# How Many of US members demanded the Board remove Barebow



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

from outdoor nationals. I have been told that the BOARD-in November-decided that they wanted to make the US nationals more like WAC worlds. (which raises an interesting question since Masters compound fingers is still part of the tournament but BB is not)

HOW MANY OF US MEMBERS ACTUALLY WANTED THAT? Not me. and that seems to be the biggest problem with the USOC dictating how NGBs are run. The divide and conquer tactic (I don't even remember the last time I saw a ballot-and I have no clue what narrow sector I can vote in-coach, member, JOAD leader/grassroots, or Judge since I am all of the above) has clearly been designed to take power away from the membership and allow the board to do pretty much what it wants (i.e. doing whatever the USOC tells it to do). Somewhere in this nonsense, there are pretty good grounds for a class action suit by the membership but I am too tired and have other sports that don't have the politics I can do.

The national outdoor should be for the ENTIRE membership.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

i see no reason to exclude barebow. We have kids and adults shooting it. Its part of the JOAD program. 


Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Very curious as USAA went out of their way to include barebow in the achievement pin matrix. Barebow is gaining some traction and should be promoted, not eliminated.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Its a shame. Hopefully somehow we can get it back.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm not getting this decision. How can it be member driven when they don't poll the members? We know they *can* poll the members, but the only time I recall that happening recently is when they sent out that poll to vote on great coaches. That's the only poll I've *ever* received from USAA.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Definitely curious especially considering that U.S barebow shooting has arguably never been better.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

The leadership needs to be changed to others who will engage and serve the membership, not their own private insider agenda/preferences. 

A lot of that going around these days.

The top USA archers could maybe force some change, if they were of a mind to do so (they've likely got more persuasive power/sway with the money behind the throne than they realize) - but likely they're too young to see how an involved/represented membership would be good for them too in the long run. And beyond that, leadership serving the interests of members is just the right thing to do. 

Venting here won't do a dang thing but make us feel better. But what will? And how to go about it?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Regular doodle polls to the membership via email should be a routine part of USArchery's decision matrix.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Regular doodle polls to the membership via email should be a routine part of USArchery's decision matrix.


John, do you ever feel like you're a record player that keeps skipping back to the same spot every time you come around and the only people who are listening have arms too short to reach the arm so as to move you to the next track?

A wise man told me today, "Don't let it get you down." :grin:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Regular doodle polls to the membership via email should be a routine part of USArchery's decision matrix.


Or, at the very least, a formal Request for Comments for major changes under consideration - something that would have smoothed over the whole "you can't teach *anybody* who isn't a USAA archery member, even for introductory lessons" kerfluffle. They could have worked out the problems *in advance* instead of having to back track.

Dropping barebow reeks of pruning everything that doesn't lead to directly to corporate or Olympic sponsorship money for USAA. Pruning like that is great if you are, say, In 'n' Out burgers to concentrate on a specialty for profit, as opposed to a national archery membership organization founded to advance archery, and which seeks to be the one and only national archery org that matters.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yup. Sometimes. But that was not a criticism per se. Just a statement of fact. Any organization that is interested in serving the membership has more and better tools available to it today, than ever before. There is no reason at all that the membership shouldn't be engaged more than ever, and that the board shouldn't be making better informed decisions than ever. Just takes the right people to see and react positively to these new opportunities. That's all. They either do, or they do not. I stopped letting it get to me quite some time ago. I have - should we say - "adjusted" my expectations in order to manage my stress level.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Yup. Sometimes. But that was not a criticism per se. Just a statement of fact. Any organization that is interested in serving the membership has more and better tools available to it today, than ever before. There is no reason at all that the membership shouldn't be engaged more than ever, and that the board shouldn't be making better informed decisions than ever. Just takes the right people to see and react positively to these new opportunities. That's all. They either do, or they do not. I stopped letting it get to me quite some time ago. I have - should we say - *"adjusted" my expectations in order to manage my stress level.*


That is an epiphany of wisdom!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I am still waiting to hear FROM ONE PERSON who asked the board or one of the reps to drop bb. I have been told that the board exists to make decisions for the BENEFIT of the MEMBERSHIP. can someone explain to me HOW I benefit from this moronic decision. How my wife, who is a BB shooter and who spend at least 400 unpaid hours a year promoting archery BENEFITS FROM THIS

I THINK WHAT WE need is a recall petition for USA or what they would call in some countries a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Howdy! Time for the Lizard to chime in!

Let's say I have had some talks today, and the decision is done, cannot be revisited for this year's NTC....HOWEVER, if we want to affect change, we have to ALL WRITE TO U.S.A.A.'s BOD and let them know how we feel, then we all HAVE TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING!

I have been corresponding with one person on the BOD, as far as the CLOUT (shameless plug: this is on probation too....please sign up to shoot it! It is the ULTIMATE Barebow competition!) and the BOD decided to allow CLOUT stand for now...we have to have about the same number of shooters we had last year (120-150 as of last night we have 21. This is PREREGISTRATION ONLY, no walk-ups). Our committee came up with a great idea for the field and the "flag," kind of like a throwback to the 70s clout rounds. There is a thread here, and then I have it on my Facebook Page too (Liz Pfirrmann Coombe).

So, The only way to affect change is to write the BOD, AND ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING AT NTC!!! There is a lot of hashing stuff out at the Annual Meeting. That is how we got the CLOUT to stick around for 2014. Pack the room to the rafters, and let them hear your voice! Sort of like, if you don't vote in the presidential elections, you cannot complain about how things are with YOUR country. "That's why we elect those boneheads (sorry politicians) to office". So, If you want change, GO TO THE MEETING! Mr. Trafford, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Estrada, and myself came together to form the "clout committee" because we were all very passionate about continuing a history lesson for the archery community, I know Jane Johnson was with us in spirit.

Now, we have to form a bare bow committee! How to persuade the "powers that be" to reinstate it for the 2015 NTC Outdoor! 

Yes, I am bummed, because I am not shooting NTC this year. I don't want to stress over this, so I am going to get to the field early everyday...and I mean EARLY, to get your coffee, tea, hot chocolate, and stuff like that ready in the quiet of early morning on the archery field. I did that last year (on Saturday or Sunday), and it was my favorite day! No stress because I was not shooting that day, slight ground fog, early morning coolness, PERFECTION!

Silver lining: If you prove barebow is worthy to keep, then they have to listen to you. All I have to say is look at the growth of archery due to the Hunger games, Brave, and all the other Hollywood stuff, let's prove it and let's demand to reinstate it next year! (Where ever NTC/EJN will be)


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what the DOWN SIDE was to keeping BB in the NTC? Other than perhaps some foreigner saying "WE DON'T HAVE BB IN OURS!!

you'd think that BB inclusion was costing USA THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS that they could spend on say funding the INDOOR or FIELD TEAMS:wink:

or BB's need different kinds of targets? NOPE that's not it

or BB archers dress funny and smell bad?

or they don't buy as much gear from USA sponsors? heck I almost have as much money in my sight and stabilizers as Liz has in her bow!!!


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Jim C said:


> I am still waiting for someone to tell me what the DOWN SIDE was to keeping BB in the NTC? Other than perhaps some foreigner saying "WE DON'T HAVE BB IN OURS!!
> 
> you'd think that BB inclusion was costing USA THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS that they could spend on say funding the INDOOR or FIELD TEAMS:wink:
> 
> ...


Did some checking on barebow participation in Texas this indoor season. 


Tsaa State indoor JOAD 9 barebow (65 total JOAD archers)
Tsaa State indoor (adults and kids) 18 barebow
State indoor 4H 52 barebow (basic introduction to archery)
State indoor 4H NASP division 32
(So 4H had 84 kids shooting fingers and no sights out of the 300 or so kids that shot)
TExas Field Archery Association indoor state 43 barebow, longbow or traditional archers.

Looking at the names I estimate that is about 130 different barebow archers that USA Archery ignores.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

One of my students Chelsea Obrebski reported to me that the BB shooters at the NFC were many. Of course when you get to our age and like Lizard, have joint issues, field-especially whorl trials is a bit much (which is why I don't shoot much field anymore-2 blown discs and no cartilage in my right knee). 

Tom-you've been a major contributor to US archery for as long as I have been around. Can you think of any downside in having a BB event at the NTCs?


----------



## D_Winslow (Mar 20, 2014)

TomB said:


> Looking at the names I estimate that is about 130 different barebow archers that USA Archery ignores.



The number of seriously talented barebow archers USAA ignores is enormous, well into the 10's of THOUSANDS. The number of barebow NASP archers today, absolutely dwarfs all other USAA archery classes combined. USAA recognizes that this group exists, as they use pictures of this group all the time on their FB page when highlighting youth archery. 

However, they have not cultivated any significant bridge to bring these archers into the USAA fold. I cannot figure out why USAA is not aggressively going after all of these NASP archers.

