Lifetime BCWF Members

[Shermanator]

Any Lifetime members out there that have questioned BCWF on their double dipping with Fish and Game Club memberships?? You pay to become a lifetime member for starters, but when you join your local F and G Club you still have to buy a regular BCWF membership!! I've questioned them on it and they claim the matter was brought up at their last meeting but changing the policy got voted down..

[Island Idiots]

You got ripped off twice!

[Shermanator]

You got ripped off twice!

Never would have thought someone like BCWF would hose those that choose to support the organization for life! I don't mind "donating" money for worthy causes but you'd think a person in this country would have a choice. That and I can't believe that all the F&G Clubs go along with it. No BCWF membership dues, no F&G Club membership, that's screwed up!

[boxhitch]

I posed a similar question about belonging to two or more clubs for the sake of range access and competitions, and not wanting to pay multiple Fed dues, was told the same " it was brought up but voted down"
Not sure if it was just random chat, or a resolution ?? Would like to hear the argument.

[Shermanator]

I posed a similar question about belonging to two or more clubs for the sake of range access and competitions, and not wanting to pay multiple Fed dues, was told the same " it was brought up but voted down"
Not sure if it was just random chat, or a resolution ?? Would like to hear the argument.

They told me they do it this way to keep track of BCWF members that join a Club, which is BS for Lifetime members as that info is still passed on via the FG Club when you join. And your right about the joining a second Club, a Lifetime member would have to pay double again. I also asked about access to meeting minutes or who and why it was voted down and never did get a reply. I'm guessing the next move would be to take it to the media and let them ask the questions....

[boxhitch]

How do lifetime members and direct members have any voice for issues?
Through a regional board or ?

[Gateholio]

How much money per year are we actually talking about?

[Rackmastr]

Seems like a really weird way of handling life members....

I'm a life member of many orgs, all of which I donate a lot money each year with. That being said I certainly wouldnt think that annual membership fees should be charged for a life member lol.

[boxhitch]

How much money per year are we actually talking about?too much, especially when it is extracted for no good reason

[Shermanator]

There is a rep in each section of the Province that attend meetings and voice Members concerns, I honestly can't be bothered to waste my time doing that. If a concern is voiced in any manner it should be dealt with. As far as how much money are we talking about, any amount is wrong. At our Club we have to pay the full pull into BCWF to join the local Club, thats what was explained to me when I signed up. So now I have a Lifetime membership card and every year I get mailed a separate card as a Regular member. I'm quite sure there is some legality involved concerning double dipping, another avenue I'll have to look into. My post was to ascertain if in fact other Lifetime members have voiced the same concern to BCWF or if I was the only whiner! LOL

[nature girl]

Why don't you contact bcwf.

[Rackmastr]

Why don't you contact bcwf.

Sounds like he has.....

Getting an annual membership card while being a life member is embarrassing as hell for an organization IMO

[Ride Red]

How much money per year are we actually talking about?


It’s the principle of the matter. If you’re already a life “Paid” member, then you shouldn’t be charged again. If life memberships aren’t being charged out at a large enough amount, then that should be changed. Being “essentially “ forced to pay twice is morally wrong and the Fed should rectify this problem. If a person wants to donate up and above their membership, then fine, but don’t double dip and expect the member to be happy with it. When I approached being a life member and found that I’d still be paying the extra at my range of choice, I declined with a few words in return.

[saskbooknut]

Not different than the NFA or CSSA club membership vs individual membership.
Way too much butt hurt feelings going on.

[Gateholio]

too much, especially when it is extracted for no good reason


There is a rep in each section of the Province that attend meetings and voice Members concerns, I honestly can't be bothered to waste my time doing that. If a concern is voiced in any manner it should be dealt with. As far as how much money are we talking about, any amount is wrong. At our Club we have to pay the full pull into BCWF to join the local Club, thats what was explained to me when I signed up. So now I have a Lifetime membership card and every year I get mailed a separate card as a Regular member. I'm quite sure there is some legality involved concerning double dipping, another avenue I'll have to look into. My post was to ascertain if in fact other Lifetime members have voiced the same concern to BCWF or if I was the only whiner! LOL


It’s the principle of the matter. If you’re already a life “Paid” member, then you shouldn’t be charged again. If life memberships aren’t being charged out at a large enough amount, then that should be changed. Being “essentially “ forced to pay twice is morally wrong and the Fed should rectify this problem. If a person wants to donate up and above their membership, then fine, but don’t double dip and expect the member to be happy with it. When I approached being a life member and found that I’d still be paying the extra at my range of choice, I declined with a few words in return.

Really, what are we talking about? $20 a year? $30?

If someone has a concern like this it's not a BCWF concern, it's a club concern. The BCWF isn't forcing you to join a club or telling your club how to collect it's fees. Your club sets up the fee schedule, and it's your choice to agree to the fees and be a member, or disagree with the fees and decline to be a member.

[Shermanator]

Really, what are we talking about? $20 a year? $30?

If someone has a concern like this it's not a BCWF concern, it's a club concern. The BCWF isn't forcing you to join a club or telling your club how to collect it's fees. Your club sets up the fee schedule, and it's your choice to agree to the fees and be a member, or disagree with the fees and decline to be a member.

Ah, ya, really, and BCWF is in fact forcing folks to join them! Doesn't matter what the dollar value is, it's not right, that's the point of it. I should be able to choose whether or not I wish to join the BCWF and yes, it is their problem and not the local Clubs. I spoke to one of our local Club directors about this and he agree's that the double dipping is not right but it is what it is. I'm sure there are many outdoors folks that would love to join a local Club but do not wish to be members of the BCWF, and its their right to choose over one or the other, not BCWF's. As mentioned earlier with regards to this post if I wanted to belong to more than one Club, then I'd really be getting hosed! Our Club only has a short rifle range and I'd also like to go to one of the other Club's ranges that has further distance, but can't unless your a member of that Club. The extra money I'm paying BCWF for one membership would more than cover the expense of another membership if this rule they have wasn't in place. How would you like to put out $1000 for a life membership and then keep getting charged again every year! 20 years I've put out another grand!! Really!....Sherm

[boxhitch]

iirc each club submits $48? per member to the Fed
I want to join 3 area clubs for different benefits and programs, and have no problem paying the club portion
3 Fed memberships have no advantages, not even gratis lottery tickets

It would be a logistical impossibility for any club to decide who pays, but at the Fed office should only be a keystroke for any membership remitted in a name that is a duplicate, and send a refund

[Gateholio]

Ah, ya, really, and BCWF is in fact forcing folks to join them! Doesn't matter what the dollar value is, it's not right, that's the point of it. I should be able to choose whether or not I wish to join the BCWF and yes, it is their problem and not the local Clubs. I spoke to one of our local Club directors about this and he agree's that the double dipping is not right but it is what it is. I'm sure there are many outdoors folks that would love to join a local Club but do not wish to be members of the BCWF, and its their right to choose over one or the other, not BCWF's. As mentioned earlier with regards to this post if I wanted to belong to more than one Club, then I'd really be getting hosed! Our Club only has a short rifle range and I'd also like to go to one of the other Club's ranges that has further distance, but can't unless your a member of that Club. The extra money I'm paying BCWF for one membership would more than cover the expense of another membership if this rule they have wasn't in place. How would you like to put out $1000 for a life membership and then keep getting charged again every year! 20 years I've put out another grand!! Really!....Sherm

It was your choice to become a lifetime member, sounds like it was the wrong decision for you.

