MCFG Members - Help Me Improve Our Safety Officer Program

[drillsgt]

I happened to be at the range this summer when a safety violation occured. Although not directly involved in the incident I was talking with the individuals when it occured (the actual offender was an accompanied guest). I believe it was the safety director that also witnessed the event, he was wearing a bright orange safety vest at the time. The SO approached the group of us and handled the situation very professionally and correctly. Before leaving the SO was filling out paperwork and I overheard that the incident was meant to be later reviewed/addressed at the next board meeting in accordance with club guidelines. Obviously this incident should not have happened in the first place, but since it did, I have to say it was a positive experience regarding the way it was dealt with.

Not a member yet but was just looking at the website yesterday as a possible place to join. In all the clubs i've belonged to in the past these types of official SO programs always seem to be the downfall of the club or at least in enjoying it. It's not so much the concept of a safety program but usually due to the selection bias of those that are drawn to volunteering for this position.
Often times those drawn to this position are very authoritarian, older and cranky, and tend to be just strictly target shooters with no interest in firearms as self-defense tools, and don't understand when people try to train at the range for this type of use. This is where you get rules like no drawing from the holster, no rapid fire, etc. etc. until you can't do anything at the range except train to be a bullseye shooter. In reality if an incident is going to happen it is usually going to happen quickly and be out of the control of the RO to begin with as posted above. The RO can reinforce good safety habits if he sees violations but accidents usually happen too quickly to intervene. Usually as another poster mentioned they often just end up hovering around watching you like you're an idiot. It sounds like in this instance you may have an okay team of RO's with just a couple bad apples.

 

[chizzle]

It seems you have addressed most of the issues at hand. I am sure your job can be very frustrating at times. Folks do not often police themselves.
I was a guest for about 20 visits before I joined and did so because of the environment and location. The self policing aspect and just a very nice facility. Being located near a very populated area does put safety out front.
We will continue our participation and follow all of the posted and common sense safety concerns. I will teach my grand-kids to shoot at MCFG.
As to my obvious anger towards the individual in question I have gotten past that and will not address it if he does his thing and we are able to enjoy the facility and not feel like we are being treated as children. Give folks a comfort zone, do not inject yourself into their space unless there is good cause. Nothing wrong with a good hello.
As to the damage on my beloved Springfield Trophy, It runs just fine. I should get past being so jumpy I guess.

Thanks and remain safe.

CM

Thanks for your understanding; we are doing the best we can to fix the situation. I am hoping if we did another survey like this 12 months from now, our ratings would be better.

 

[FordMan79]

Has MCFG seen an increase in unsafe behavior recently to warrant needing RO's? The thing that impressed me when I joined years ago is that there were no RO's and people still acted in a very safe manner with their weapons.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I haven't witnessed much unsafe behavior in the 2 years I've been a member. I can only think of one time in particular and about 5 of us saw the same thing and we all read the person (who happened to be a guest) the riot act. I have seen evidence (after the fact) of people shooting chairs, target stands, baffle posts and other acts of pure stupidity and ignorance lately though. And some of the idiots who shoot non-approved cartridges are rearing their heads; mostly .223 and 7.62 shooters who apparently think the rules don't apply to them.

 

[Que]

Has MCFG seen an increase in unsafe behavior recently to warrant needing RO's? The thing that impressed me when I joined years ago is that there were no RO's and people still acted in a very safe manner with their weapons.

Yes. I'm usually at the range 2-3 times a week. Some of the incidents I have witnessed are the following:

1. Visitor running out into a hot range to retrieve a round that fell.
2. Members shooting at the barrels and tables in the bays.
3. Member and guest shooting an unauthorized round.
4. Long-time member yelling "cold" and immediately running out into the range while firearms are still being handled (hot range).
5. Members shooting without eye and ear protection.