It appears that USAA just doesn't want barebow to grow or exist?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Guys, it's really pretty simple. The current leadership at USAA never shot barebow, and frankly doesn't understand it or recognize it as a serious discipline. It's really that simple. It's not some nefarious thing. It's just a lack of exposure/experience with it. Frankly, the "instinctive" knuckle-dragger stereotype around barebow archers doesn't help either. Well, and the fact that most barebow archers are fiercely independent and outspoken, AND the fact that there is literally NO chance that barebow will ever be considered an Olympic sport... There's no money associated with it for either the promoters or the manufacturers either. 

It's a deadly combination for the discipline.

It's been relegated to "enthusiast" status, and we all know what that means. 

Fortunately, there are still a number of us "enthusiasts" who continue to shoot barebow, including all the NASP archers, and those archers here in Texas who choose the Genesis/NASP bow to compete in our barebow division. We have one "young" lady well into her 70's now who is still competing in archery as a barebow archer because we chose to allow Genesis bows into the barebow division in our state shoots. 

Keep on keepin' on. It's the barebow way.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Nicely said john! Like I said, on this thread, go to the USAA annual meeting! We are listened to there! Remember last year they weren't going to have Clout? I went to the annual meeting, and spoke up...WE HAD A ONE CLOUT END. THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT WE COULDN'T DO IT, PROBABLY BECAUSE WE HAD TO SHOOT IN KNEE HIGH GRASS and it was too hard to find arrows. We still got to shoot one end. 2014 national clout tournament! How is that for action?! The annual meeting is where THE MEMBERSHIP is heard from! It worked for Clout....now on to BAREBOW 😀



limbwalker said:


> Yup. Sometimes. But that was not a criticism per se. Just a statement of fact. Any organization that is interested in serving the membership has more and better tools available to it today, than ever before. There is no reason at all that the membership shouldn't be engaged more than ever, and that the board shouldn't be making better informed decisions than ever. Just takes the right people to see and react positively to these new opportunities. That's all. They either do, or they do not. I stopped letting it get to me quite some time ago. I have - should we say - "adjusted" my expectations in order to manage my stress level.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lizard said:


> Howdy! Time for the Lizard to chime in!
> 
> Let's say I have had some talks today, and the decision is done, cannot be revisited for this year's NTC....HOWEVER, if we want to affect change, we have to ALL WRITE TO U.S.A.A.'s BOD and let them know how we feel, then we all HAVE TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING!


Excellent suggestions. Have the rules for the annual meeting changed? It used to be that to bring up "new business" you had to submit a "resolution signed by at least five members and filed with the CEO at least forty-five days before the meeting." The language seems to have changed and I don't see any language about having to submit notice, but neither do I see any language requiring the meeting to allow people to bring up and discuss new business at the meeting.

It's worth noting that for all of the sophistication of the USAA bylaws, to a certain extent they aren't worth the paper you can print them on because they can be completely changed by a simple majority vote of the board of directors at *any time* - they can even meet by phone or teleconference to do it.



limbwalker said:


> Guys, it's really pretty simple. The current leadership at USAA never shot barebow, and frankly doesn't understand it or recognize it as a serious discipline. It's really that simple. It's not some nefarious thing. It's just a lack of exposure/experience with it. Frankly, the "instinctive" knuckle-dragger stereotype around barebow archers doesn't help either. Well, and the fact that most barebow archers are fiercely independent and outspoken, AND the fact that there is literally NO chance that barebow will ever be considered an Olympic sport... There's no money associated with it for either the promoters or the manufacturers either.
> 
> It's a deadly combination for the discipline.
> 
> It's been relegated to "enthusiast" status, and we all know what that means.


And it also is outside of the focus of current, sponsorship-oriented USAA "Mission Statement":



> The mission of USAA shall be to enable United States athletes to achieve sustained competitive excellence in _Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic and World Championship competition_ and to promote and grow the sport of Archery in the United States.


(Not sure why there is an "or" in there...)


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

Hello, all. 

I don't know what is going on here, as I am not involved with what you are all discussing. 

But it sounds like injustice is afoot. The Lizard has chimed in and made the case for participatory vocalization at the National Meeting ... the ultimate move ... though perhaps futile and useless unless preceded by massive psychic penetration into the mind-set of the Board.

Not all will attend this meeting. Yet, the pump can be well-primed prior to the meeting (and in preemptive reinforcement for those who are able to attend the meeting) by an aggressive and non-stop email campaign to each of the board members from now until the meeting takes place. Each email places an "echo" of your concerns into each Board member's psyche, and the cumulative effect over time can be tremendous. Once the meeting takes place, these myriad "echoes" will have already spoken for those not in attendance, and those in attendance will be more likely able to tip the ball over the rim at that point. The groundwork must be completed before the meeting takes place.

Obtain the email of each Board member.

Write emails that are polite to a fault ... numbers documented ... philosophies delineated ... future predicted ... personal anecdotes revealed ... disappointment vividly noted ... all written with firm resolve and thorough clarity.

If replied to, respond gracefully, and then again repeat the entirety of your position. Wait a month, and send another email reinforcing your position. And again. Keep the heat on. 

If no reply comes, wait a month and email them again in different format of wording to avoid the appearance of robo-mailing yourself. Repeat. Repeat. Keep the heat on. 

Enlist your colleagues to do the same. Every email, no matter how brief, will add to the psychic campaign of rearranging the Board's mindset prior to the meeting where they make decisions. The goal is to have them make the mental decision in your favor before the meeting takes place. Those in attendance should be mere icing on the cake at that point, for the heavy lifting will have already been done.

Remember this: each time you email, you have had a "conversation" with the Board member. Just one person who emails each board member three times has held multiples of that three conversations with the entire board ... this is a lot of conversation! If one person can "nag" this effectively, imagine the cumulative effect that many of you folk can have on that Board's mindset prior to their next decision-making session.

I don't know the maze of communications you folk run through, or if what I suggest fits in with the way you folk operate as a loose and spread-out group of colleagues. But when I'm riled up, I don't hesitate to use email to make my presence and preferences known, and I have participated in several organized "squeezes" over the years that have borne some surprisingly positive fruit. 

Hope I'm not intruding, but I did want to toss something into the mix that may be of help. 

Good luck to you all.


----------



## hdracer (Aug 8, 2007)

Jim C said:


> or *BB archers dress funny *and smell bad?


Haven't you seen Liz' socks? (sorry, Jim...couldn't resist).


----------



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

Thin Man said:


> Hello, all.
> 
> I don't know what is going on here, as I am not involved with what you are all discussing.
> 
> ...


Well said, let's do it. For those of us that can't attend in person can still let our feelings be known.
Cheers
Fritz


----------



## hdracer (Aug 8, 2007)

lizard said:


> So, The only way to affect change is to *write the BOD*, AND ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING AT NTC!!!


That is the important part. My understanding is that nothing will be discussed that hasn't been presented to them PRIOR to the annual meeting. Even then there is no guarantee they will actually let you discuss it.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Jim C said:


> One of my students Chelsea Obrebski reported to me that the BB shooters at the NFC were many. Of course when you get to our age and like Lizard, have joint issues, field-especially whorl trials is a bit much (which is why I don't shoot much field anymore-2 blown discs and no cartilage in my right knee).
> 
> Tom-you've been a major contributor to US archery for as long as I have been around. Can you think of any downside in having a BB event at the NTCs?


Sorry Jim, I can't. I think John has the reason it is ignored, they serve one customer, USOC. Once we understand that, we understand the lack of support of many other constituencies in archery, such as BB JOAD, clout, field, etc. I too have lowered my expectations as John suggested for self preservation to the I don't care anymore state. Winning Olympic medals may be the least important role archery plays in American society. I should add that there are still some that are fighting the fight and trying to change things. Liz and the clout committee are one example. But, for some of the other initiatives the champions seem more like Sisyphus and his boulder.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

Jim C said:


> I am still waiting for someone to tell me what the DOWN SIDE was to keeping BB in the NTC? Other than perhaps some foreigner saying "WE DON'T HAVE BB IN OURS!!
> 
> you'd think that BB inclusion was costing USA THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS that they could spend on say funding the INDOOR or FIELD TEAMS:wink:
> 
> ...


Barebow archers dress funny but they don't smell bad.

I think that barebow archery isn't popular because it is so difficult.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

USAA is about the promotion of Olympic archery and through it the Hoyt/Easton company. Yes Hoyt/Easton and the Easton foundation contribute greatly to Olympic archery - they also get a fine return on their investment. 

We are sending quite possibly the strongest barebow team to the world field shoot we ever have and yet again they will all be paying their own way. 

Until the funding for USAA diversifies this will never change. 

Matt


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think that barebow archery isn't popular because it is so difficult.


At the highest levels, every discipline is equally difficult. Recurve, Compound and Barebow can be shot very well, or very poorly. Every event has examples of this.

However, Eagleton/Rogers/Demmer are in my mind no different than Kaminski/Wunderle/Ellison or Broadwater/Anderson/Cousins. They are all world class archers who have worked equally hard to get to where they are.