Not every club is a BCWF affiliate, maybe joining one of those clubs is a good option for you.

[Shermanator]

It was your choice to become a lifetime member, sounds like it was the wrong decision for you.

Not every club is a BCWF affiliate, maybe joining one of those clubs is a good option for you.

If I'd known I was getting screwed I wouldn't have gone the Lifetime route but stuck to the yearly plan, but then again I find it hard to believe that a organization such as BCWF would allow such a thing, just to keep membership numbers up. Hardly makes any sense to have to drive 100 miles more to a different Club to use a range, and not support your own local Club. I understand there are many that do not agree or support the BCWF, thats their decision. I do support them but like any big organization they have to sometimes be called out on practices that are wrong for their members....

[Bernie O]

Some clubs offer associate membership at a reduced rate if you prove that you are already a BCWF member. In the end it is your money, Spend it any way you like.The original reason for lifetime membership was that some people did not want to join a club but still wanted to support the federation

[Ride Red]

Really, what are we talking about? $20 a year? $30?

If someone has a concern like this it's not a BCWF concern, it's a club concern. The BCWF isn't forcing you to join a club or telling your club how to collect it's fees. Your club sets up the fee schedule, and it's your choice to agree to the fees and be a member, or disagree with the fees and decline to be a member.

This is direct from the fed, not the clubs.

[Shermanator]

Some clubs offer associate membership at a reduced rate if you prove that you are already a BCWF member. In the end it is your money, Spend it any way you like.The original reason for lifetime membership was that some people did not want to join a club but still wanted to support the federation

Totally agree, but that doesn't mean the BCWF should screw members that are supporting them, and that's what they're doing..

[Opinionated Ol Phart]

You boys have too much time on your hands now-- get over it.

[Rackmastr]

You boys have too much time on your hands now-- get over it.

Doesnt nearly everybody right now?? lol. Hell I'm an essential worker and I've got LOADS of time on my hands. Obviously you do too or you wouldnt be posting on the internet. This place literally is made for people with time on their hands...haha

[Shermanator]

You boys have too much time on your hands now-- get over it.

Funny how those that aren't directly affected by something are so willing to overlook things. But, if it happened to them they'd be the ones "having to much time" on their hands! I call it "Ostrich Syndrome " , stick your head in the sand and hope it's gone by the time you pull it out. That and I've got tons of time, put in my years and am retried, hence the penny pinching, that and having principles!����

[Shermanator]

Well, after a couple great days of shooting at the range and reloading for the boom stick, I figured it was time to do a little "shooting" here and reload this post! And you all thought I'd just gone away! LOL So, as a new year approaches and so does renewal for my local Fish and Game Club, I'm again reminded how the BCWF is ripping off Lifetime Members with the double dipping of membership dues. It has been 3 years now since my first email went into BCWF with said complaint, and a total of 2 emails were responded to, directing me somewhere else that I never got a response to. So, thats 8 emails with 6 nothing responses. Now lets throw in the 3 hard copy letters that I have sent directly to the sitting president at the time of the letter, not so much as a whisper in my ear, a tickle under the arm or a kiss my butt, from any of them! So my question is, what the hell is going on in the BCWF office that they don't even have the curtosey of a reply, really?? 3 fricking years and nothing, wow. I guess when I asked for a full refund of my lifetime membership dues they were stumped, or something. I know that there are Directors or other officials from the BCWF that cruise this website, won't mention names. But not once has any of them waded into this discussion, just like the rest of the organization. Give me my money back and I'll just get the yearly membership until such time as I won't require the services of the local gun club. And for all you that feel I should just suck it up and its only $35 a year, I would like all of YOU to send me a certified Bank Draft for that amount every January 1st. What do you get for it, absolutely nothing, but its not a big deal, right?? It takes more than a couple rounds to put this old bear down...Sherm

[Shermanator]

The silence is deafening isn't it! Kinda like dealing with BCWF!..

[Imdone]

This does not LOOK GOOD on the BCWF ........

Step up BCWF and answer this issue.

The last thing you need is to loose more Members, more donations ...... Clarify this situation. Now !

[fearnodeer]

Well then I just sent an email with your question Sherm and will see if I get a response.

[Gateholio]

I still don't understand why you would buy a lifetime membership if you intended to maintain a membership in a BCWF affiliated club.

A few minutes of research on your part prior to a lifetime purchase and you could have avoided putting yourself into this situation.

[J_T]

I've always bought a Direct Membership. I still attend local meetings, but I purchase my BCWF membership as a Direct Member.

[Imdone]

JT,
If you pay direct, do you also pay club fees? That include BCWF fees.

There should not be double dipping, AND for a person to donate as a LIFE MEMBERSHIP, that's a lot of money, should not be charged extra on club membership portion of BCWF.

Time to set a policy BCWF, protect those that support your efforts with Lifetime Membership

[J_T]

JT,
If you pay direct, do you also pay club fees? That include BCWF fees.

No. Never have paid the club fees.

[Shermanator]

I still don't understand why you would buy a lifetime membership if you intended to maintain a membership in a BCWF affiliated club.

A few minutes of research on your part prior to a lifetime purchase and you could have avoided putting yourself into this situation.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, not sure your getting the point of all this. I didn't put myself in any sort of situation, the ludicrous decision by BCWF is what has caused me to stand up for myself and other Lifetime Members that may be getting hosed via double dipping! We shouldn't have to "research" a Club, we support it. Perhaps the BCWF should post something when someone chooses to become a Lifetime Member, something like this: "WARNING, JOINING THIS CLUB WILL FORCE YOU TO PAY US DOUBLE YOUR MEMBERSHIP DUES AND NO YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING EXTRA AND NO WE DO NOT GIVE A RATS ARSE WHAT YOU THINK!!", you know, something like that! Maybe.......

[Gateholio]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, not sure your getting the point of all this. I didn't put myself in any sort of situation, the ludicrous decision by BCWF is what has caused me to stand up for myself and other Lifetime Members that may be getting hosed via double dipping! We shouldn't have to "research" a Club, we support it. Perhaps the BCWF should post something when someone chooses to become a Lifetime Member, something like this: "WARNING, JOINING THIS CLUB WILL FORCE YOU TO PAY US DOUBLE YOUR MEMBERSHIP DUES AND NO YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING EXTRA AND NO WE DO NOT GIVE A RATS ARSE WHAT YOU THINK!!", you know, something like that! Maybe.......

Yes, you put yourself in the situation. Nobody forced you to buy a lifetime membership.

Maybe if you had just asked a couple of questions about the program before you opened your wallet and forked over the money you would have more clearly understood what you are buying.

[Shermanator]

Yes, you put yourself in the situation. Nobody forced you to buy a lifetime membership.

Maybe if you had just asked a couple of questions about the program before you opened your wallet and forked over the money you would have more clearly understood what you are buying.

