I see on the Oto rifle club Facebook the FSA have closed the range until conditions are met
Printable View
I see on the Oto rifle club Facebook the FSA have closed the range until conditions are met
Is ACT-in(g) on our side? It seems to take an awful lot of time to come out with something for the people who believed in them.
The wheels of good governance rotate very slowly. be patient
Greetings
At this stage we have only had some preliminary consultation on rifle range certification and not even that on other changes to the Arms Act. I doubt if we will see any change to the Act until 2026. While the FSA seems to be taking a light approach on some parts of the act safety does not seem to be one of them.
GPM
PS Looked on FB and as suspected the template is the problem. The template requirements may not change with a change to the act but the method of implementation may.
Sounds like they have the issue sorted now thank god.
Thanks @grandpamac for the detailed, researched response.
Last week I listened (Several times) to Jack Tames interview with Nicole McKee.
McKee claimed she knew of "Several" Club/Ranges which had CLOSED due to the onerous nature of compliance.
When pushed, she refused to name any Club.
Tame countered with, "The ? (Review, Police, FSA or someone?) Could not find a single example of Clubs closing due to legislative changes.
Is the Oto Club an example of what McKee meant to say, "Clubs having to temporarily suspended activity (CLOSE) whilst they tired up there paperwork, processes and procedures."
Can any Forum members actually NAME any Club or ranges which have PERMANENTLY CLOSED as a result of onerous admin?
Yes, I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
A bit obtuse of FSA to claim they didn't have any examples of a range being permanently closed given that those ranges that couldn't meet their criteria wouldn't have applied just to pay FSA to tell them the range didn't comply.
Fairly typical bureaucracy type answer though - well we never had any applications after the XXXXX regulation came into force that resulting in YYYYY as you claim... A few outfits that were hosted on farm type land and weren't a "permanent" range as such have either ceased to use the land through unable to comply or had their access agreements curtailed. But again, these outfits would not have met the new definition of "range" so arguably for the FSA they don't count either!
@Gillie and @No.3
Perhaps I wasn't clear on what I asked, and certainly Nicole McKee was using pretty wide brush strokes when she claimed to know of ranges or clubs which had CLOSED PERMANENTLY as a result of legislative changes.
Perhaps I should clarify what I think defines a Club or range before the legislation and what does not.
A pre legislative Club would have a carpark, Club rooms, toilets, Cafe or kitchen, a committee, President, secretary, treasurer and range officials. The range would have a mound, targets (or target frames),set up at specific, measured distances. When I visualize a Club range think of Trentham Army Camp, the NZDA Kaitoke, Kaituna Rifle Range.
So the question is, can anyone NAME an actual established Club or range which has permanently closed as a result of r legislative changes.
The definition of Club or range excludes, a few mates getting together in the local quarry, or farm paddock, to shoot a few targets and compare rifles and talk about ballistics. Those sorts of activities flew under the radar and never sort to become "Officially recognized," so cannot be said to have closed due to legislative changes. The activities may have ceased, for fear of prosecution, but CLOSED? Yeah, but nah!
Perhaps Nicole McKee is talking pork pies!?
Pleasant point had paddock set up with bench for hundy and room for two hundy.... As far as I know that's no longer in use. Steer dorkers set up new range at hadlow.hope it's still in use .police have/had one over the hill closer to cave. The sooner the one in washdyke is up n running the better.
Yes, I agree with what you are saying there but the definition of "club or range" also includes formally organised clubs that didn't actually have their own hard standing facilities, especially in smaller rural areas and several of these ran as an 'ad hoc' range setting up measured range target frames shot from an informal 'mound' on a paddock. It's these organisations that suddenly discovered that they no longer complied or met conditions, and in the cases where they elected to cease to be it was generally due to the shear workload of becoming formally compliant or - the other option they lost access to the land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
Just because a club didn't own it's own facility doesn't mean it didn't meet the definition of a club - and there in lies the rub.