"Equally difficult?" you might say... "But we never SEE Eagleton/Rogers/Demmer honing their craft, putting in thousands of arrows and traveling to attend event after event to find the competition they need to push themselves even further. They don't train at an official training center and don't have well-known coaches. We never see them competing on ArcheryTV."

To folks who would say this, I would say, open your eyes and see the whole sport. See the young NASP barebow champions who shoot thousands of arrows at their schools and beg their teachers and coaches to let them shoot some more. See the intensity with which they compete at the largest archery event in the world every year, or even just against the school down the road.

There is world class competition in American barebow archery, for those willing to look for it.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> At the highest levels, every discipline is equally difficult. Recurve, Compound and Barebow can be shot very well, or very poorly. Every event has examples of this.
> 
> However, Eagleton/Rogers/Demmer are in my mind no different than Kaminski/Wunderle/Ellison or Broadwater/Anderson/Cousins. They are all world class archers who have worked equally hard to get to where they are.
> 
> ...


John

I know your statement was tongue in cheek big time - but all three of the barebow guys are personal friends. Your right they don't train at an official training center and don't have well-known coaches you will also never see them competing on ArcheryTV. But, they do shoot 1,000s of arrows and they have honed their craft to the highest of international levels (Alan Eagleton finished 2nd at the last world field comp). They do travel all over the country competing (on their own dime). 

The biggest difference is they all did it while holding down full time plus jobs. John Demmer owns and operates a flagstone quarry in Pennsylvania (still swings a hammer now and then), Ben Rodgers owns and operates a general contracting business in California, Alan Eagleton owns and operates a plumbing contracting business in California (half the time I call him he is in a crawl space).

They all paid their way to Eagle Lake and will also pay their way to Croatia. These are the guys USAA membership dues should be going to support regular working stiffs that compete for the love of archery. 

Matt


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Ever since USAA took control over the Olympics their focus has been laser thin. There is nothing that happens outside the pipeline of Olympic athletes that is of any real concern. Yes they include compounds and BB in the JOAD program program in hoped that those kids will get hooked on the sport and see the one true light of Olympic style recurve. They have not, will not, do not care about any of those classes except that they have to support them begrudgingly to hold legitimacy and to keep the potential pipeline open to convert top archers to the Olympic fold. Thankfully we have IBO and NFAA that focus on the enjoyment of the sport beyond the Olympic obsession.

OK well that's my take on it.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

If people want barebow to stay at the Nationals and to continue to be recognized, email the board members. Email your local JOAD coordinator. Let them know how many barebow archers are in your club. Both youth and adult.

Unless members communicate their needs and wants from the board they are going to go forward they way they think the members want it done.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Matt, I think you missed my point. Which was to say that just because the rank and file don't see guys like Alan, Ben and John training with fancy shirts or facilities, or on Archery TV, doesn't mean they don't train just as hard or travel to compete just as much.

You and I know this. Many folks don't however, mostly because they don't see it.

Sponsorships and exposure lead to recognition. Barebow archers simply don't have this. It's a case of the rich getting richer, so to speak.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

RickBac said:


> If people want barebow to stay at the Nationals and to continue to be recognized, email the board members. Email your local JOAD coordinator. Let them know how many barebow archers are in your club. Both youth and adult.
> 
> Unless members communicate their needs and wants from the board they are going to go forward they way they think the members want it done.


We can articulate how many barebow archers we have all day long. That's one number. However, the number of barebow archers who will actually show up to compete at Nationals is another number entirely, and one that USAA has to consider. It's a question of whether the "juice is worth the squeeze." It's pretty embarassing to make a huge argument for barebow to continue at Nationals, then only have a handful show up every year. And that's what's been happening. 

I don't think it's a TON of extra work to include that division, but let's not try and say it isn't any extra work at all. It is.

What keeps most barebow archers away from Nationals, I suspect, is the format. They are asked to shoot the same distances as the recurve archers, and frankly that's elite level barebow archery - not for the faint of heart.

Something we've done in Texas to promote and encourage barebow participation at our events - and we'll do it this weekend at our state outdoor - is to allow barebow archers to shoot the next-closer set of distances from their respective recurve division. So, in other words, barebow Cadets shoot the Cub recurve distance(s). Adult barebow shoots the Cadet/Masters recurve distance(s), etc.

It works out beautifully, and doesn't cause event organizers to have to set up a separate set of bales or target faces to accommodate barebow archers. This formula allows barebow archers to compete from day one. Even Bowman barebow archers get to shoot our "Yeoman" distance of no more than 20 meters, so they can start competing at our state outdoor events right away.

This is not a new idea either. In fact, we stole it directly from none other than World Archery, since it is precisely what they do with Field archery - having barebow archers shoot one set of stakes closer than recurve. Pretty much a no-brainer when I was looking for a barebow-friendly solution for our TOTS series, and our state outdoor events where barebow will be shot.

John


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> We can articulate how many barebow archers we have all day long. That's one number. However, the number of barebow archers who will actually show up to compete at Nationals is another number entirely, and one that USAA has to consider. It's a question of whether the "juice is worth the squeeze." It's pretty embarassing to make a huge argument for barebow to continue at Nationals, then only have a handful show up every year. And that's what's been happening.
> 
> I don't think it's a TON of extra work to include that division, but let's not try and say it isn't any extra work at all. It is.
> 
> ...


 making people shoot the 6 ring target at 50 meters with a recurve-let alone a BB-was stupid. especially since it is not required for our national championships. That sure didn't help the numbers. now that the event is 70 or 60 meters only on the 122, eliminates that major turn off.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim, you have to admit that even the full 122 at 70 meters with a barebow is not exactly amateur stuff. I routinely shoot with some of the nation's best male barebow archers, and I can tell you that even the difference between 70 and 60 is a big deal, and would put a lot more barebow archers on the line at Nationals. Think of all the 900 round barebow archers that are out there already who would consider shooting it at 60, but not 70.

Again, World Archery precedent. One set of distances closer for barebow. Easy-peasy.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Jim, you have to admit that even the full 122 at 70 meters with a barebow is not exactly amateur stuff. I routinely shoot with some of the nation's best male barebow archers, and I can tell you that even the difference between 70 and 60 is a big deal, and would put a lot more barebow archers on the line at Nationals. Think of all the 900 round barebow archers that are out there already who would consider shooting it at 60, but not 70.
> 
> Again, World Archery precedent. One set of distances closer for barebow. Easy-peasy.


Oh I agree with you but I am just telling you what I have heard. that six ring target at 50M kept several recurve archers away and more than a few BB archers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> Oh I agree with you but I am just telling you what I have heard. that six ring target at 50M kept several recurve archers away and more than a few BB archers.


Yea, no question it did. Let's see... IIRC we had female recurve archers shooting the same face size and distance as Reo, Braden and company? In the wind!?! LOL. One of the more idiotic moves I've seen in years for sure. Makes a person really wonder what the purpose of the event is.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, no question it did. Let's see... IIRC we had female junior recurve archers shooting the same face size and distance as Reo, Braden and company? In the wind!?! LOL. One of the more idiotic moves I've seen in years for sure. Makes a person really wonder what the purpose of the event is.


again-sacrificing the many I suppose. it was stupid.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Jim, you have to admit that even the full 122 at 70 meters with a barebow is not exactly amateur stuff.


Which all makes it super ironic that USAA voted to make 50M the compound distance... Closer for barebow? Can't do it. Closer for compound? Well, of course we will. 

Now, granted, the long distances of the York round are actually very traditional. They were shooting 60, 80, and 100 yards with 50 pound stave bows at the NAA nationals for _decades_ in both the 1800s and the 1900s. The difference being that even the best of them couldn't hit the 100 yard *bale* every time, let alone the 10 ring. The York round was built on the idea that a "fair shot" would hit the *bale* every time at 60, half the time at 80, and one third the time at 100. Missing the bale was *expected* at the national level - hence the tradition of recording "hits" on the bale in addition to the numerical score based on the scoring rings.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> Which all makes it super ironic that USAA voted to make 50M the compound distance... Closer for barebow? Can't do it. Closer for compound? Well, of course we will.
> 
> Now, granted, the long distances of the York round are actually very traditional. They were shooting 60, 80, and 100 yards with 50 pound stave bows at the NAA nationals for _decades_ in both the 1800s and the 1900s. The difference being that even the best of them couldn't hit the 100 yard *bale* every time, let alone the 10 ring. The York round was built on the idea that a "fair shot" would hit the *bale* every time at 60, half the time at 80, and one third the time at 100. Missing the bale was *expected* at the national level - hence the tradition of recording "hits" on the bale in addition to the numerical score based on the scoring rings.


IIRC, World Archery decided the 50m distance for compound. Was it put up as a member vote at an annual WA meeting?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> IIRC, World Archery decided the 50m distance for compound. Was it put up as a member vote at an annual WA meeting?


