I think how the BFTA operates is probably quite a wide topic. It's all very well at looking at an outcome of a process and not liking it to decide that process is flawed, that's human nature, but it's just one example. We should remember the success that is FT and all the outcomes we do like.
Now I won't disagree that there's an issue on how things are decided. But until i've racked my brain and come up with a solution that stands some scrutiny, I think i'm stumped.
It's not far from my thoughts, as EFTA sec and in the running for CSFTA chair i'm keen that shooters' voices are heard, that decisions are made quickly and to the best outcome. But it aint easy when you have clubs and regions that fall silent, swap positions, and you need to meet other committee members face to face from across the country, and there's always a bright spark with a suggestion at the 11th hour
(no offence intended to anyone...i do it)
You could throw the voting down to the member. The mechanics are probably there and secure enough not to be perverted. What probably is just as difficult is getting the proposal across clearly, and the feedback on it, as well as how does someone with a really good point to make lobby the rest of the field of shooters? That's probably solvable to some extent but then you have to ask what is then the role of the regions? Who gets to make these proposals?
Direct voting may solve some problems in shortening the chain, but it might make some other big ones. As an example, if someone proposed that all shoots should take place in MFTA and NEFTA, one could argue the numbers may carry that vote.
At the other end of the scale you have say the EFTA's postion, that gets traffic in from the WFTF, passes it to it's committee regional members, who I assume and hope pass it on to their clubs, who I assume and hope pass it onto their shooters, who then decide what decision they pass back, which gets put back in with the rest of the region's clubs, which then comes back to the committee for the decision on the overall response, which is then put into the vote with the rest of the WFTF countries. And that's when we get a response. Now considering it might be a question on what colour the targets should be, I think you see my point
It's a very difficult nut to crack, and I'm not sure i've seen an example of a political organisation that works to everyone's liking. At one end you have dictatorship where one person says jump, and it's quick, but not everyone might agree, and who decides who says to jump? And at the other end you have a majority agreement and it takes ages, and largely is polarised by the interested parties. The interested parties here aren't those who necessarily wanted to ban the bag, but those who went to their meeting and had naff all back in the way of response from their region's clubs and or shooters.
Now we have some saying it's elite shooters driving this, but to be honest, i'm not sure how that is because they must to a good job of being in the shadows. (ok some do, some don't
) Another side of the coin is that decisions are made by those involved in the process or by opinion formed by those that really aren't involved in the sport. At one point I believe the BFTA had 3000 card holders, may be more. If you look to who shoots FT in competition, be it regional or national, in the past year I think that's actually around 600. So the question is do we have the say of 2400 people in there because they hold a card? Granted card numbers have dropped now they aren't tied or seen to be tied to the insurance scheme, but even so, for GP rules, there's going to be a proportion that don't and are unlikely to shoot them. Elitism, or efficiency? (skewed terms granted, i couldnt think of better ones)
Remember, McDonald's is the most popular burger, but I don't think people would argue it's the best.