You could just Interac the $35 to my email addy too! Appreciate the contribution! 8-)

[Mulehahn]

Not the same situation but I at one time had 3 different memberships to the BCWF. One for my local range, one for the range close to my rec property, and another for a different organisation I belong to. I still have 2 of them (moved up country so down to one range but still support the orginization because I believe in what they do) I have asked and have been told there is no option to opt out of the BCWF for either

I gain nothing by having multiple memberships and I would much rather see the money that I pay for one of membership go directly to the organizations that I am a part of.

[Shermanator]

Not the same situation but I at one time had 3 different memberships to the BCWF. One for my local range, one for the range close to my rec property, and another for a different organisation I belong to. I still have 2 of them (moved up country so down to one range but still support the orginization because I believe in what they do) I have asked and have been told there is no option to opt out of the BCWF for either

I gain nothing by having multiple memberships and I would much rather see the money that I pay for one of membership go directly to the organizations that I am a part of.

It's actually totally related and in fact one of the things I pointed out in the letters to the Presidents. I too wanted to join another Club because of a longer range, but I sure as hell ain't paying for another BCWF membership! So that Club loses a Member and support...

[Rob Chipman]

Well...as a new year approaches ....I'm again reminded how the BCWF is ripping off Lifetime Members with the double dipping of membership dues.

So my question is, what the hell is going on in the BCWF office that they don't even have the curtosey of a reply, really??

I know that there are Directors or other officials from the BCWF that cruise this website, won't mention names. But not once has any of them waded into this discussion, just like the rest of the organization.

Give me my money back and I'll just get the yearly membership until such time as I won't require the services of the local gun club.




Shermanator:

I'm one of the directors who cruises this website, as you say. You can mention my name anytime you like. It's not a secret and its the one I use everywhere. You can direct message me, email me at rob@robchipman.net, or call me at 604-230-4225. I understand that you've sent emails and letters to the office and to sitting presidents, but next time (if you want a timely response from me) send me an email or call me.

You have posed some legitimate questions and the lack of an answer is frustrating. I will bring it up at the next Board meeting, which happens to be this Friday-Sunday.

Send me your actual name and contact info. I will get you an answer.

[Shermanator]

Shermanator:

I'm one of the directors who cruises this website, as you say. You can mention my name anytime you like. It's not a secret and its the one I use everywhere. You can direct message me, email me at rob@robchipman.net, or call me at 604-230-4225. I understand that you've sent emails and letters to the office and to sitting presidents, but next time (if you want a timely response from me) send me an email or call me.

You have posed some legitimate questions and the lack of an answer is frustrating. I will bring it up at the next Board meeting, which happens to be this Friday-Sunday.

Send me your actual name and contact info. I will get you an answer.



Probably the main reason I have never contacted you or made a request for you look into this, is simple. I posted this a year and a half ago and it has been fairly active. There never was any response from you whatsoever, so my assumption was also simple, a lack of interest. Had I known you were a shortcut to the "Hierarchy "of the BCWF, I would have utilized that avenue and it maybe would have saved allot of time and effort on my part. I will forward you my information, which is on record at BCWF, and hope you can come up with a solution to this ongoing issue, thank you..Sherm

[Rob Chipman]

I said I'd get you an answer. I may not get you a solution. I'm not a shortcut the the hierarchy of the BCWF. I'm a member, just like you. The hierarchy you speak of? Also members, just like you.

[Shermanator]

I said I'd get you an answer. I may not get you a solution. I'm not a shortcut the the hierarchy of the BCWF. I'm a member, just like you. The hierarchy you speak of? Also members, just like you.

Well many times "answers" can be the start to solutions, so here's hoping that's the path we're on. After a year and a half of no responses, something has got to be better than nothing, I hope. You can post any "answers" you get onto this post, its only fair that the rest of the Member's are aware of what is going on as well so they can followup along with me, thanks again...

[Shermanator]

Just a FYI, Rob has reached out via email and we've had some lengthy discussion. I will say that we are definitely not on the same page, but he did say he would take this matter before the B of D. There was no mention of where my correspondence over the past year and a half has gone. Thanks for the time Rob....

[rageous]

I heard about this from a friend the other day. So word is getting around.
Definitely some bad PR for the BCWF on this topic. Im sure there are easy solutions to rectify this.

[Shermanator]

I heard about this from a friend the other day. So word is getting around.
Definitely some bad PR for the BCWF on this topic. Im sure there are easy solutions to rectify this.

Ya, I'm hoping there is as well. It sounds like more of a bookkeeping problem than anything, but who knows how long its been going on..

[boxhitch]

Maybe ask about past resolutions and discussions, it seems this topic has been run through the wringer

Answer to my querie, dates back to 2019

"Thank you for reaching out. As per BCWF bylaws, clubs have to pay per capita dues for each member of their club.
We did have a resolution at our 2019 AGM to manage multiple memberships but it was defeated by the members in attendance.

The benefit for members to invest in a membership at different clubs is that the clubs can represent their interests at the AGM
as each member counts toward that club’s voting numbers. You might also consider attending a club as a guest and choosing one as your “home club”.

Most club memberships offer the same benefits as direct membership so it is not advisable to hold a club and a direct membership.

Thank you kindly, BCWF Membership Department"


I have asked why I need to pay multiple membership fees when joining multiple clubs
Different clubs have different shooting events, where I am I could benefit from membership in 4 clubs within a 1 hour drive, add another three within 1 1/2 hr

The option I came up with is to pay a 'guest' fee for each visit , trouble is finding a 'friend' escort each time

[Imdone]

Bottom line in my opinion.

If you HAVE a lifetime membership, you certainly shouldn't have to pay the Portion of Club fees that go to BCWF.

It's silly that it's even a discussion, for goodness sake the member has committed to a LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP .

[Shermanator]

Boxhitch and Imdone, pretty much the same sentiments I've been trying to get across to those in control of the reins but as you can see its all fallen on deaf ears. In one of my hardcopy letters to the President I even asked for copies of that very item that was voted down and why it was voted down. No response at all to it. I too see this as such a simple thing however, a very concerning one when someone is double charged for something and its known by those in charge that it's happening. It's just plain wrong....

[boxhitch]

my initial query was to 'membership', response was quick
Minutes from the agm and resolutions may show some detail as to discussion

I get and share your point, but if there is not enough support for change, it won't happen
also , iirc, once a resolution has been presented, there is a period the same subject cannot be re-presented?
idfk

[HikerHunter]

you were able to join a gun club? waiting lists are so long that id never get practice if all i had was the range to go to. so yeah that part of the gun course was a waste. learning range etiquette.

[Rob Chipman]

...as you can see its all fallen on deaf ears.


I gave you my personal contact number, told you I'd address this and traded a few explanatory emails with you before spending the weekend at a BCWF BoD meeting instead of chasing blacktails, right?

Anyway, I have an answer for you. I'll send it direct to your email when I get a chance.

[Shermanator]

I gave you my personal contact number, told you I'd address this and traded a few explanatory emails with you before spending the weekend at a BCWF BoD meeting instead of chasing blacktails, right?

Anyway, I have an answer for you. I'll send it direct to your email when I get a chance.

I was merely responding to the other posts and my previous encounters with BCWF, not our current correspondence which I also let others know we were having. I believe its called transparency, that's all....