I don't recall the situation exactly, but, IIRC, the NGBs got to vote or have input on the change to the FITA rules and USAA said yes, without formally polling the membership. I think there was some discussion about it here on AT, but I didn't pay that much attention since I don't shoot compound and that is just my hazy recollection. I think it was something of a forgone conclusion that the rule was going to pass, so USAA archery could object, but not necessarily to any effect, but again, that is my vague memory of the situation and could be wrong.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

There were a total of 6 bare bow and compound fingers competitors in five categories at the 2013 NTC. 
http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_Archery/Documents/2013 National Target Champ Results.pdf

45 Bare bow Senior Men competed at the USAA Indoor Nationals. 
http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_...oor Nationals Results Program V1 041614-2.pdf

I believe that the format of NTC is not attractive to bare bow. As a result the outdoor target competition lacks meaning when so few complete. Field (and an indoor ranking round it seems) is the place for bare bow! 
http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_...-World Team Trials Results Book V1 052714.pdf

I like the idea of promoting bare bow to JOADs and then guiding them to field with the goal of world archery field championships. I like offering bare bow and traditional bows for those that can still shoot but cannot walk a field course.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Serious Fun said:


> There were a total of 6 bare bow and compound fingers competitors in five categories at the 2013 NTC.
> http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_Archery/Documents/2013 National Target Champ Results.pdf
> 
> 45 Bare bow Senior Men competed at the USAA Indoor Nationals.
> ...


The format last year was as inhospitable to bare bows as POSSIBLE Bob. making BB shoot 6 ring targets at 50 meters is objectively INSANE. and then one bureaucrat at USA then claimed few BBs showed up. DUH

Last year's format was a big signal to BB archers that USA didn't give a damn about them and when they didn't sign up it was used as an excuse to get rid of that event. 

I have yet to hear one ARGUMENT against BB being included in the program. So what if only a few shoot? its still MONEY FOR USA


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Bob, Jim is absolutely right. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when every possible roadblock is thrown in there on BB archers. Rather than saying "you know there are a ton of barebow archers out there based on the new membership, NASP participation, and grass roots efforts to grow archery. I wonder how we can accommodate them and get them to participate in one of our other revenue sources, tournament participation." But instead just based on the evidence, no Barebow JOAD divisions, shoot the same distances as Olympic recurve at the NTC, the 5 ring target at the closer distances, no masters barebow indoors, the message is we don't want your kind. Guys, the sooner we acknowledge the message the sooner we can get one with our lives. The message is if doesn't contribute to Olympic medals or elite sponsorships it gets no resources or recognition. Every member not in that group should seriously consider where they spend their archery budget.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

http://www.archery360.com/2014/06/archery-by-instinct-15-year-old-scores-world-championship-spot/

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Teresa did a great job on that article of a fine young lady. Katniss? Maybe not, but close enough! Love that bow too!


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Last year the Senior games had 40 men and 13 women barebow archers compared to 54 men and 14 olympic recurve. 
The format was an double american 900 round (30 arrows at 60yds/50yds/40yds) on a 122cm target over 2 days.

There are barebow archers out there. It just needs the right format.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> http://www.archery360.com/2014/06/archery-by-instinct-15-year-old-scores-world-championship-spot/
> 
> Chris


Outstanding article. She is just the tip of the iceberg of the new archers that have been introduced to barebow archery. What a great ambassador.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> There are barebow archers out there. It just needs the right format.


Correct. But the "right format" is already there at every tournament we shoot. As I said, follow World Archery's lead and move barebow archers one set of distances closer than the recurvers, and you're done. No new bales or rounds or target faces needed. They're already on the line. I promise Cadet recurvers don't mind shooting with Senior/Jr. Barebow archers and Bowman recurvers don't mind shooting with Cub barebow archers. We do it all the time here and it works perfectly.

John


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> http://www.archery360.com/2014/06/archery-by-instinct-15-year-old-scores-world-championship-spot/
> 
> Chris


yeah US Archery is better off not having a place for girls like her at "our" National Championships"

after all, who wants people who spend less on their entire kit then some Olympic style archers have invested in their sight and stabilizers?


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

Perhaps my imagination or just at least a few of us have a perception that there is a group of archers who consider us just oddities that really don't understand archery. Many of them continually try to convince me of this by among other things showing off their equipment to me and explaining my "poor score" Frankly I am somewhat tired of it and like many have quit any competitions where I know I will be bombarded with this banter. I am seeing more trad people coming to gather on weekends and shooting stumps and such, quietly of course, we don't want to let anyone know our secret.


----------



## Blackshadow (Dec 15, 2012)

I cannot tell you how many times that my wife and I, both barebow shooters, have been at tournaments shooting next to high level Olympic style shooters including an Olympian only to have them turn to us and say " Wow! I could never shoot barebow". They can but they've either never tried it or have not been taught properly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, okay. Let's not us barebow enthusiasts make this out to be an us vs. them argument, or try to make barebow sound like it's too hard for the mere mortal. The idea an Olympic archer wouldn't be able to shoot barebow is preposterous. I'm sure they were just being kind. 

If anything, an Olympic archer who has trained for years with a clicker, could easily learn to shoot barebow better than most seasoned barebow shooters. 

Again, at the elite levels, there is really little difference between what is required of a compounder, a recurver, or a barebow archer. To think otherwise is to simply allow pride to get in the way of facts.

What we're dealing with here are basic differences in personality types. The vast majority of humans want to be accepted by the masses and participate in an activity the way most folks do it. Compound archery is just what most folks are familiar with these days, so that's where most of our archers go - at least at first. Olympic recurve archery is the second-most visible part of the sport, so that's where a good percentage go. But even they are a minority in the archery community, and have to have some courage to break away from the compound orbit. And then we have the purists. The enthusiasts. The barebow archers, who represent that small percentage of the population that who seek to be different, who admire the basic challenge more than the idea of fitting in or of competing against the greatest number of competitors. 

This is simply a personality difference. It's not right or wrong, good or bad. Some folks want to challenge themselves by finding the greatest number of competitors or by competing for the highest purse. Those folks tend to shoot compound. Some folks want to challenge themselves on an Olympic stage and shoot the style used in those competitions, because of the "prestige" of the Olympics, but perhaps also because of the more traditional nature of still competing with a recurve bow. And then others just desire simplicity and seek to enjoy the flight of the arrow and the most basic form of the sport. 

All of them, or none of them, can be competitive in nature. The personality that leads them to choose a particular style is not necessarily related to their competitive nature. They can be mutually exclusive.

However, I have been around the sport on enough levels and with enough elite archers to say with authority they are all incredible competitors who work hard at their chosen craft. Different. That's all. Not better or worse. When taken seriously, the challenge is equal. 

I'm frankly tired of hearing barebow archers say they choose the discipline to "challenge" themselves or because they "want a challenge." Shooting a 10 in a one-arrow shoot-off against an Olympic medalist is as much a challenge as you'll find in the sport. Shooting a perfect 150/150 at 50meters with a compound to win a match is as much a challenge as you'll find in the sport. 3D archers at the highest levels, arrive at the same level of "challenge." So I hope we can dispense with the comparisons, perhaps someday.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Jim C said:


> yeah US Archery is better off not having a place for girls like her at "our" National Championships"
> 
> after all, who wants people who spend less on their entire kit then some Olympic style archers have invested in their sight and stabilizers?


I posted the link because i found it disconcerting that she has won a spot at WORLDS, but does not have a spot at USAA Nationals. I felt it was relevant to the thread. http://www.archery360.com/2014/06/archery-by-instinct-15-year-old-scores-world-championship-spot/

(and the fact that i am quite impressed with the young lady.) 


Chris


----------



## Blackshadow (Dec 15, 2012)

"Okay, okay. Let's not us barebow enthusiasts make this out to be an us vs. them argument"

You make it out what you want it to be. I'm just stating my experience. I'm sure they admire barebow shooters just as we admire their ability to shoot an Olympic rig. Jeez it doesn't always have to be an argument.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Since I shoot both is this a me vs. I argument?


----------



## Blackshadow (Dec 15, 2012)

No, but you can admire yourself.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I'm frankly tired of hearing barebow archers say they choose the discipline to "challenge" themselves or because they "want a challenge." Shooting a 10 in a one-arrow shoot-off against an Olympic medalist is as much a challenge as you'll find in the sport. Shooting a perfect 150/150 at 50meters with a compound to win a match is as much a challenge as you'll find in the sport. 3D archers at the highest levels, arrive at the same level of "challenge." So I hope we can dispense with the comparisons, perhaps someday.


Yes, as long as one adjusts expectations *relative* to the equipment class, then all forms of archery are equally challenging. And they are certainly all equally challenging in head to head competition within the same equipment class. Enjoying archery in different equipment classes should not be a zero sum game.

