonable that those who desire representation can't have it because of the actions of that body, who won't communicate with the people they need to. That refers to those both under and outside the auspices of NARGC by the way.

cavan shooter

I dont see this as an open for discussion thread. what i would say is fix the FCP and make it work for all concerned. whether you like it or not the PTB will just sit back snd sneer. divide and conquer..

Sparks

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I agree in that I don't think it's feasible to purport to represent a group while a critical component of that group is represented by a body that refuses to engage with the same mechanism. However, I also think it's totally unreasonable that those who desire representation can't have it because of the actions of that body, who won't communicate with the people they need to. That refers to those both under and outside the auspices of NARGC by the way.

...and the problem is that that's also a completely reasonable argument. The whole point of the FCP was all of us working together sensibly. If one of us refuses, that leaves us in a fairly impossible position - we can't just tell a shooting group to feck off and go deal with the PTB without them, there are deeply fundamental reasons why that's a bad idea. But it's equally fundamentally wrong for one shooting group to effectively dictate what courses of action every other shooting group can or (in this case) cannot take.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't comes to mind!

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

Damned if you do, damned if you don't comes to mind!

Kinda the tagline of this whole debacle really, no?

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

fix the FCP and make it work for all concerned

Again, that's not the topic, and we've discussed that specific topic in several other threads (and we'll keep on discussing it there I'd imagine). It would be useful though, if we just - even if only for a short while - set aside this one thread to consider what we do if the NARGC continues to refuse to work with the FCP, while everyone else is happy to move forward with it.

Because, regardless of court cases and everything else, we're going to have to move foward. We can't remain how we are, things are broken and need fixing.

cavan shooter

Then I stand by my comment you cannot have the FCP without the NARGC present, That organisation represents around 27,000 shooters. An FCP without them would be meaningless

BattleCorp

cavan shooter wrote: »

Then I stand by my comment you cannot have the FCP without the NARGC present, That organisation represents around 27,000 shooters. An FCP without them would be meaningless

What's the alternative?

cavan shooter

BattleCorp wrote: »

What's the alternative?

In fairness and as pointed out by sparks that is not for discussion in this thread.

It wasn't me!

cavan shooter wrote: »

Then I stand by my comment you cannot have the FCP without the NARGC present, That organisation represents around 27,000 shooters. An FCP without them would be meaningless

You're essentially right, but what about the other 200,000-odd shooters who are denied effective representation by the NARGC's refusal to deal with the PTB?

cavan shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You're essentially right, but what about the other 200,000-odd shooters who are denied effective representation by the NARGC's refusal to deal with the PTB?

In fairness and as pointed out by sparks that is not for discussion in this thread.

BattleCorp

cavan shooter There is a new thread opened where these issues can be discussed.

Spunk84

If you move on without the NARGC because you dont want them,then whats to stop you moving on without the IFA or CSA??If you dont want them after a while?

It wasn't me!

Spunk84 wrote: »

If you move on without the NARGC because you dont want them,then whats to stop you moving on without the IFA or CSA??If you dont want them after a while?

That would be relevant if it were actually representative of this situation. This, however, isn't moving on without the NARGC because they're not wanted, but because despite the fact that their presence is absolutely desirable, they're not willing to engage with the PTB, while the rest of those involved, presumably, are. Now, it becomes more and more farcical if other major organisation like the IFA were to decide they wanted no more part in it, but the real problem then is that anyone who remains in discussion with the PTB is going to get labelled as if they're the separatists, rather than those who are throwing the toys out of the pram, despite the fact that all they're trying to do is to serve their own best interests. If people want to ensure that everybody's best interests are served without any toes being trampled, then if they're not willing to enter talks, they've got noone to blame but themselves for the sore feet. For my own part, I want any organisation I'm involved with or represented by to have a good working relationship with the PTB. If you want to be best served, you need your organisation to have such a relationship. If your organisation doesn't want to engage with the PTB, then your interests are not being served, and you need to communicate that effectively to your representative bodies.

Sparks

Spunk84 wrote: »

If you move on without the NARGC because you dont want them,then whats to stop you moving on without the IFA or CSA??If you dont want them after a while?

Who said that anyone didn't want the NARGC?
The question isn't "who do we want in our club", it's "what do we do if they wont come in with us".
The NARGC are the ones doing the "not wanting".

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

Because, regardless of court cases and everything else, we're going to have to move foward. We can't remain how we are, things are broken and need fixing.

This is how I see it too. If the NARGC wont engage then move on without them.

They might realise that years of dialogue and relationship building is better than legislative willy waving OR they'll just keep trying to fight a body who can and do change the rules to be in their favour and damage the sport for a few decades. I hope the former.

extremetaz

It wasn't me! wrote: »

For my own part, I want any organisation I'm involved with or represented by to have a good working relationship with the PTB.

Surely, in moving on without, more folk of this thinking would pop out of the woodwork in time? - with ranks then depleting, the NARGC would have to reconsider their position?

I'm still very much a newbie wrt all the politics, however, I do believe that standing united is the only way forward, and 27k shooters still leaves >80% of the shooting populous available for representation in any case (and that's discounting any bipartisan shooters).

They may have a big stick, but it is far from the only stick in play and I can't see that refusing to engage with the common conduit for all other shooters is going to make their lives any easier (...although it's entirely possible that I'm missing something wrt to that point).

As for negotiations being meaningless without them - that's nonesense - negotiaton with better than 7/8 of the population of anything, is still negotiation with the vast majority. It's about as far from meaningless as you can get.

Cass

If the NARGC do not want to enter into talks then we have no choice but to move on without them. I would not like to see this happen, but no one NGB/organisation should be in a position to hold others "hostage" because of membership numbers.

I'm a member of the NARGC, and another NGB. So as was said above out of their 27,000 members how many are actually just gun club members. My point being the "majority share" then think they hold is not quite the majority they think it is.

meathshooter1 wrote: »

I would say as a guess ? That they where giving assurances that where never acted on

The answer, however frustrating to hear or deal with, is not to pull out of talks. If you do then your point goes from being heard, and acted/not acted on, to just not heard.

cavan shooter

It would appear the quote from the press release reprinted above clearly states the NARGC problem and I would guess the problem alot of shooters have, a lack of trust.

However other Organisations don't seem to have that problem what so ever,(Sparks you have highlighted this on numerous occasions) so fire away and start having the meetings. But there is no point having a talking shop when elements of the DOJ etc have no interest in taking on board what was said.

extremetaz

cavan shooter wrote: »

But there is no point having a talking shop when elements of the DOJ etc have no interest in taking on board what was said.

...but what's the point in not talking at all?

If we stop talking we got forgotten entirely, so what's the alternative?

Again - I'm very fresh to all of this but it appears to me as though we're talking here like as if there is actually a choice to be made, whereas at present, the only "choice" I'm aware of is A) continue to talk; stop talking altogether.

I can guarantee we'll achieve absolutely nothing if we're all shouting individually, and no matter how big the NARGC think they are, they're in no position to represent everybody either - the only voice with any chance of being listened too is the one that engages in an organised and official capacity.

I don't want to derail the thread so if anyone could educate me as to the realistic alternatives, then please do so by PM'ing or attaching a few links because as things stand - I don't really see any actual "options" here at all.

We have to carry on.