[Imdone]

I was considering a LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP with the BCWF, I'm thinking not really now, as my membership gets paid by the club's I'm in. It's too bad things like this double dipping so to speak don't get traction and cease.

I'm putting my same money's to the WSSBC instead. Which is a good thing as I see more being done for Wildlife and Hunters by them then the BCWF imo

[Rob Chipman]

I was considering a LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP with the BCWF, I'm thinking not really now, as my membership gets paid by the club's I'm in. It's too bad things like this double dipping so to speak don't get traction and cease.

I'm putting my same money's to the WSSBC instead. Which is a good thing as I see more being done for Wildlife and Hunters by them then the BCWF imo

A lifetime membership in WSS is a good investment. I bought one from them as well.

As for double dipping let me clarify something that really should be pretty obvious.

If you buy a lifetime membership from BCWF it is a one time purchase of a product, and the transaction is between you, the individual, and BCWF, the volunteer led and member driven organization.

If you buy a membership from a club you're buying a different product from a different group. Clubs are members of the BCWF but they are standalone organizations with their own financial goals and financial management methods. I think we all know this. What clubs charge and what clubs deliver for those charges are the business of clubs, and properly so.

There is nothing to stop BCWF member clubs from not charging lifetime BCWF members that portion of the club's fees that are remitted to the BCWF. Any club can do that. The BCWF has absolutely no problem with that and has demonstrated that in the past. Any lifetime member of the BCWF that pays additional fees through their club can ask their club to not charge them those fees.

There are three reasons that I can think of why a club would not do that.

First, it is worthwhile for a club to have more paid up BCWF members because it can translate into more votes for the club at the AGM. That's a narrow application and only makes sense when the club is on the border between the number of votes the club can exercise. A club with 100 members gets one vote. A club with 101-200 members gets two votes. A club with 201-500 members gets three votes. A club with 501 or more members gets an additional vote for every 500 members extra. As I said - narrow application but it *may* motivate your club to make a lifetime member pay twice.

An online version of the constitution is found here: https://bcwf.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/BCWF-Constitution-2019.pdf

The section you want is 7.2

Second, your club treasurer may not want the hassle of dealing with more work. That's the business of the club, the club treasurer and club members, not the larger BCWF.

Third, its entirely possible that a club charges a lifetime member twice simply because they aren't aware and don't particularly care that the lifetime member is paying two sets of BCWF fees and the lifetime member has not asked the club to address the issue. After all, it's very common for BCWF club members to buy a lifetime membership as a way to donate and demonstrate commitment, fully aware that they're buying two different types of memberships from two different vendors. It is also common for BCWF members to belong to multiple clubs, and most of these members don't care about the extra fees collected by the club and remitted to the BCWF.

The BCWF resolutions committee and the BCWF Board did submit a resolution to allow clubs to *not* collect or remit the BCWF portion of the club's fees (the fees that the club, through it's members, decides to charge it's members) *and* keep the added voting privilege that comes at the 101, 201, 501 member level. That is to say, the BCWF recognized the problem and tried to fix it.

That resolution was voted down by the members. Perhaps your club exercised it's vote to defeat the resolution.

I have discussed this with BCWF staff who advised that it is very difficult and time consuming for them to to review membership lists from every club, compare them with lifetime members and adjust billing between clubs and the BCWF. Many on this thread have expressed a belief that the task is a simple one. The people who do that task assure me that it is not. You can make of that what you will.

I am endeavouring to create solution that will allow the BCWF to easily refund, upon the member's request, all or part of a lifetime membership to a lifetime member who is unhappy about being charged once by BCWF and a second time by their club for what the dissatisfied member feels are the same services.

In short, this isn't about the money. It's about the difficulty of doing the job. Nobody forces your club to charge you twice. You can ask them to stop. BCWF has tried, and is continuing to try, to fix the problem. Fixing it is taking up a lot of bandwidth, but what are you going to do when an angry and dissatisfied member complains? You have to try to fix it even when you'd rather be trying to address issues you personally find more important.

I'll close by saying that arguing that the fact that a member knowingly purchasing two different products from two different vendors amounts to a malicious attempt by BCWF to screw and rip off it's members through double dipping strikes me as unfair.

[HowdyDoody]

A lifetime membership in WSS is a good investment. I bought one from them as well.

As for double dipping let me clarify something that really should be pretty obvious.

If you buy a lifetime membership from BCWF it is a one time purchase of a product, and the transaction is between you, the individual, and BCWF, the volunteer led and member driven organization.

If you buy a membership from a club you're buying a different product from a different group. Clubs are members of the BCWF but they are standalone organizations with their own financial goals and financial management methods. I think we all know this. What clubs charge and what clubs deliver for those charges are the business of clubs, and properly so.

There is nothing to stop BCWF member clubs from not charging lifetime BCWF members that portion of the club's fees that are remitted to the BCWF. Any club can do that. The BCWF has absolutely no problem with that and has demonstrated that in the past. Any lifetime member of the BCWF that pays additional fees through their club can ask their club to not charge them those fees.

There are three reasons that I can think of why a club would not do that.

First, it is worthwhile for a club to have more paid up BCWF members because it can translate into more votes for the club at the AGM. That's a narrow application and only makes sense when the club is on the border between the number of votes the club can exercise. A club with 100 members gets one vote. A club with 101-200 members gets two votes. A club with 201-500 members gets three votes. A club with 501 or more members gets an additional vote for every 500 members extra. As I said - narrow application but it *may* motivate your club to make a lifetime member pay twice.

An online version of the constitution is found here: https://bcwf.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/BCWF-Constitution-2019.pdf

The section you want is 7.2

Second, your club treasurer may not want the hassle of dealing with more work. That's the business of the club, the club treasurer and club members, not the larger BCWF.

Third, its entirely possible that a club charges a lifetime member twice simply because they aren't aware and don't particularly care that the lifetime member is paying two sets of BCWF fees and the lifetime member has not asked the club to address the issue. After all, it's very common for BCWF club members to buy a lifetime membership as a way to donate and demonstrate commitment, fully aware that they're buying two different types of memberships from two different vendors. It is also common for BCWF members to belong to multiple clubs, and most of these members don't care about the extra fees collected by the club and remitted to the BCWF.

The BCWF resolutions committee and the BCWF Board did submit a resolution to allow clubs to *not* collect or remit the BCWF portion of the club's fees (the fees that the club, through it's members, decides to charge it's members) *and* keep the added voting privilege that comes at the 101, 201, 501 member level. That is to say, the BCWF recognized the problem and tried to fix it.

That resolution was voted down by the members. Perhaps your club exercised it's vote to defeat the resolution.

I have discussed this with BCWF staff who advised that it is very difficult and time consuming for them to to review membership lists from every club, compare them with lifetime members and adjust billing between clubs and the BCWF. Many on this thread have expressed a belief that the task is a simple one. The people who do that task assure me that it is not. You can make of that what you will.

I am endeavouring to create solution that will allow the BCWF to easily refund, upon the member's request, all or part of a lifetime membership to a lifetime member who is unhappy about being charged once by BCWF and a second time by their club for what the dissatisfied member feels are the same services.