However, from an *absolute*, as opposed to relative, standpoint I do think it is valid to say that it is way more challenging to get a 70 meter ten with a stave bow than it is with a fully rigged compound with a sight. And I don't think it takes away from anybody to note that.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

John, You went into the 2004 Oly Trials here in Mason, a relative unknown, and made the team! You, as I understand it were a barebow shooter who decided you wanted to give it a shot for the Oly. Team THAT year, and you succeeded, so you are correct in much of what you say, as YOU have competed at the highest levels! 

I'm posting this response to the "CHALLENGE of shooting BB": I shot BB with Darrell Pace this past winter, and no matter what that guy picks up he does it with perfection! When I shoot with him, I try to take all he tells me into my brain and figure it out. 
Any way, I am going to say, because I have shot crossbow, recurve, compound and barebow, FITA, 3D and FITA Field, USA Field trials, many years ago (compound), and each thing was challenging in and of itself, but for the sheer fact that I love shooting barebow to hear that arrow hit at 60M is just an amazing feat for me! Once you have the right everything it's a breeze! Once you have the aiming thing down, it's a breeze. 
I guess the thing that really gets me about BB being excluded this year is there was no probationary period, it was just eliminated. I found out who it was, and it wasn't who I thought. I have been told by the person, that she was "SO sorry, and didn't realize it was me"....HOW can you not know the one barebow shooter that shows up year after year to shoot, not for the title, but for the sheer joy of shooting BB...but she was new to the tourney last year. She said that it was because you can't really have a championship with only one person, well that may be her opinion, but I would beg to differ that if one person shows up and PAYS THEIR MONEY TO SHOOT, then a 3" square USAA medal, you should be entitled. I take the time to practice, I take the time to put together concessions stand to provide a service to the archery community, AND I still have the energy to shoot! THAT is the challenge I meet, and I succeeded in the past. This year I guess I'll be coaching and concessions, and making sure everyone is well taken care of, maybe a mobile concessions on my JohnDeereGator!
I'll be sad to see NTC/EJN move next year, as it is a joy for me, Cincinnati Junior Olympians and Butler County Visitors Bureau, to be able to serve the archery community with what we like to do in providing the grounds, facilities and concessions at a very reasonable price to the archers and their families! This year I went the extra mile to get a few food trucks to come and they will be scheduled throughout the week. So, everyone enjoy them! Most are "So Cincinnati!"
I'm sorry i won't be shooting. I cannot see putting a sight on my bow "to fit in" and I am not going to put myself in the position of shooting the US OPEN, as I have in the past shooting BB, against #1 master recurve woman, being beaten in the first round. It's not in my DNA any more to put forth the effort if I am in no way eligible to compete in the discipline I enjoy.
That's how I feel, because I am the one most affected at this point, and so what, USAA doesn't get my $175, no skin off my nose, in fact that is money in my pocket! IO'm also tired of the politicking! 
Liz



limbwalker said:


> Okay, okay. Let's not us barebow enthusiasts make this out to be an us vs. them argument, or try to make barebow sound like it's too hard for the mere mortal. The idea an Olympic archer wouldn't be able to shoot barebow is preposterous. I'm sure they were just being kind.
> 
> If anything, an Olympic archer who has trained for years with a clicker, could easily learn to shoot barebow better than most seasoned barebow shooters.
> 
> ...


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

BLACKSHADOW---BINGO! 

Had one of our top shooters take his stuff off his bow, indoors, try to shoot BB, and he said, I don;t get how you can do that especially outdoors! O Arrow angels I guess!




Blackshadow said:


> I cannot tell you how many times that my wife and I, both barebow shooters, have been at tournaments shooting next to high level Olympic style shooters including an Olympian only to have them turn to us and say " Wow! I could never shoot barebow". They can but they've either never tried it or have not been taught properly.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Just a thought....
Maybe throw BAREBOW into the US TRADITIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, which as most of you die hard competitors have notice the TRADS haven't been at our NTC for quite some time. They were there in 2009, 2010, and when it moved to Yankton for 2011 (I'm not clear if trads were there), but when they returned here TRADS were no longer included. SAD, really sad, because traditional archery and barebow archery are where it all begins.
For this matter CROSSBOWS have been excluded since CANTON, MICHIGAN, which was many years ago. I think they have their championships in Florida, but I am not 100% sure about that location.
I thought US Archery Nationals was for the entire archery community to come together, share the camaraderie and shoot a national championship. It's kind of sad that this idea has gone out the window. Archery is the one sport that I am familiar with that one does not have to qualify for National Championships, and I always thought that was rather cool! We all know who will end up in the medal matches at US Opened...but do we? On any given day...
Something to ponder isn't it...but then putting FIAT barebow with the trade, would probably change their format! I have never competed at Trad Nats, but would be willing to do so, given the opportunity and proper arrows, I have a darn great bow! Won the Senior Trad at NFAA in Louisville! Uncontested, but I practiced, registered, paid, showed up and I have the most gorgeous Revere bowl trophy that is really cool! 
If we have a JOAD tourney and only have one entry, guess what, we award the kid the gold medal! Only fair, they practiced, they registered, paid, and shot...why the heck not reward them for their efforts?
I don't know what the answer is, but it is not fair to totally wipe out a classification without a probationary period.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I have spoken with the top at USAA, and so it stands that barebow is out for this year. I don't know if anything can change it for the future. I have let my thoughts be known, and I don't beat around the bush, I go straight to the top.




RickBac said:


> If people want barebow to stay at the Nationals and to continue to be recognized, email the board members. Email your local JOAD coordinator. Let them know how many barebow archers are in your club. Both youth and adult.
> 
> Unless members communicate their needs and wants from the board they are going to go forward they way they think the members want it done.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Bow Bender -
This brings to bear, why don't people then, have to QUALIFY for state, regional, and national tourneys? If they want to cater to the elite, then qualification tourneys would make sense.



b0w_bender said:


> Ever since USAA took control over the Olympics their focus has been laser thin. There is nothing that happens outside the pipeline of Olympic athletes that is of any real concern. Yes they include compounds and BB in the JOAD program program in hoped that those kids will get hooked on the sport and see the one true light of Olympic style recurve. They have not, will not, do not care about any of those classes except that they have to support them begrudgingly to hold legitimacy and to keep the potential pipeline open to convert top archers to the Olympic fold. Thankfully we have IBO and NFAA that focus on the enjoyment of the sport beyond the Olympic obsession.
> 
> OK well that's my take on it.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> keep on keepin' on. It's the barebow way. :d


you know it john!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Liz, qualifications for nationals are coming. It's just a matter of time. Once it finally happens, it will lend some credibility to the event. For pete's sake, even my wife's mother, who knows virtually nothing about archery, asked the other day what my daughter had to do to qualify for nationals. LOL!


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Very Valid Suggestions!

I got an answer that was a bit terse, but requested a phone conversation, which was had, and still did not make me happy. The fact that the time was taken to have the conversation was remarkable, but still didn't change anything for this year, but if MORE of us put the heat on, instead of just "little old me" it might get something done.

Thanks Thin Man!



Thin Man said:


> Hello, all.
> 
> I don't know what is going on here, as I am not involved with what you are all discussing.
> 
> ...


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Yet another way to limit the archery field, and hence the "fundraising efforts" that have been USAA Nationals in the past! 
Still it makes more sense to me, if you are trying to fit into line with what the USOC is trying to do, Nationals in other sports, use state, and regionals to qualify for the "big event!"



limbwalker said:


> Liz, qualifications for nationals are coming. It's just a matter of time. Once it finally happens, it will lend some credibility to the event. For pete's sake, even my wife's mother, who knows virtually nothing about archery, asked the other day what my daughter had to do to qualify for nationals. LOL!


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

And Matt, how will USAA "diversify" by excluding classifications? Unless, of course those classifications start making waves and make their way into USAA.

Which brings me to this thought....IF USAA is the "National governing body for archery" then why are there so many factions? USAA, NFAA, IBO, ASA, NASP, ASAP (and I'm certain there are a couple more I am missing)? 

You cannot diversify, if you exclude classifications, or if you are at war with other factions. It just cannot happen!

I'm a life time IBO and NFAA member and a 3 year (family) member of USAA. Archery organizations get a lot of my/our money! Yet the war rages on.




Matt_Potter said:


> USAA is about the promotion of Olympic archery and through it the Hoyt/Easton company. Yes Hoyt/Easton and the Easton foundation contribute greatly to Olympic archery - they also get a fine return on their investment.
> 
> We are sending quite possibly the strongest barebow team to the world field shoot we ever have and yet again they will all be paying their own way.
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

As a JOAD program leader, I WISH we had qualifications for Nationals. 

As a barebow enthusiast, I, like most barebow archers, will shoot anywhere, anytime, against anyone. So I hope USAA sees the light, takes my suggestion to follow WA precedent by offering barebow at one distance closer than recurve archers and fully includes it at Nationals. Someday, I feel they will have to, with all the barebow archers coming up from NASP and now JOAD Barebow.