This is not prevalent behavior, but with the number of members exceeding 1,200 and not to mention the number of brand new shooters, something had to be done to mitigate the possibility of a detrimental act taking place. So, the club implemented the use of volunteer RSOs and making applicants successfully pass a mandatory basic firearms training course prior to becoming a member.

 

[FordMan79]

Ok, I had noticed the new requirement when I recommended one of my co-workers to join this year and wondered. I have been a member for going on 6 years (not all that long) now so it has been a while since I looked a the requirements.

I have convinced several of my buddies to join over the years b/c I have always felt MCFG was a safe and fun environment. One of the points I always made is that I rarely if ever saw any unsafe behavior and we didn't even have any RO's. So I guess I am bit disappointed that we allowed people in that would act in a way that jeopardizes our club and require us to have adult supervision.

Lastly, 1200 members holy cow....

Yes. I'm usually at the range 2-3 times a week. Some of the incidents I have witnessed are the following:

1. Visitor running out into a hot range to retrieve a round that fell.
2. Members shooting at the barrels and tables in the bays.
3. Member and guest shooting an unauthorized round.
4. Long-time member yelling "cold" and immediately running out into the range while firearms are still being handled (hot range).
5. Members shooting without eye and ear protection.

This is not prevalent behavior, but with the number of members exceeding 1,200 and not to mention the number of brand new shooters, something had to be done to mitigate the possibility of a detrimental act taking place. So, the club implemented the use of volunteer RSOs and making applicants successfully pass a mandatory basic firearms training course prior to becoming a member.

 

[singlesix]

Ok, I had noticed the new requirement when I recommended one of my co-workers to join this year and wondered. I have been a member for going on 6 years (not all that long) now so it has been a while since I looked a the requirements.

I have convinced several of my buddies to join over the years b/c I have always felt MCFG was a safe and fun environment. One of the points I always made is that I rarely if ever saw any unsafe behavior and we didn't even have any RO's. So I guess I am bit disappointed that we allowed people in that would act in a way that jeopardizes our club and require us to have adult supervision.

Lastly, 1200 members holy cow....

What would you suggest? How do you know how a person will behave in the future?

 

[chizzle]

Ok, I had noticed the new requirement when I recommended one of my co-workers to join this year and wondered. I have been a member for going on 6 years (not all that long) now so it has been a while since I looked a the requirements.

I have convinced several of my buddies to join over the years b/c I have always felt MCFG was a safe and fun environment. One of the points I always made is that I rarely if ever saw any unsafe behavior and we didn't even have any RO's. So I guess I am bit disappointed that we allowed people in that would act in a way that jeopardizes our club and require us to have adult supervision.

Lastly, 1200 members holy cow....

With growth, comes growing pains. While we had the same issues when we were a smaller club, those issues can be magnified when you have more members. This is why we took the multi-pronged approach to:

1) Require a safety class
2) Create the safety concern form program
3) Address Safety at every single Board meeting
4) Create and pay for the Safety Officer program
5) Suspend and even expell members as necessary

While it is easy to get nostalgic about the "good old days", it's easy to forget that they had their own challenges too (too much debt, similar safety concerns, etc.).

 

[WebSnyper]

Just curious since the number of members was brought up, is there a target # of members? i.e. when will membership be capped?

 

[lovemachine]

With growth, comes growing pains. While we had the same issues when we were a smaller club, those issues can be magnified when you have more members. This is why we took the multi-pronged approach to:

1) Require a safety class
2) Create the safety concern form program
3) Address Safety at every single Board meeting
4) Create and pay for the Safety Officer program
5) Suspend and even expell members as necessary

While it is easy to get nostalgic about the "good old days", it's easy to forget that they had their own challenges too (too much debt, similar safety concerns, etc.).

The required safety class, is this for members who are about to renew their membership as well? Or just for the new members?

 

[chizzle]

The required safety class, is this for members who are about to renew their membership as well? Or just for the new members?

Just for new members.

 

[chizzle]

Just curious since the number of members was brought up, is there a target # of members? i.e. when will membership be capped?

