Lifetime BCWF Members

[boxhitch]

.......
I think it might be time for you to recognize that while you feel you have a valid complaint with what you term "the BCWF hierarchy" you might also consider not only publicly castigating your club and fellow BCWF members, but enlisting them in a solution. I suspect that your club can fix this more easily than the BCWF can (it likely requires a constitutional change for the club) and that the rank and file BCWF membership could also support you (again, that may require a constitutional change, or, as I hope, a creative workaround that addresses the accounting challenge that staff highlight).

IMO the solution shouldn't be up to the Club, it would be impossible for them to monitor all memberships in the province in a timely fashion.
The solution could be a simple line-item in the BCWF membership and finances record keeping

As it is, a Club charges a membership, a portion of which is the Club Fee and another portion which is submitted to the Fed for a Fed membership
When that hits the BCWF data entry and a current membership is already in place, whether through another Club or a Lifemember , it should be pretty easy to recognize the Fed portion has already been paid by the individual
So with the current member contact info, the second fee is either remitted back to the member directly, or offer made to have the member authorize the Donation of the fee to the Fed

The Club still has their member number to count up, regardless of what happens to the Fed portion
The Club has no further book keeping chore, as it shouldn't be expected of them in the first place.

There is no advantage to the Fed to have the extra membership fee allocated to Membership, and if this is not really an issue to many members, the extra Donation could be put to better uses
As it is, what happens to the second or third fee paid by a member, if it is further directed, that should be noted.

From a Membership sales point of view as well as the promotion of shooting sports, membership fees should never be a hurdle to someone interested in participating
From my own point of view, I would really like to be a member of at least four area clubs because of what they each offer and have them available to use at my discretion as a member not as a guest
as well as have the 3x Fed fees in my pocket to spend on rifle fodder or otherwise

Just some more water under the bridge I'm sure, its easier to stay status quo, and as you say, most members don't care
all the while many members just drop out due to Fed dues

[Shermanator]

IMO the solution shouldn't be up to the Club, it would be impossible for them to monitor all memberships in the province in a timely fashion.
The solution could be a simple line-item in the BCWF membership and finances record keeping

As it is, a Club charges a membership, a portion of which is the Club Fee and another portion which is submitted to the Fed for a Fed membership
When that hits the BCWF data entry and a current membership is already in place, whether through another Club or a Lifemember , it should be pretty easy to recognize the Fed portion has already been paid by the individual
So with the current member contact info, the second fee is either remitted back to the member directly, or offer made to have the member authorize the Donation of the fee to the Fed

The Club still has their member number to count up, regardless of what happens to the Fed portion
The Club has no further book keeping chore, as it shouldn't be expected of them in the first place.

There is no advantage to the Fed to have the extra membership fee allocated to Membership, and if this is not really an issue to many members, the extra Donation could be put to better uses
As it is, what happens to the second or third fee paid by a member, if it is further directed, that should be noted.

From a Membership sales point of view as well as the promotion of shooting sports, membership fees should never be a hurdle to someone interested in participating
From my own point of view, I would really like to be a member of at least four area clubs because of what they each offer and have them available to use at my discretion as a member not as a guest
as well as have the 3x Fed fees in my pocket to spend on rifle fodder or otherwise

Just some more water under the bridge I'm sure, its easier to stay status quo, and as you say, most members don't care
all the while many members just drop out due to Fed dues

I think you're making the same point as I've been trying to make, I think, but from a neutral position. The information I provide comes across as hostile rather than constructive some times, but that is only because of the frustration in getting something done about this issue. Some think its irrelevant and "give it a rest" while others have similar concerns. Thank you for removing a little of the haze!

[Rob Chipman]

.....
The solution could be a simple line-item in the BCWF membership and finances record keeping....When that hits the BCWF data entry and a current membership is already in place, whether through another Club or a Lifemember , it should be pretty easy to recognize the Fed portion has already been paid by the individual....

The Club still has their member number to count up, regardless of what happens to the Fed portion.....

The Club has no further book keeping chore, as it shouldn't be expected of them in the first place.

There is no advantage to the Fed to have the extra membership fee .....

if this is not really an issue to many members.....

The obvious question when I first ran across this was to ask BCWF accounting how difficult the challenge was. They advised it was challenging. I had a conversation with the head of our accounting division again today and, again, she assured me that it is not as simple as many assume. It involves comparing, on a quarterly basis, 1) the membership lists from clubs (which come in various formats and on various timelines and at times come in very challenging condition) with the 2) list of lifetime members and 3) all the lists submitted by other clubs in order to identify who is a member of multiple clubs as well as a lifetime member.

A lot of us think it should be simple, but as I've reported, the people doing the work say it is not simple. Those people are pretty competent.

The BCWF BoD and Resolutions Committee made it clear with the resolution it submitted that the BCWF leadership has no problem with clubs having a member who had paid BCWF fees *somewhere* being counted as a paid member of the club for voting purposes.