Liz, you would LOVE what we're doing with Barebow down here in Texas.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

LOL, but I certainly don't smell bad! :mg:




hdracer said:


> Haven't you seen Liz' socks? (sorry, Jim...couldn't resist).


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

About the annual meeting...when the subject comes up for discussion, then they do ask for opinions from the floor, at least that is how it happened last year. I was SO glad I went. 
I will state the the "No Barebow for 2014" was NOT discussed, because if they would have, I would have spoken up! Nor was it posted on the USAA web site that the BOD had decided to nix barebow from the format.:sad:


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Maybe John, we need to get with all the NASP programs (although they DO have their own nationals) to chime in to the BOD, that they would love the opportunity to compete in USAA's outdoor nationals!!
The more the merrier!




limbwalker said:


> As a JOAD program leader, I WISH we had qualifications for Nationals.
> 
> As a barebow enthusiast, I, like most barebow archers, will shoot anywhere, anytime, against anyone. So I hope USAA sees the light, takes my suggestion to follow WA precedent by offering barebow at one distance closer than recurve archers and fully includes it at Nationals. Someday, I feel they will have to, with all the barebow archers coming up from NASP and now JOAD Barebow.
> 
> Liz, you would LOVE what we're doing with Barebow down here in Texas.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I try to think logically-I guess that is what happens when one spends 30 years as a trial attorney. BTW crossbows were last at US nationals in Hamilton-when the nationals were (another brilliant decision IMHO) exiled to the most remote possible place short of Barrow Alaska, the crossbow guys decided to start their own nationals in NJ which was within a days drive of most every xbow archer (flying with crossbows is a major hassle).

but what I cannot figure out is why the USA would turn away even a few BB archers. I know they make money off of each archer and unlike Crossbows, BBs don't require different target faces, different timing, different distances etc. and we constantly hear how USA needs money-they cannot fund a world indoor team, they cannot fund the world field team etc etc etc

and as I have noted, its patently ridiculous for USA or its non-archer staff member to complain about numbers when USA did everything possible to make the 2013 event as inhospitable to BB archers as possible. 


I think one of these days the membership is going to have to take control of this organization back and tell the USOC to quit its meddling. Its bad enough that the membership's vote has been essentially hamstrung with the divide and conquer nonsense that was foisted upon us by the USOC. Even worse is the board making decisions that are not in line with what the membership wants or even requested.

I have yet to hear from one member saying they wanted BB removed from nationals. and Denise has not explained why this decision was made for the BENEFIT of the membership which is the ONLY legitimate reason for the board to do something


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Liz

I think you got me wrong - I'm barebow to the bone. I'm actually one of those knuckle dragging IBO foam pokers that dabbles in field. 

What I meant by diversify is funding needs to come from other sources than Hoyt/Easton - ford? Budweiser? Who knows but until that happens usaa will be all about sending a few people to the Olympics.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> Liz
> 
> I think you got me wrong - I'm barebow to the bone. I'm actually one of those knuckle dragging IBO foam pokers that dabbles in field.
> 
> What I meant by diversify is funding needs to come from other sources than Hoyt/Easton - ford? Budweiser? Who knows but until that happens usaa will be all about sending a few people to the Olympics.


that's a good point. I realize this is heresy to some, but it has been said the best AND THE worst thing that happened to archery was it being put back in the 1972 Olympics.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Matt,
I may have misinterpreted your statement, but you cannot get a diversified sponsorship, if you shut out certain classifications. For instance, you might be able to find a bowyer who makes traditional style bows, but won't sponsor anything because their bows are not used at the NTC! For instance, Martin Archery, for years, was known to have many fine traditional bows, I shoot a Martin Savannah! They wouldn't sponsor anything at NTC because they wouldn't find a single person shooting their bow. Or you wouldn't find FORRESTER WOOD ARROWS at NTC, because we need the Easton A/C/Gs to reach out to 60M.
But I do see what you were saying. It was opened to interpretation though!
I'm just totally amazed that BB has been eliminated from NTC, no warning, no reason.
:-/




Matt_Potter said:


> Liz
> 
> I think you got me wrong - I'm barebow to the bone. I'm actually one of those knuckle dragging IBO foam pokers that dabbles in field.
> 
> What I meant by diversify is funding needs to come from other sources than Hoyt/Easton - ford? Budweiser? Who knows but until that happens usaa will be all about sending a few people to the Olympics.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

lizard said:


> Matt,
> I may have misinterpreted your statement, but you cannot get a diversified sponsorship, if you shut out certain classifications. For instance, you might be able to find a bowyer who makes traditional style bows, but won't sponsor anything because their bows are not used at the NTC! For instance, Martin Archery, for years, was known to have many fine traditional bows, I shoot a Martin Savannah! They wouldn't sponsor anything at NTC because they wouldn't find a single person shooting their bow. Or you wouldn't find FORRESTER WOOD ARROWS at NTC, because we need the Easton A/C/Gs to reach out to 60M.
> But I do see what you were saying. It was opened to interpretation though!
> I'm just totally amazed that BB has been eliminated from NTC, no warning, no reason.
> :-/


I think what happened was that a couple people on the board wanted to get rid of BB so they made things as inhospitable as possible to BB last year and when few BBs showed up they used that as justification to get rid of bare bow. But I see Compound fingers are still there and what were their numbers (NO I AM NOT SAYING that ought to be eliminated). 

I think I am a fairly intelligent person, and I have been around this sport a rather long time and one of my best talents as a trial attorney was figuring out where the other side was coming from so I could anticipate their trial strategy before we went to court. And for the life of me I cannot figure out what BENEFIT the Board can possibly claim comes from this moronic decision. AND WHEN we don't ever get any straight answers it is only fair for us to attribute less than wholesome reasons for this silly move.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Elitists rarely have a reason for the things they do Jim. It's not how they think. They are so elite, they don't NEED reasons.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> I think what happened was that a couple people on the board wanted to get rid of BB so they made things as inhospitable as possible to BB last year and when few BBs showed up they used that as justification to get rid of bare bow.


Ha, by that standard collegiate archery should just eliminate recurve, given that only 10 or so recurve shooters showed up to the not-airport-friendly USCA team qualifier in Yankton. :mg:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Barebow archers don't generally make equipment buying decisions based-upon what the olympic guys are shooting. Pretty easy to see why an organization which might as well be called the not for profit wing of Hoyt/Easton isn't really interested in barebow archery.

-Grant


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

As your Coach Director I want barebow to be represented at the Outdoor National Target Championships and I'll take a public stand on that point. If you want to know firsthand what goes on during the Board Meetings then you should attend and there will be firsthand knowledge of who said what and how the decisions are made. The following is copied directly from the By-Laws. You don't have to wait until the Outdoor Target Nationals to see the Board and CEO in action. Of course if things go as advertised, there won't be any barebow archers at Outdoor Target Nationals to confront the Board and CEO except Lizzard and a few others who live around Hamilton.

*Section 7.22. Open and Executive Meeting Sessions. 

Ordinarily, all meetings of the Board of Directors shall be open to members, and where appropriate, non-members. However, in the event the Chair of the Board, with the consent of a majority of the directors of the Board in attendance, deems it appropriate: (i) to exclude non-members at an open meeting for any reason, then the Chair may declare that the meeting is closed, or (ii) to convene an executive session to consider and discuss matters relating to personnel, nominations, discipline, budget, salary, litigation or other sensitive matter, then the Chair may specifically designate and call an executive session. Alternatively, the Board of Directors may upon its own motion, convene an executive session.*

LDF


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

I think this is the applicable section:



> ARTICLE X.
> 
> ANNUAL ARCHERY ASSEMBLY
> 
> ...


Under these new rules doesn't appear to be *any* formal mechanism to _require_ the board to allow input at the annual meeting, but, then, neither is there a requirement to submit s form nominated by 5 members 45 days in advance like there used to be :dontknow:


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Warbow, the Annual Assembly is a Q&A session at the Target Nationals. My post was that you may attend the Board Meetings where the Board actually makes decisions to see how and why USA Archery business is conducted and decisions are made. 

LDF


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ldfalks said:


> Warbow, the Annual Assembly is a Q&A session at the Target Nationals. My post was that you may attend the Board Meetings where the Board actually makes decisions to see how and why USA Archery business is conducted and decisions are made.
> 
> LDF


Sorry, I misread your post based on your comment about there likely being no "barebow archers at Outdoor Target Nationals to confront the Board and CEO except Lizzard and a few others who live around Hamilton", making me think of the annual meeting rather than regular board meetings.

As a note on governance, I found the History of the NAA to be and interesting read - it is mostly a collection of meeting minutes as opposed to a narrative history, yet it has details that I found fascinating. Attending meetings is a fine idea for those who are interested and live in the area. However, for those of use who don't live in the area, it is easier to know more about the old NAA than it is the current NAA. The minutes of the past are more informative than current, legally minimal minutes. It is rather ironic, and, IMO, inexcusable situation given how technology enables us to communicate with greater ease with a wider audience for a lower cost than ever.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> It is rather ironic, and, IMO, inexcusable situation given how technology enables us to communicate with greater ease with a wider audience for a lower cost than ever.