So @Micky Duck I would imagine a "Professional" representative group such as the Deer Stalkers Association would have a comprehensive, nationwide, handbook on the establishment and running of formal, official ranges? I cannot imaging any previously accredited NZDA range having to close permanently? If I'm wrong, please let me know, anyone......????Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Greetings,Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
The ranges that I know of are still all open. These are ranges that have been set up properly in the first place. There may be some that were casual ranges on a farmers paddock used by NZDA members that have closed. Strange as it may seem, to my knowledge, there was no NZDA system for accrediting rifle ranges. NRA has one. Prior to the change in legislation NZDA probably piggy backed on the NRA one. The draft changes require clubs to work to standing orders set by their affiliated body or the regulator. This would include range safety so NZDA may adopt the current Range Safety Rules. All this is from memory so I may have got some things wrong.
GPM.
See Hugh...that's fly in oinkment. Why on earth SHOULD a range that's non profit need to be tucked off??? We humans aren't totally brain dead.if you have a big bank sticking up at end of paddock and a couple of hundy yards flat ground in front of it WHY not use it as a safe range,like old quarries the world over.a safe background is a safe background. Doesn't matter if it's one shot at a deer,duck,rabbit or a hundred into a bit of paper,either it's a safe backstop or it's not.
Yep, but I don’t shoot BP anymoreQuote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
Part of the issue is that most if not all modern formed ranges are what they class as 'zero danger area' so that EVERY shot must be contained in the range formation. Any land downstream must be protected from shot, as the range doesn't control it or exclude access. Also, overhead is classed as a hazard area for some ranges as well so the range formations must be made to not promote ricochet or bounce. Part of this comes with 'energy level' calculations, or the maximum caliber allowed to be shot on the range. This is where a lot of the ad hoc ranges fail, and also the boundary capture and exclusion mechanisms. The approvals thing is there for a reason, it might seem a bit counter intuitive but one of the risk areas for these new design ranges is the amount of metal the target butts can soak up before they become a ricochet risk in themselves and need to be turned over with the risk of lead contamination etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Greetings,Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
The short answer is that a few friends can have a casual sighting in area ,Not a range as such, subject to a number of conditions and this is allowed in the Range Rules. A club however can not. How many people make a club? Frankly I don't know but it is for occasional use only, not every week end.
GPM.
Waikato rifles range just out of Cambridge. Its one of many that closed before the clubs and ranges crap came out. I used to shoot there and the backstop would not have been high enough, so would have required massive earthworks to comply. This is what Nicole was talking about. Not closed by FSA but closed because they couldnt make it fit the new template.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
Actually the "new" template is way less restrictive and permits alternative approaches that were impossible to get across the line in the recent NRA template days. I found the FSA range guys excellent to deal with, and our recently certified range offers vastly more options that we ever could under NRA e.g. couldn't shoot steel, couldn't shoot a 22-250 (ffs) or 45-70, couldn't shoot a 375 H&H, couldn't use magazines, on it goes. Doing all that stuff now.
Precisely, if it has no permanent fixtures it is not a range. 'Tis a paddock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Actually all NZDA permanent Ranges were certified, and NZDA had their own Range Manual - it's referenced in Section 9.1 of the current Police Range Manual.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
There were many NZDA branches and other shooting groups that also used the farmers paddock with big bank instead. these we not required to be certified until last year.
The other problem was that under the new legislation; the farmers paddock with big bank, if used by an organised group (for example forum members in South Canty) requires that organised group to be an incorporated Shooting Range Operator even if it was 1 annual shoot. There is now a cost to certify 'one off' use ranges, which is a waste of that organised group's time and money
BB.
The clubs don't need to be incorporated unless they are selling ammo. A set of rules for how you're organized is sufficient. It does cost $200 for the FSA to register the club.
FSA seems to disagree, I personally did the range inspection report for 2 small groups that FSA pushed back on!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
BB.
Our club didn't keep its incorporated status up, it lapsed. The FSA issued our club registration without question and after some toing and frooing certified the range. I did all the work for both processes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basenjiboy
From what I've seen and heard some people made a meal of it and talked too much when they should have listened, typical of some people in clubs who get a bit of power or limelight!
Two hundred bucks to register the Club doesn't sound too onerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
So far @Percy Jones has identified that the Waikato Club had to close (or relocate) because the back drop (bank) didn't meet the new safety standard. Not being able to ensure the safety of the surrounding community sounds like a pretty good reason to close a range. Safety should be the number one priority.