That same resolution made it clear that the BCWF leadership saw no advantage in the extra membership fee and wanted to find a way around it. The resolution was worded the way it was because....accounting staff at BCWF said that the assumed simple solution was not workable.

The membership voted the resolution down, and as I understand it, mostly on the advice of club treasurers who didn't think the solution was worth the effort. Some clubs are like that. One of the clubs I belong to begins an awful lot of it's correspondence with "We're a volunteer run club. Don't make our jobs harder"; other clubs offer, as reported earlier in this thread, an associate membership for lifetime BCWF members. Those are decisions for clubs to make. BCWF can't demand that a club run it's membership and finances in a specific manner.

Regarding your past point: "if this is not really an issue to many members." It's not an issue for most members. BCWF leadership *thought* that membership would consider it a problem worth solving and so presented the resolution. Membership declined to pass it.

I'm trying to make this member happy. It's not as easy as it might appear.

[boxhitch]

Did the Clubs/Membership vote it down because the extra work was going to go to the Club? which anyone can see is unworkable........

"I had a conversation with the head of our accounting division again today and, again, she assured me that it is not as simple as many assume.
It involves comparing, on a quarterly basis, 1) the membership lists from clubs
(which come in various formats and on various timelines and at times come in very challenging condition)
with the 2) list of lifetime members
and 3) all the lists submitted by other clubs in order to identify who is a member of multiple clubs as well as a lifetime member."

I'm a tech-challenged old phart but even I know how to build a spread sheet
List creations and comparisons is simple data entry on the right program
If the Fed is really running Membership with pen-and-paper instead of a 21 century data base..........
no..... i won't.........must resist.............



thanks for your work Rob

[Gateholio]

-You and I disagree on what has occurred. You think you've been over-charged, are paying extra and that this is a problem. I disagree. I think that you knowingly bought two different products from two different organizations on completely different terms and are now unhappy with your choice. Further, you and I clearly disagree on the nature of the problem.

Exactly!

Just a few minutes of research prior to a lifetime BCWF purchase would have revealed that.

This is a problem with your club, not the BCWF.

[Huk]

What are the benefits of being a lifetime member compared to paying through a gun club?

I don’t see how you being charged twice is a BCWF issue, sounds to me like you should be going after your gun club.
They are the ones charging you for something you already have.
I wouldn’t be happy being charged twice either, if the gun club didn’t refund the BCWF part, then I wouldn’t be a member there.

[Slinky Pickle]

This is entirely on the clubs. All they have to do is offer an in or out option for BCWF on their annual membership. The double dipping can also backfire on them. I'm a lifetime member of BCWF and not a member of my local F&G club because I don't need their range.

The ranges are in the business of getting memberships. It's up to them to figure out how to make it work for BCWF lifers.

[Shermanator]

It's always easy for the naysayers to sit back and say it's the Club's fault or it's the BCWFs fault but it's a little different when you're stuck in the middle. Had some of you actually read all the posts throughly you'd see that both parties here (Club vs BCWF) are denying it's their problem. It's someone's problem and it has to stop and to come up with the answer "its only a flat of beer " is hardly productive. You go to Costco, get home, find you've been charged $35 more than you should have, your going back and complaining, not saying "it's only a flat of beer. And, to say go to another Club that isn't affiliated with BCWF, another ludicrous answer! I trust Rob in that he's doing what he can on his end, albeit not one of his priority issues, and I'm doing what I can for the Membership of just not my local Club but BCWF members as well. You??

[Imdone]

Ive asked another club I want to join about these Double dipping charge, told them clearly I already am with the BCWF. It didn't matter, they dug heals in and again stated, no it's part of the fees. To hell with them, I won't join.
It's not just A Flat of Beer. It's principal.

We volunteer at these clubs, put in countless hours on wildlife and fishery projects, yet get these responses.

Ya wonder why recruitment is down. Duh???

Sherm has a valid point, and it needs to be addressed properly from all sides, or the BS continues.

[Huk]

It's always easy for the naysayers to sit back and say it's the Club's fault or it's the BCWFs fault but it's a little different when you're stuck in the middle. Had some of you actually read all the posts throughly you'd see that both parties here (Club vs BCWF) are denying it's their problem. It's someone's problem and it has to stop and to come up with the answer "its only a flat of beer " is hardly productive. You go to Costco, get home, find you've been charged $35 more than you should have, your going back and complaining, not saying "it's only a flat of beer. And, to say go to another Club that isn't affiliated with BCWF, another ludicrous answer! I trust Rob in that he's doing what he can on his end, albeit not one of his priority issues, and I'm doing what I can for the Membership of just not my local Club but BCWF members as well. You??

I have read every word of every post and still don’t see how it’s the BCWF’s problem. They are not the ones charging you twice.
You are right it sucks being in the middle, I’ve been there before.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a flat of beer or a pack of gum. Being charged twice for something isn’t right.
I get your trying to bring awareness to the issue, my opinion is your only option is to drop the gun club. Don’t think you can get a refund on your lifetime membership.
It sounds like Rob has done what he can on the BCWF’s side and the gun club doesn’t care about you or your wallet.