My personal goal has been not to cap membership. I think caps really limit a club's potential for growth and can turn a club into a "good old boy's club" if you're not careful. My goal moving forward was "smart growth". As long as we can all get along during busy days (first warm day in the Spring, deer season in the Fall), we typically do just fine. We have a lot of members that pay their annual dues, and only come out once or twice per year, but just enjoy supporting a good cause. I'd hate to have a cap that kept nice folks like them away.

Keep in mind that if the folks who were members when there were only 400 members had capped the membership, that most of us likely wouldn't be a part of the club, and the club wouldn't have experienced the dramatic improvements that we've seen over the past few years.

It's also important that if we ever experienced a fight from the city / county / neighbors to close our doors that we have as many people as possible to help us fight the good fight. While we haven't experienced anything like that during my tenure on the Board, to me it is only prudent to hope for the best and plan for the worst. More members to our club means more voters in Marion County that will flex their political muscle if necessary to help us keep our doors open for future generations.

 

[Rocket57]

I have yet to see a SO but that is probably because I try to go when the range is not crowded. I avoid going on weekends if at all possible simply due to the number of people there. More shooters, especially new shooters, increases the chance of someone doing something stupid.
Now if MCFG had say 30 minutes hot, 10 minutes cold on weekends I might go. I like to check/change my targets more than once an hour.

 

[WestSider]

If we are talking about the old man in the truck I have talked to him a couple times. First time the only thing he did was ask if I had signed in. 2nd time I was shooting a shotgun in one of the bays and he just asked what I was shooting and complimented me on how nice my shotgun was, nothing negative.

 

[chizzle]

If we are talking about the old man in the truck I have talked to him a couple times. First time the only thing he did was ask if I had signed in. 2nd time I was shooting a shotgun in one of the bays and he just asked what I was shooting and complimented me on how nice my shotgun was, nothing negative.

Glad to hear some positive comments and to see the negative percentage shrinking in the vote totals. Granted, we have work to do if we are going to continuously improve the Safety Officer program, but I appreciate folks doing everything they can to help.

 

[88GT]

What would you suggest? How do you know how a person will behave in the future?

If it's a case of safety violations, why can't it just be recision of membership? You can't predict future behavior, but you can prevent those who have demonstrated it from doing it again. Seems to me those who have been able to shoot safely and follow the rules without a RO/SO for so many years are capable of doing it for a few more. Why would one have reason to expect anything but?

I'm not arguing. Just trying to understand if the solution is really a a solution or a stop-gap that superficially seems to fix the problem IOW, a RO/SO can't prevent bad behavior either. (Ever been to Atterbury? ) So what is the purpose of a RO/SO when one wasn't necessary before?

The required safety class, is this for members who are about to renew their membership as well? Or just for the new members?

Just for new members.

What about lapsed membership re"new"als? We had 2011 (and at least 6 years prior to that) memberships, but due to a bunch of stuff, never got around to re-upping for 2012. I know we'd have to go through the process again, but would we be considered new for the purpose of the safety course requirement?

 

[singlesix]

If it's a case of safety violations, why can't it just be recision of membership? You can't predict future behavior, but you can prevent those who have demonstrated it from doing it again. Seems to me those who have been able to shoot safely and follow the rules without a RO/SO for so many years are capable of doing it for a few more. Why would one have reason to expect anything but?

I'm not arguing. Just trying to understand if the solution is really a a solution or a stop-gap that superficially seems to fix the problem IOW, a RO/SO can't prevent bad behavior either. (Ever been to Atterbury? ) So what is the purpose of a RO/SO when one wasn't necessary before?



What about lapsed membership re"new"als? We had 2011 (and at least 6 years prior to that) memberships, but due to a bunch of stuff, never got around to re-upping for 2012. I know we'd have to go through the process again, but would we be considered new for the purpose of the safety course requirement?