+1

USAA has every member's email. How easy would it be to send out the minutes from each meeting and conduct a poll of the membership before making significant changes to the format of any national event? 

Answer: Very.

It certainly seems easy enough to remind us to renew our membership.

John


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

The Chairman and the Board doesn't interact/communicate with the membership for the simple fact that they don't want 'input' from the rank and file. Period. Their mindset toward the membership is "Sign up. Pay up. Shut up."

So what can we realistically do to change the makeup of the Board/pressure the existing Board members to actually start to represent/serve the interests of their constituency?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I think we should first name who is the board and who is making these decisions.

Where is this info listed?

All i know is Denise Parker.

Chris


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Board of Directors click this link:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Resources/Governance/Board-of-Directors

Committees, Click this link:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Resources/Governance/Committees

Under that link there are several others, like ETHICS, Judicial, etc. 

Here is the link for "Strategic Direction" of USA Archery:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Resources/Governance/Strategic-Direction


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I didn't want to connect this with the post I just did for the BOD, etc.

Everyone who believes that BB or any other discipline or classification needs to be reinstated, PLEASE SHOW UP, or even better email your representative. They are listed on the USA website, but I do not know if their emails are there as well. 

Dee: If you know where emails are, would you please provide a link?

I know there are emails listed for certain things on www.usarchery.org, but I don't really have the time to delve into what exactly is there, so please everyone check it out www.usarchery.org and go to RESOURCES and the GOVERNANCE.

Thanks for your support, I feel really cheated and a bit hopeless in that they have put, on probation, the historical CLOUT ROUND, and made it a separate tournament, on the formal practice day. BUT CLOUT is still in for this year, and maybe next. Add to that the fact that they took out barebow, WITHOUT any warning or notification, and that makes me, a paying member who also is a JOAD COACH, considering level 4 NTS (should I rethink? I know they need higher level women coaches). To take a discipline out because there weren't but one or two participants...without notification to the membership, or even a vote to the membership, and the groundswell of NEW BAREBOW SHOOTERS due to the Hollywood goings on, is a bit puzzling and disheartening.

I heard of a girl who is the ONLY barebow shooter in her NASP program, and she cannot come to EJN because her classification (discipline) is not "an accepted" discipline. I call BS.

I'm going to compare the Powers that be at US Archery to those of the US Government, who try to push us around and dictate what is and what isn't. WE ARE US ARCHERY and WE ARE AMERICANS, and those of us who have immigrated here and love this country, YOU are Americans! Let your voices be heard in BOTH arenas. Don't let "U.S." be pushed around by ANYBODY! SPEAK UP. Contact your representatives (in either case) and even those who are in a different region...MEMBERSHIP has a say, and it should always be that way. DO NOT SIT BACK. If you are a club leader, get your club together and have them email as well.

To use a phrase from 2013 Boston Marathon:

ARCHERY MEMBERSHIP STRONG!

Let's do it!


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lizard said:


> Board of Directors click this link:
> 
> http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Resources/Governance/Board-of-Directors
> 
> ...



Thank you but still more murky waters for me to make my opinion known. 

Where is the contact info for each of them? Where is their email address? 

Chair: David Haynes

David Haynes – Independent 

Belinda Foxworth – Independent 

Skip Trafford - Grassroots 

Cindy Bevilacqua - Grassroots 

Brian Sheffler - Allied Director

Tom Green – Judge 

Dee Falks – Coach 

Greg Easton – At-Large 

Erika Anschutz – Athlete 

Nick Kale – Athlete 


The only two remotely accessable are Erkia Anshutz and Nick Kale. Should i start on their twitter for answers???

Im sure it oh so easy to call Greg Easton. 


Chris


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

chrstphr said:


> Thank you but still more murky waters for me to make my opinion known.
> 
> Where is the contact info for each of them? Where is their email address?
> 
> ...


Try your luck on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/gjeaston


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Bare bow,
Not every bow type is for every competition just as not every race is for every runner. It may be fun to run with Olympic sprinters, however if you are a long distance runner, focus on marathon and not the hundred meter dash. 

I suggest that the reason there is so little bare bow participation at NTC is twofold. 
First, shooting 144 arrows at one distance and then being added into the recurve age and gender class because there is only one or no other bare bow category competitors, is not much fun and meaningless as a championship.
Second, the bare bow category is field focused internationally and not an outdoor target competition. 

Often parents of youth that like bare bow ask if bare bow is worthwhile. I guide them to field. They quickly learn that the USAA state membership community conducts only one or two field events each year and there is little competition at the indoor and outdoor target championships. The impression soon becomes, why bother? It’s clear that many don’t. 

Is there bare bow target fun? Yes, have a look at the indoor nationals participation. NASP is a style of bare bow and they are huge.
I suggest that the USA Archery bare bow community take three steps to encourage more to take part and grow:

1 Promote and develop bare bow via JOAD.
2 Guide them to field as a recognized national and world level competition with meaningful participation.
3 Develop an outdoor format that is fun and less physically rigorous than field so that the bare bow archers that compete indoors can readily go outdoors to play. 
(My guess is the NFAA international round https://www.nfaausa.com/sites/default/files/2014-15 ConstByLaws.pdf (page 54) is a great outdoor format and is excellent for improving field archery skills.)

Asking bare bow to return to the NTC enables the four bare bow archers at the 2013 NTC a chance to come out and play in 2014. Planning, promoting, developing, guiding and improving bare bow competition helps grow the sport for the future to become a significant meaningful group long after the four retire. More individuals have posted on this thread than compete in bare bow at the 2013 NTC, so there are many that care and can work to make things better. With some leadership and vision the membership can make bare bow successful.

I can’t suggest such a strategy for fingers compound masters…I just don’t see the end game in it international, however it makes sense for the NFAA as a nationally focused membership to create USA specific rules for USA specialty bow archer competition.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I have about 5 barebow shooters in my archery range that would compete at Nationals if there were a division. I know more would compete if the format were better suited for Barebow. Matching what World Archery does for Barebow would be a great start instead of lumping them in with the olympic recurves and those distances. 

its completely ludicrous to have a format that is super hard for bare bow shooters, then decide to get rid of it because low numbers show up. Most average bare bow shooters arn't going to do well shooting 80 yards in the wind. come on...

I also found it completely insane to go to the 6 ring 50 meter target for individuals. At AZ cup, we had more kids missing that target completely in the wind than ever before. The full 10 ring target should be used at 50 meters for all recurve archers. Only the 30 meter distance needs individual targets.

i dont know who is making all these decisions, but they are driving away more archers than they are catching. USAA is supposed to be for the membership. Its about time they starting asking us what we want. And making changes when their decisions do more harm than good.


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I have about 5 barebow shooters in my archery range that would compete at Nationals if there were a division. I know more would compete if the format were better suited for Barebow. Matching what World Archery does for Barebow would be a great start instead of lumping them in with the olympic recurves and those distances. 

its completely ludicrous to have a format that is super hard for bare bow shooters, then decide to get rid of it because low numbers show up. Most average bare bow shooters arn't going to do well shooting 80 yards in the wind. come on...

I also found it completely insane to go to the 6 ring 50 meter target for individuals. At AZ cup, we had more kids missing that target completely in the wind than ever before. The full 10 ring target should be used at 50 meters for all recurve archers. Only the 30 meter distance needs individual targets.

i dont know who is making all these decisions, but they are driving away more archers than they are catching. USAA is supposed to be for the membership. Its about time they starting asking us what we want. And making changes when their decisions do more harm than good.


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Bob Furman said:


> Try your luck on Twitter:
> 
> https://twitter.com/gjeaston


I just did, thanks. 

Chris


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Bob,


> 1 Promote and develop bare bow via JOAD.
> 2 Guide them to field as a recognized national and world level competition with meaningful participation.
> 3 Develop an outdoor format that is fun and less physically rigorous than field so that the bare bow archers that compete indoors can readily go outdoors to play.


Check, check and check.
4h and JOAD in Texas is where we get our barebow numbers. However, it is tough to tell them yes you must join USA archery for us to help you and to be a part of JOAD, but unfortunately all they want is your membership money because other than field archery as a JOAD you can't compete in a barebow division for USA archery's indoor national, JOAD nationals or Easton JOAD nationals. 

We had a terrific barebow turnout this year in Texas at our state field tournament and nationals. We also get a lot of barebow when we do clout.

John's brainchild of the Texas outdoor target series has been the kind of innovation of an inclusive format for all disciplines and has introduced more folks to tournament archery than anything else in the last ten years. Barebow archers have been the biggest beneficiary of the inclusive nature. But, rather than benchmark what has been done here with barebow, we are marginalized and viewed as kooks who refuse to put a sight on the bow. No resources or recognition since not one of these outreach efforts will help win an Olympic medal. It is quite simply resource triage. If no return on investment with the Olympics or elite World Cup events, then there shall be no resources allocated towards ANY archery activity.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Going to sleep on my response to Bob's post... out of respect.