In short, this isn't about the money. It's about the difficulty of doing the job. Nobody forces your club to charge you twice. You can ask them to stop. BCWF has tried, and is continuing to try, to fix the problem. Fixing it is taking up a lot of bandwidth, but what are you going to do when an angry and dissatisfied member complains? You have to try to fix it even when you'd rather be trying to address issues you personally find more important.

I'll close by saying that arguing that the fact that a member knowingly purchasing two different products from two different vendors amounts to a malicious attempt by BCWF to screw and rip off it's members through double dipping strikes me as unfair.
Great post Rob , I was struggling to justify the double dipping interpretation ...

[Imdone]

Thanks for clarifying Rob.

This has made the issue much clearer and should have been said long ago.

To be honest, the club's I've been in have always stated no it's not possible. And I admit I should have dug deeper and pushed them more on the subject.

Good to hear your feedback.

[Shermanator]

Thanks for the reply Rob, although in your private emails to me you didn't want me posting on a public forum things that could "tarnish the image of the BCWF". I was expecting that email you said you were going to send me however this is fine, I don't mind being on the forum to post my views. I'll try to keep it short but we know where that goes.

I appreciate you trying to explain what "might" or "may" be happening with respect to this issue I have raised. Your emails told me that "The reason you're paying twice or three times is because the solution you're looking for is, according to staff, too difficult to achieve." OK, so at least he BCWF has recognized that at least one person is being "overcharged" , your words, not mine. Fix it. We can go around in circles trying to cast blame on someone else which it appears is happening again. This is not me tarnishing the good BCWF name, it appears to be someone or something else, not the Shermanator. All I'm trying to do is bring an issue forward to current BCWF members and to those that may want to become members that there is a problem in the system.

It appears to me that BCWF would put the blame on the local Clubs that are doing the "over charging", stating that they did not have to charge the BCWF portion of the dues by the Club. Yet, at least one other person on this forum has been told by the Club that he had to pay. I have questioned and emailed my Club several times and they too stated that if they want to be a member of the Club affiliated with BCWF then that person joining the local Club must also pay the extra fee! I have even gone so far as to have my Club attach a letter to the portion of my membership that goes to BCWF, with a photocopy of my Lifetime Membership card and stating that I should not have to pay the extra fee! The Club has heard nothing back, and nor have I. Even the Club President said it is totally wrong that I'm being double charged. I can only assume that it was put in the same shredder as was all my other correspondence.

Your comments to me "your priority about getting double billed and not liking it is pretty low on my personal priority list." and "You have to try to fix it even when you'd rather be trying to address issues you personally find more important." are certainly not reflective of someone who really wants to get to the bottom of this problem. As I've stated to you I don't know how many times I said, yes, you are working on issues you deem much more important. I have also thanked you and told you I appreciated all the work you and the BCWF do but, it does not let BCWF off the hook or allow you the pleasure of deeming my complaint any less important than other issues you work on. Your term "this is a very minor issue" is perceived as a total lack of interest on BCWF part, just as you don't appreciate the term "ripped off", I never did use the word screwed though.

Here's a letter you can send to all the BCWF affiliated Clubs:

It has been brought to our attention that Lifetime BCWF Members have been paying local Club dues as well as BCWF dues, this is to stop immediately. It will be up to the individual Member whether they want to pay BCWF dues twice. Also, with respect to Direct BCWF Members, should they want to join other Clubs, they also will not be required to pay the BCWF dues but only the dues that are applicable to join that Club. We apologize for any inconvenience or frustration this may have caused in the past and look forward to your continued support.
Your sincerely, BCWF

I tried to keep it short, hopefully something will be resolved out of all of this...............Sherm

[Rob Chipman]

The reply was to Imdone, Sherm, not to you. Your email is coming.

A few points for clarification.

-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.

-Despite my opinion on your actions I'm devoting time and energy in an attempt to satisfy you, and I think the reason I'm doing that is pretty obvious.

-Your suggestion of the letter that BCWF could send to clubs speaks to this disagreement. First, suggesting that this issue has been brought to our attention sounds like a courteous opening line, but it plays fast and loose with truth and history. The problem of clubs collecting BCWF membership fees from life members is not new, has been on the radar a long time and was the subject of an official Board generated resolution that the membership defeated. Second, what you're suggesting requires a change in the constitution (not easy, and, as we know, the membership has not been supportive of that in the past) and it also requires BCWF to attempt to exercise power that it neither has nor should have (clubs are independent and make their own decisions about how they manage their affairs).

BCWF is member driven. Members indicate their main concerns and BCWF volunteer leadership tries to address them. Membership has indicated on more than one occasion that your personal concern is not widely held, and that they would like BCWF volunteer leadership to focus on other issues. Given that your issue came up at Board level and was discussed at length, the fact that this is not the first time it's been discussed and the fact that I am spending time and energy on it, I think it's unfair to use the descriptor "total" in the phrase "total lack of interest on BCWF part". There is clearly interest on the part of BCWF volunteer leadership to address your complaint, but there is a divide between the BCWF volunteer leadership and the membership. The *BCWF membership* looked at this issue at an AGM and made it as clear as possible that the *BCWF membership* does not consider it an important issue. BCWF volunteer leadership takes our direction from the membership, and prioritizes all problems on that basis.

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).

[Bernie O]

This is going much like the covid thread. Some people dont like the truth no matter how many times and ways it is ex plained. At my club we allow any one that proves BCWF membership to buy an associate membership. I know some will say its the principle of it. But to me its a flat of beer once a year.
Thanks Rob for doing a thankless job.

[Shermanator]

This is going much like the covid thread. Some people dont like the truth no matter how many times and ways it is ex plained. At my club we allow any one that proves BCWF membership to buy an associate membership. I know some will say its the principle of it. But to me its a flat of beer once a year.
Thanks Rob for doing a thankless job.

Your absolutely right, some people or Clubs won't admit to the truth. There's seems to be a discrepancy between the truth in what my Club is saying and what BCWF is saying, so I'm not sure how you can pick one over the other as being right, I haven't! It's only a flat of beer a year? Ya, so much for some people's principles, again. Your entitled to your opinions and choices as am I, and I choose to stand up for my principles and what is right, and stopping the "over charging " is right. And, they can close this thread if they choose, or you don't have to read it. There are other avenues to let people know what is going on and what I feel is wrong....

[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!:cool::cool:

[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.

[Gateholio]

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.


Recruitment is down?

Many wildlife associations that operate a gun range have a waiting list to get in.

This is actually a simple problem with a simple solution- If you already pay BCWF fees through your club, don't buy a separate lifetime membership. Your club is the one collecting the fee from you, not the BCWF.

[BRvalley]

this has been an interesting thread...I can agree with the concern on double dipping, and working in finance myself I do question how challenging this actually is on either side of the fence (but of course a volunteer organization doesn't have the system resources/talent a larger company does, I also suspect there are some continuous improvement initiatives that could help, ie standardize reporting from club level), but still I would be inclined to think it would be easier to manage at the club level, if they are willing to cooperate....you bought a lifetime membership directly from the BCWF, that is a separate product and separate transaction versus your local club membership

If the club doesn't want to work with lifetime members on a fee reduction, then don't join the club, the club loses membership until they see it as a legitimate issue....or possibly they just don't care at all

I'm not fully up to speed on BCWF issues, but there's been enough gossip on this forum on various issues that I agree it is the principle, I wouldn't want any extra of my money spent if I didn't fully trust how it was being utilized

[Imdone]

Recruitment is down?