Read the answer in context. The the person basically asked why the club let unsafe people join. Asking us to determine a person was unsafe before an act was committed

 

[chizzle]

If it's a case of safety violations, why can't it just be recision of membership? You can't predict future behavior, but you can prevent those who have demonstrated it from doing it again. Seems to me those who have been able to shoot safely and follow the rules without a RO/SO for so many years are capable of doing it for a few more. Why would one have reason to expect anything but?

I'm not arguing. Just trying to understand if the solution is really a a solution or a stop-gap that superficially seems to fix the problem IOW, a RO/SO can't prevent bad behavior either. (Ever been to Atterbury? ) So what is the purpose of a RO/SO when one wasn't necessary before?



What about lapsed membership re"new"als? We had 2011 (and at least 6 years prior to that) memberships, but due to a bunch of stuff, never got around to re-upping for 2012. I know we'd have to go through the process again, but would we be considered new for the purpose of the safety course requirement?

I get your point. In a perfect world, your solution would work. Unfortunately, where that system has been ineffective is when the Board needs to suspend / expell someone. Without the Safety Officers we would get "complaints" but without enough info to do anything about it. If our Members would fill out the Safety Concern Forms completely the SO program would have likely been unnecessary. Unfortunately, that just wasn't happening.

I can tell you that there are few things as frustrating as hearing a member complain about the behavior of another, only to find out that they didn't say anything to them, didn't fill out a Safety Concern Form (so we can identify the offender), etc. I am all about making our range safer and better, but I am not very empathetic when people just want to complain and don't help us actually fix the problem.

To answer part B of your question; anyone with a lapsed membership would be considered a new member who must go through the entire new member process (class, orientation, new member fee, etc.)

 

[WebSnyper]

My personal goal has been not to cap membership. I think caps really limit a club's potential for growth and can turn a club into a "good old boy's club" if you're not careful. My goal moving forward was "smart growth". As long as we can all get along during busy days (first warm day in the Spring, deer season in the Fall), we typically do just fine. We have a lot of members that pay their annual dues, and only come out once or twice per year, but just enjoy supporting a good cause. I'd hate to have a cap that kept nice folks like them away.

Keep in mind that if the folks who were members when there were only 400 members had capped the membership, that most of us likely wouldn't be a part of the club, and the club wouldn't have experienced the dramatic improvements that we've seen over the past few years.

It's also important that if we ever experienced a fight from the city / county / neighbors to close our doors that we have as many people as possible to help us fight the good fight. While we haven't experienced anything like that during my tenure on the Board, to me it is only prudent to hope for the best and plan for the worst. More members to our club means more voters in Marion County that will flex their political muscle if necessary to help us keep our doors open for future generations.

Thanks for the info. I had been generally curious about this. I generally try and hit the range during the week, mostly Friday afternoons (when work permits) before FNS as that is generally a fairly quiet time, so I'm not sure what the really busy times look like.

I can certainly understand what you presented, but it doesn't seem like a club can continue to count on over subscription because not everyone uses their membership. However, I'm assuming the board reviews the sign in sheets, etc and knows how utilized the range is, etc and will take steps to deal with it if it becomes an issue.

I was unable to make the meeting tonight as my wife reminded me that my daughter had a school band concert tonight. Hopefully I can make the next one. Keep up the good work. MCF&G is a great asset.

 

[chizzle]

Sad News

Tonight at our Board Meeting John Bumen (the Safety Officer with the pickup) resigned from the Safety Officer program and from the club in general. John has been a huge asset to the club and we will miss him, but we also respect his decision. Hopefully some day John will consider being a member again, but in the meantime if folks could tell him thanks, I would really appreciate it.

Moving forward, we made changes to our Safety Officer program to ensure folks follow our rules, and we do our best not to unnecessarily interrupt members' shooting experiences. We also plan to send out new copies of the rule books to club members with the paper copy of the newsletter this year.

Thanks to everyone for the positive comments and the help improving our range.
Sincerely,
Chuck