Percy, was the Club able to find new, compliant site?
What are the, "Too onerous tasks," which Nicole McKee referred too as cause of all these Club closing?
Yes I know of several NZDA ranges that closed, perhaps you should put your question to NZDA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
I also know of a couple of areas that were used as community ranges that closed
Name them.....Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Badger
The person to ask would be Nicole herself I think.
She's the one who is at the front fighting back against all the BS the labor party caused. It's a bit rude accusing her of "telling porky pies" when we all just endured 6 years of absolute horse shit.
The sort of bickering happening here is a fine example of why we get steamrolled because we cant or wont present a united from in the face of relentless attack on our sport
Agreed, however the requirement to submit annual accounts is an expensive exercise for any club.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
And the amount of time involved, usually by volunteers, puts people off volunteering for such roles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
And the downward spiral continues.
For rifle and shotgun clubs that reporting requirement has been rescinded. It only applies to pistol clubs (as it always has)
Perhaps you should contact Nicol and ask the question, some NZDA branches may not want to be named publicly and anyone naming them would need their permission to do so given this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
Two NZDA branches closed their ranges, I don't think either paid the fees they closed them prior to that. Neither range had any safety problems prior to the new regulations and had been operating with no complaints for many years.
Another NZDA branch used a farmers property, they never paid the money or applied.
I can also think of 2 community ranges that were not registered.
Some I will not name as this is a public forum and the communities maybe flying under the radar.
There were a number of clubs, usually small clubs ceased to exist because the fees and reporting requirements exceeded their budgets and time constraints.
I know of several NZDA branch committee members didn't re stand for committees because they didn't want the personal liability
Considering the safety record of rifle ranges around the country what problems were these regulations trying to fix?
Why do clubs have to report to the incorporated societies and then supply the same information in a different format to the police when the information is available on the incorporated societies website.
Why do all the committee members need to be named and available publicly?
The range danger area hasn't changed - but if you have a compliant backstop and can control range floor strike then the older NRA range restriction around muzzle velocities and energy limits can be relaxed. The magazine fed thing came from NRA to assist them controlling their Cone of Fire down to +/-5MIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
That is not the current definition of a range by the Police / FSA... If you want to run an organised shoot or as part of a club then is doesn't matter if there is permanent fixtures or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
"Had" being correct... NZDA refer to the Police Range Manual now is my understanding. The Police Range Manual refers to it, but my understanding is it is now defunct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basenjiboy
Yep, as others have said clubs only need to be incorporated if they are selling ammo. Otherwise they don't need to be incorporated - I haven't dealt much with the clubs side of things but my understanding is it is "encouraged" but is not a requirement. Being incorporated has advantages for the committee members to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basenjiboy
And I agree for a "one off" range the cost, and more so the work involved in putting together the RSOs, danger area validation, range inspector, etc. can be pretty onerous.
This I agree with... How would the effectiveness of the range regulations be measured in a few years time? Against an incident rate? There wasn't one to start with? So how would the cost of the range certification regime be justified?Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Badger
Greetings,Quote:
Originally Posted by Basenjiboy
You learn something every day. I have been in NZDA for closing on 50 years and have not seen that document. I assume from the date it was brought out as a means of compliance with the Police Range Manual July 2005.
GPM.
Meanwhile………
does anyone know the specifics of why Otorohanga has closed. Is the issue resolvable?
As I understand it from FB and prior posts the issue may have already resolved. The basic problem appears to me to have been building and private property within the template but don't know the details.
To be fair though Id say the ranges you are probably referring to were already on the slippery slope of closing before the new regs came in due to compliance issues under the old systems, in my experience both the NRA and NZDA manuals were no longer fit for purpose, and were not being modernised - as far as I can tell due to "fudd" issues. An example being the 5 mil COF, its easily achievable by means of proper procedure/discipline on the firing point as per the new manual . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Badger
The local clubs RSOs stipulate a 10 mil cone of fire for supported and 20 mil for unsupported.
Yep. The antis must laugh their slimy laughs. As I've said before, unless we can get past "gun snobbery" and "as long as my sport is ok" we're forked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fee Knicks