Many wildlife associations that operate a gun range have a waiting list to get in.

This is actually a simple problem with a simple solution- If you already pay BCWF fees through your club, don't buy a separate lifetime membership. Your club is the one collecting the fee from you, not the BCWF.

Ya, people are spilling over the seams to help hatcheries ....... Laughable your comments...... Your have no clue besides shooting clubs, try getting help pulling Beaver dams, counting fence repair and maintenance, laying gravel, taking spawn, it goes on and on.
Plus several shooting ranges have Chosen to leave the BCWF because of lack of support, direction, dedication.
I've been with the BCWF for over 40 years and supported that, but several issues could be clarified. It used to be there Clearly for hunters, fishers and shooters, now it walks on crushed glass, careful where you step.

[Gateholio]

Ya, people are spilling over the seams to help hatcheries ....... Laughable your comments...... Your have no clue besides shooting clubs, try getting help pulling Beaver dams, counting fence repair and maintenance, laying gravel, taking spawn, it goes on and on.
Plus several shooting ranges have Chosen to leave the BCWF because of lack of support, direction, dedication.
I've been with the BCWF for over 40 years and supported that, but several issues could be clarified. It used to be there Clearly for hunters, fishers and shooters, now it walks on crushed glass, careful where you step.


Many people join clubs to access their shooting ranges, that's just the way it is.

If you can't get help with projects, it's not because of lifetime member fees.

[Imdone]

Completely irrelevant post above. Again your opinion has no clue outside of your little window.

There's many bigger issues at hand.

Several years ago I battled endlessly to keep our range shooting club with the BCWF. It got voted down from the majority because of lack of support from the BCWF and its silent stand. I've continued to support it. I know it does good things, and I like helping, but, it COULD and should do way better.

Get back to its Roots.

[Mulehahn]

Interesting. I don't see how it can be that Complicated. The BCWF now requires a birthday as well as name to apply senior discounts. Once the data is entered it really wouldn't be that big of an issue to have a note pop up when a matching name and birthday is entered. That sounds like basic data entry. It might be a bit more complicated to create an automatic response asking what to do with the funds; refund vs accept as donation, etc; sort of like an automated out of office reply but I could be out to lunch as well. I have only used, not written, preexisting inventory programs that do very similar things. As far as I can tell club memberships are the equivalent of BCWF inventory. Doesn't sound like we are reinventing the wheel.

But maybe I am missing something and the issue really does lie with the individual clubs. Which I don't see as someone could easily lie as to be being a member of the BCWF to save the money. Only the BCWF should have a complete membership list, are the ones to receive the money and should be the ones to refund it for services not rendered. But I seem to be in the minority so I will begrudgingly acquiesce..

The issue falls to the clubs. Now, as I said earlier in this thread, I have held 3 different memberships to the BCWF at one point. When I asked each club about it I was expressly told that the BCWF demanded the fees and opting out was not an option as they understood. It has now been put forward in this thread that there was misunderstandings and collecting memberships for the BCWF is optional. If this is true then a simple guide from the BCWF outlining the fee collection process and options should be drafted up and distributed to all clubs and made available to all members who ask. This is something that should be done immediately and is certainly doable and easy.

[Imdone]

Interesting. I don't see how it can be that Complicated. The BCWF now requires a birthday as well as name to apply senior discounts. Once the data is entered it really wouldn't be that big of an issue to have a note pop up when a matching name and birthday is entered. That sounds like basic data entry. It might be a bit more complicated to create an automatic response asking what to do with the funds; refund vs accept as donation, etc; sort of like an automated out of office reply but I could be out to lunch as well. I have only used, not written, preexisting inventory programs that do very similar things. As far as I can tell club memberships are the equivalent of BCWF inventory. Doesn't sound like we are reinventing the wheel.

But maybe I am missing something and the issue really does lie with the individual clubs. Which I don't see as someone could easily lie as to be being a member of the BCWF to save the money. Only the BCWF should have a complete membership list, are the ones to receive the money and should be the ones to refund it for services not rendered. But I seem to be in the minority so I will begrudgingly acquiesce..

The issue falls to the clubs. Now, as I said earlier in this thread, I have held 3 different memberships to the BCWF at one point. When I asked each club about it I was expressly told that the BCWF demanded the fees and opting out was not an option as they understood. It has now been put forward in this thread that there was misunderstandings and collecting memberships for the BCWF is optional. If this is true then a simple guide from the BCWF outlining the fee collection process and options should be drafted up and distributed to all clubs and made available to all members who ask. This is something that should be done immediately and is certainly doable and easy.

Well said above.

[Rob Chipman]

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

:-)

I think you're misreading who might be running their operations with pen and paper....Hint: It's not the very competent person I speak with who runs our accounting program. Key issues you identify are "right program", "data entry" and "spreadsheet". Head office accounting *can* do it. They're capable. It involves integrating a bunch of different reports that are received in a bunch of different formats, with varying accuracy, and which are received at varying times. If only all clubs had a reporting system that was compatible with (God forbid, actually integrated with) BCWF's system. If that were the case there would never have been a need for a special resolution tweaking the constitutional bottleneck so that we could create a workaround.

So, yes, the accounts department at BCWF *could* do it. It's so difficult, time consuming and expensive that....well, you can imagine.... :-)

[Rob Chipman]

Interesting. I don't see how it can be that Complicated......

That is (and was) the obvious starting point (to clarify, this isn't the first time this has come up and is not the first time I've tried to get some sort of solution). Accounting staff produces a *ton* of reports that I'm fortunate enough to be allowed to examine (yes, I just used the word "fortunate" - apparently that word doesn't mean what I think it does, but I'm going through a pile of this reports in preparation for a Finance Committee meeting tonight as we go through the budgeting process. You simply cannot imagine the joy :-) ) That starting point dead-ended when very competent staff said "Yeah, no, nowhere near as easy as you would assume". Point being: we started here, our competent and trusted staff advised it was not the way to solve it, so we moved on to different approaches. Feel free to dispute this with staff rather than with me. I'm just providing data.





But maybe I am missing something and the issue really does lie with the individual clubs. Which I don't see as someone could easily lie as to be being a member of the BCWF to save the money. Only the BCWF should have a complete membership list, are the ones to receive the money and should be the ones to refund it for services not rendered. But I seem to be in the minority so I will begrudgingly acquiesce..




I'd quibble and argue that the issue is that one person buys two or more different products from two or more vendors.

The BCWF sells a lifetime membership to anyone who wants to buy on, and the BCWF does not question the buyer's motives. Some buyers purchase the lifetime membership because they want to demonstrate commitment to conservation, the BCWF or both. Others may buy the lifetime BCWF membership because it's cheaper over the long term. Some buyers understand what they're buying and why, and recognize that the lifetime membership with BCWF is *not* the same as what they buy from a club. Others are less clear on that.

Clubs sell memberships to finance a variety of things. I belong to a local club that has no range, and I belong to another club that does have a range. I was, for a while, also a direct member, as that's how a lot of big city people join the BCWF (LML clubs are aging out and disappearing, as opposed to rural clubs that constantly impress me with what they accomplish and offer to members). Part of the fee the club charges members goes to the BCWF because of a constitutional feature of the BCWF. That feature went into the constitution long before anyone anticipated that some buyers of different products from different vendors on different terms and on different time frames would think they're buying one product twice from the same vendor.

BCWF volunteer leadership *has tried* to square that circle, regardless of who's to blame. The resolution anticipated the concerns of BCWF members who could imagine a dishonest person gaming the system by lying to a club and came up with a reasonable solution: if the club told BCWF that the member had provided proof that they were a lifetime member the BCWF was prepared to accept that and take reduced payment without reducing the number of votes due to a club. That solution worked because BCWF trusts it's member clubs and it's members and isn't trying to double dip or rip anyone off.

You raise a very interesting point, however: what does a BCWF membership buy someone? What. exactly, are the services rendered or not rendered. That's a discussion for another thread, and is a discussion that is occurring among BCWF leadership, for obvious reasons, but it's clear that there are different opinions among the general public (including BCWF members) on what the BCWF value proposition is. An awful lot of people think we're just an insurance re-seller who gets them a deal on a magazine (and that is clearly a perception that needs to be changed).





..... I have held 3 different memberships to the BCWF at one point. When I asked each club about it I was expressly told that the BCWF demanded the fees and opting out was not an option as they understood. It has now been put forward in this thread that there was misunderstandings and collecting memberships for the BCWF is optional. If this is true then a simple guide from the BCWF outlining the fee collection process and options should be drafted up and distributed to all clubs and made available to all members who ask. This is something that should be done immediately and is certainly doable and easy.

I think its wise to recognize the importance of the "misunderstanding" concept. It's very valuable because it completely removes assumptions that are both incorrect and negative, so thanks for bringing that to the table.

We certainly could say that BCWF *demands* the fees and opting out is not an option. Read the constitution and look at 3.2 , 3.3 and 3.4. Seems clear that the BCWF tells clubs the basis on which dues will be assessed and how that will affect membership records at BCWF and how the amount charged will be determined (it's determined by the members at an AGM, not by BCWF leadership, which takes direction from the members as outlined in the same constitution).

OK, fine.

However, the BCWF *does not* tell member clubs what classes of membership they must or cannot have, nor does the BCWF tell member clubs how much they can charge or how to structure their finances. As far as I can tell the only hammer that the BCWF could use (should the BCWF *want* to use a hammer, which the BCWF leadership has demonstrated time and again they do not want to do) is on the issue of votes, and as explained, that is a very narrow application (the 100-101 threshold, the 200-201 threshold, the 500-501 and every subsequent 500 increment threshold). A club could offer an associate membership and not worry about the votes, or could simply refund a member that portion of the fee remitted to BCWF. Let's remember- that portion of the club fee remitted to the BCWF is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. Nobody actually collecting the fee is committed to collecting it - not the clubs, not the insurer, not the publisher of BCO and certainly not the BCWF leadership, which has demonstrated that it would like an easy solution but has been unable to find one).


Your suggestion of a simple explanation to be circulated is pretty easy. I don't think I'll dive too deeply into the intricacies of the fee collection process, but I think your suggestion is one of those no-brainber obvious things that always seems to appear....after the fact :-) Thanks for making it.

[Shermanator]

Thanks again Rob for the time put into this issue (I still believe its one) and for the extra information which I've been trying to get for a long time! At least you and I agree to disagree, so we're compatible in that respect, and as you well know a good debate can resolve issues or at least bring light to unknown parameters with that issue. Something I do find interesting in all the conversations but especially yours, is that there is in fact a method/way that the issue I have brought up can be fixed! However, BCWF does not have the means or wherewithal to get it done. I'm not sure if that's because BCWF believes or says this issue is not their fault and its the local Clubs fault or what, but the bottom line from what I've read is that it can be fixed, and that's kinda what I've been trying to find out and get done.

I will continue looking into this issue, I realize that I have kinda reached a dead end with BCWF but I have other sources to turn to in order to find out more and post it here. I am going to approach local Clubs with some of the information you have provided and that I was unaware of and get a reading from them. Perhaps it'll rattle some cranial matter and get them looking into this deeper than they did before, and realize that they don't have to collect the BCWF twice?? Maybe?? Is that correct? A circular to the local Clubs from BCWF would obviously go a long ways in "fixing" what they maybe don't know, and if "fixing" at the local level helps out BCWF members than its a win win, for them and for BCWF. Sherm

[Rob Chipman]

Clubs have to collect and remit from every member that they want on the BCWF list that apportions votes to the club. The club is free to give a different membership to a lifetime member that does not include a payment to BCWF, but the club has to accept that it will be doing a little extra work by adding some sort of additional membership class and may be missing out on one extra vote at the AGM if the lifetime member is at the 100/101 threshold (or the 200/201, 500/501, etc).

The BCWF does not say the issue is anyone's fault. The BCWF leadership, again, for about the third time, introduced a measure that would make it easier to satisfy members like yourself without going through a whole constitutional amendment. Members voted that resolution down. Your fellow members, not the BCWF leadership, did not seem to think this needed to be addressed.

There is not, as far as I understand, in fact a method that will fix your concern aside from the very time consuming comparison of multiple reports in multiple formats from multiple sources by staff who already say they are over-tasked. The comparison idea was the very first one I explored long ago when one of my own club members brought the issue to me. It is not simple, it is not easy and we do not have the means or wherewithal to do it unless we sacrifice other work.

It's nobody's fault. It's a bug in the structure of the BCWF constitution and local club constitutions and the bug is triggered when a member buys two different products from two different vendors. It was never planned and it's not easy to fix.

[Shermanator]

Rob, I was going to reply to your last email however after reading it several times, I can see no point in yours and my continual "he said she said they said it said them said " ( does that cover all this new gender stuff????). Your comment " The moral judgements you continue to pass which are based on your incorrect assumption are, as a result, flawed. Being flawed they are also a bit offensive." kinda summed up for me where BCWF is on this issue, and that's fine. I didn't pass judgement on you as a Director but rather in the manner in which BCWF runs, so I don't think its correct to pass judgement on me, considering you don't even know me. Am I offended, nah, taken more crap in my time than most others put together! All my "thank you's" and "appreciate that" in all my correspondence with you have been sincere, but this would seem to be all to no avail in my attempts to sincerely carry on a member to member conversation, and that's ok too, like I said, debate is good.

In any event, as I have mentioned, BCWF appears to have taken their stand on this issue, Rob is still exploring another option for me and I will await that outcome. In the meantime, again as I have mentioned, I will continue to look into the matter further via local Clubs to get a reading from them on the whole situation, it seems only fair to get their side of the story as well. Thats what a good investigator does, get both sides of the story. I'd have to say that judging by the input and numbers of readers to this post, that it has been more than worthwhile and provides valuable information to others...................

[Shermanator]

UPDATE: Over the last couple months I have sent correspondence to various Clubs, big and small, a total of 8. Out of the 8, only two did not respond at all, so be it. Out of the other 6 Clubs, I received various "answers" as to the overcharging of not just Lifetime Members but Direct Members as well (those that wish to belong to more than one Club). Of the 6, the two largest Clubs, and lets just use the size of the Kelowna Club as an example, said that's the policy (overcharging) but we'll get back to you, and they haven't. Two of the smaller Clubs said they ran into exactly the same problem but "refused" to double charge the Members in the a/m circumstances. What that meant I'm not sure but they disagreed with the policy and didn't adhere to it. Of the remaining two smaller Clubs, one said that they too were trying to find a way around this but have been unable to get any "help" on the issue as how to go about it. The remaining Club. which is the one I belong to and whom I have been in touch with the most, obviously, did finally send me a reply only a week or so ago. They are having a Club meeting in March, at which time they are amending their ByLaws to potentially waive the portion of the BCWF for those that belong to another BCWF recognized Club AND a further amendment to waive the fee's for those with a Lifetime Membership in the BCWF. Originally they had not addressed the Lifetime Membership scenario as they weren't aware of the problem. According to them, BCWF has been doing something in the background to allow them to make this change, but they were not sure what.
In any event, it would appear things are now in motion to stop this "overcharging" of Club members. I forgot to ask the Clubs if you could join their Club without joining the BCWF but that's for someone else to take on, 3 years just to get a simple solution on this issue is enough for me, enjoy...............Sherm

[Shermanator]

Well, a new year and a new local Club membership and yes, still double charged with respect to the BCWF end of it. Had a extra 5 minutes on my hands so figured I should update the crowd, no point complaining if you don't follow up on things.
So, I spoke to our Club officials about this "double charging", again, (seems some don't like the term double dipping) and it was explained like this. What the local Club's achieve from signing up with BCWF is insurance coverage at the range, that's about it. There was apparently a meeting not to long ago regarding insurance and this double charging however, talk is about as far as it went, as usual. It would appear that there are quite a few other Clubs that are encountering this "problem" over insurance with BCWF and those Clubs, including mine, are now looking elsewhere for insurance and will opt out of the BCWF link, unfortunate for the BCWF. Our Club alone could save up to 25K by going elsewhere for insurance, one Club in LMD saved 100K by opting out of the BCWF link., again, very unfortunate for BCWF. I was told that even though I am a Lifetime Member, my BCWF membership will only cover me at the Club that I am affiliated with, and no other one. Strange, when you consider the BCWF membership insurance covers me anywhere I go for fishing and hunting....hmmmmm.
There is another meeting coming up this Spring with the Clubs and BCWF and this "item" will again be brought up, I hope, and perhaps some resolution can be achieved, just keeping you-all in the loop!! The Sherm

[Shermanator]

I just got the minutes of the last meeting of our Club, and they have moved ahead and opted away from BCWF. The BCWF dues were coming up so they proceeded to obtain their own insurance from a private source (the insurance I'm assuming being the reason for them being affiliated with BCWF). So, rather than paying the $37 to BCWF the Club members will now pay only $7 for the insurance, that extra $30 going into the Club bank account which can be utilized for a ton of different things. I should mention that this new insurance via the private source does not have any ATV coverage as the BCWF insurance did for when your engaged in hunting or fishing.
Bottom line is that the BCWF just lost 900+ members from this one little Club. I have no doubt that there will be some that will join the BCWF on their own and good on them for doing that, it is a valuable and much needed organization. It is just unfortunate that the BCWF could not resolve "my problem" simply because of a software issue that was to expensive to fix. I'm thinking Clubs opting out of BCWF is going to cost allot more in the long run...........Sherm

[sparkes3]

After a few more clubs start leaving maybe they will get the hint and resolve the issue.

[David]

I just got the minutes of the last meeting of our Club, and they have moved ahead and opted away from BCWF. The BCWF dues were coming up so they proceeded to obtain their own insurance from a private source (the insurance I'm assuming being the reason for them being affiliated with BCWF). So, rather than paying the $37 to BCWF the Club members will now pay only $7 for the insurance.

That's rather sad don't you think?

It really only means one of two things:
1 - The BCWF wasn't advocating for the things your club finds important.
OR
2 - The only thing your club cares about is insurance.

I mean... from your own comments it seems like it's number 2 (you said "the insurance I'm assuming being the reason for them being affiliated with BCWF" in your post). Isn't that a sad reason for a hunting/fishing/firearms club to be part of an advocacy group? Just for the insurance?

I'm not blaming your club... I don't even know which club it is... and it may very well be that the BCWF could have done a better part of demonstrating their relevance to the people in your club.

But from your post the club didn't leave because of your double dipping issue. (since your post said you got the minutes, I'm gathering that you weren't at the meeting when they voted to leave). I just find it sad is all.

[BimmerBob]

I have to wonder if the lifetime membership issue was the determining factor or just one of many issues the club members found not worthwhile.

If it was brought up and then not thought worth solving with the BCWF then I am at a complete loss as to how absolutely dumb the BCWF was in not addressing the issue.

Add a record on each club member with a spot to put their BCWF life membership number and reduce the club per capita by an amount that recognizes the life membership, ie: 10 life members in the club then the per capita BCWF dues reduced by 10 units. I am sure there are not that many life members and it would take little time for it to be manually correlated if they do not know how to do custom db queries.

Sometimes the unwillingness of people to address technology issues with simple solutions is absolutely exasperating. To lose 800 members of a concordant club is no small thing and will no doubt impact BCWF revenue significantly. Not a good picture being painted for sure.

Be well.../B

[IslandWanderer]

Could clubs buy insurance through an agency, or maybe through CCFR membership?

[Huk]

When I joined my local club it was with BCWF, shortly after the members voted to leave and go with NFA. I don’t know the reason they decided to leave BCWF.

We just switched again, this time to CCFR because they are the ones fighting for us to keep our firearms.

[Shermanator]

I have to wonder if the lifetime membership issue was the determining factor or just one of many issues the club members found not worthwhile.

If it was brought up and then not thought worth solving with the BCWF then I am at a complete loss as to how absolutely dumb the BCWF was in not addressing the issue.

Add a record on each club member with a spot to put their BCWF life membership number and reduce the club per capita by an amount that recognizes the life membership, ie: 10 life members in the club then the per capita BCWF dues reduced by 10 units. I am sure there are not that many life members and it would take little time for it to be manually correlated if they do not know how to do custom db queries.

Sometimes the unwillingness of people to address technology issues with simple solutions is absolutely exasperating. To lose 800 members of a concordant club is no small thing and will no doubt impact BCWF revenue significantly. Not a good picture being painted for sure.

Be well.../B

I don't think it was strictly the Lifetime Member issue to cause this. I've spoken to our President
every year since I started this pilgrimage and even though he sent appropriate paperwork along with
my membership to BCWF, nothing was said or done. It was also a issue with Direct Members
that wanted to join a second Club but didn't want to pay the BCWF dues twice. I'm guessing that Clubs
are wanting more bang for their buck, whether it was an insurance issue, not wanting the magazine, or
just simply needing more cash to operate. Our Club numbers have grown exponentially over the last
couple years so it'll be interesting to see where they are next year. There's always the option for Club
members to join BCWF on their own, and I'm sure some will.....