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

So barebow archers, if we are members of USArchery, send in our shooting fee and show up to shoot without sights or stabs can we still play. Not caring about a place or award just shoot as a member of the club in the Olympic division?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

pilotmill said:


> So barebow archers, if we are members of USArchery, send in our shooting fee and show up to shoot without sights or stabs can we still play. Not caring about a place or award just shoot as a member of the club in the Olympic division?


 Oddly enough bare bow is legal in either the compound or recurve divisions. Most are lumped in with recurve, so a bare bow can certainly compete in the recurve category and play with the rest of the folks, included, side by side, and just for the fun of it. So the four can still play at NTC.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> I have about 5 barebow shooters in my archery range that would compete at Nationals if there were a division. I know more would compete if the format were better suited for Barebow. Matching what World Archery does for Barebow would be a great start instead of lumping them in with the olympic recurves and those distances.
> 
> its completely ludicrous to have a format that is super hard for bare bow shooters, then decide to get rid of it because low numbers show up. Most average bare bow shooters arn't going to do well shooting 80 yards in the wind. come on...
> 
> ...


 I think the four distance FITA is gone from USATs, EJN and NTC. Beginning in 2014, Recurve can focus on a 122 ten ring and compound can focus on their own 80cm 5 ringed target face at 50M.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

TomB said:


> Bob,
> 
> Check, check and check.
> 4h and JOAD in Texas is where we get our barebow numbers. However, it is tough to tell them yes you must join USA archery for us to help you and to be a part of JOAD, but unfortunately all they want is your membership money because other than field archery as a JOAD you can't compete in a barebow division for USA archery's indoor national, JOAD nationals or Easton JOAD nationals.
> ...


I think bare bow like finger compound and crossbow suffers from a lack of critical mass. I think that the key is to “focus on field” as opposed to diluting the population across various disciplines. Parents see an end game with field national and world championships. Archers in significant meaningful numbers can meet, compete and share. Field competitions can be challenging to set up. The NFAA international round style round in meter with WA field targets might be a fun round to set up on a target range. Those with field and target experience might know how to set up a meaningful unmarked distance round on a target range to promote field. Texas might be the USA mecca of bare bow field. Texas can’t do it alone.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Serious Fun said:


> I think bare bow like finger compound and crossbow suffers from a lack of critical mass. I think that the key is to “focus on field” as opposed to diluting the population across various disciplines.


When you say "focus on the field" what you are actually doing, if perhaps unintentionally, is telling off barebow target archers. Field archery is a _different discipline_. And whether or not they do decide to take up field archery due to the lack of support for barebow archery by the US NGB for archery, you are essentially telling barebow archers they should take their money and support elsewhere - to the NFAA, ASA or IBO. Every field archery course in my area is an NFAA club, whereas the USAA support for field archery is utterly anemic. 



Serious Fun said:


> Texas might be the USA mecca of bare bow field. Texas can’t do it alone.


Exactly, which is why Texas, who is showing how it's done, and the rest of the USA Archery membership, needs the support of USA Archery. As has been pointed out elsewhere, USA Archery has made the nationals hostile to barebow, then used the lack of barebow shooters to claim there aren't enough of them. You are repeating that circular argument. Texas, on the other hand, has shown that by being inclusive you can grow the support, grow membership, grow archery. USAA needs to take that example to heart. 

When you were on the JOAD committee you shepherded in a number of changes, including a small but important change to the JOAD Awards: barebow became a separate, but still limited division with its own scores for the first 4 pins outdoors. That was, in part, a way to welcome in NASP shooters into USAA JOAD. But it wasn't a full welcome. The idea was not to fully accommodate the NASP shooters but to humor them long enough until they could be persuaded to stop shooting NASP style and shoot FITA Recurve or FITA Compound. 

More recently, USAA has finally consented to making barebow/Genesis-style "basic compound" into a full equipment class, indoors and out, for purposes of the Stars Pins Awards. Now NASP shooters are no longer merely tolerated, but welcomed to JOAD. And Texas archery has made sure that expands beyond just the JOAD Stars Pins program. Now it is time for USAA Archery to do the same, and expand archery back to the roots of the NAA, and celebrate archery beyond merely what products sponsors want to sell.

Even FITA/WA gets it to a certain degree. Look at the WA logo:









It's a primitive bow. Not a FITA recurve, not a compound bow. The archer and a basic bow is the heart of archery. Not all the extra gear. And barebow takes us closer to that very core, and to the tradition that is the NAA.

Plus its fun.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> +1
> 
> USAA has every member's email. How easy would it be to send out the minutes from each meeting and conduct a poll of the membership before making significant changes to the format of any national event?
> 
> Answer: Very.


Beyond even that, it should strike all of us as bizarre that we should have to physically travel across the country to see and hear, or even to participate in, a board meeting. Practically everybody has an internet connected mini-super computer in their pocket these days with a built in HD video camera. This is the age of Skype, and podcasts, etc. While I agree with ldfalks suggestion that attending board meetings is a good way to learn how they work, it's strange that we can't just hear or see them on-line. The minutes are posted (in PDF form rather than HTML) are helpful but rather sparse and give very limited insight into the way the board is run. Attending board meetings in person is time and cost prohibitive for all but those who live in the area, so much so that some of the meetings are by conference call. It would be silly to require interested members to have to go to Colorado Springs to hear a BOD conference call.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Serious Fun said:


> I think the four distance FITA is gone from USATs, EJN and NTC. Beginning in 2014, Recurve can focus on a 122 ten ring and compound can focus on their own 80cm 5 ringed target face at 50M.


Bare bow shouldnt be shooting 70 meters with the Olympic recurves. They should shoot a shorter distance as they do in World Archery. They are not lumped in with the Olympic recurves. Unless i am misinformed.


And i guess there are no more Star Fitas, so that entire pin system is now dead. Is there a pin system for a 72 arrow 70 meter scoring? 

Chris


----------



## twofinger (Feb 12, 2012)

Like another post on this thread i don't care anymore to deal with the politics . I have both shot compound and recurve bare bow and we know where compound fingers are going. Now i just shoot with a great group of people every week and have fun. all though John has almost convinced me to move from illinois to texas because it appears to me they understand its about getting people shooting. Maybe us barebow shooters both compound and recurve should show up some where for our own national championship won't need any awards supply some food and good stories thats all thats needed!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Maybe us barebow shooters both compound and recurve should show up some where for our own national championship won't need any awards supply some food and good stories thats all thats needed!


Twofinger, I think that's precisely what the leadership in NAA wants. For barebow/compound fingers/crossbow archers to just go away.

Unfortunately, there are some in the NAA who have become addicted to playing with the international community and are fine with ignoring what grass roots archers here in the US desire. They have forgotten that the NAA is overwhelmingly populated by a domestic, recreational membership and seem to think that it exists solely to produce international teams and venues to host international archers, teams, coaches and officials. 

Some of the comments above are predictable and reflect exactly the thoughts of those who run in the elite circles within the organization. 

"go shoot field" seems to be their answer. As if competitive barebow isn't fit for mowed grass and straight lines. 

"grow barebow in JOAD" - while they have seemingly no plan or desire to give those barebow JOAD archers (or NASP archers for that matter) a place to play at our premier national championship event. I'm sure that in their minds, eventually those barebow JOAD archers will "see the light" and put a stabilizer, clicker and sight on their bow so they can emulate the idols that have been created by the establishment.

"develop a new round" - so they have an even better excuse as to why they can't host barebow archers at outdoor nationals, even though the solution to providing a welcoming and competitive round for barebow archers already exists on the same exact field as their recurve counterparts. Just like it does in field archery. 

The solutions are there, right in front of their faces. 

You can lead a horse to water, but after that, they have to have a reason to drink.

For years now, I've seen a very unfortunate pattern in the NAA that goes something like this: A group of members are unhappy with a particular decision or direction the organization is going in, but initial attempts at dialogue are repeatedly ignored. Eventually, those members get frustrated with being ignored, and they vent to their friends and fellow archers, who understand their issue. Over time, that complaint makes its way through the grapevine and here to AT. Then the leadership within NAA realizes how many folks are just plain PO'd because they have been ignored for so long, realize how many discussions have been going on around them while they chose to be deaf to the issue, and read about here on AT. The only reaction at that point is to feel outnumbered, dig in and become defensive. And they've gotten pretty good at that. Defend and redirect seems to be the unfortunate strategy whenever it comes to an issue that truly affects the grass roots member in the organization. And it all starts with people not being heard in the first place because the focus is somewhere else.

I hope for the sake of the organization and it's members, that this viscous cycle can be broken. 

I agree with Chris that although we get to see a list of the board members, there is little contact information. We also don't have regional representation - the way that NFAA does. And if you look up the minutes from board meetings, or even general meetings, there is scant amounts of information there. We also have a significant conflict of interest issue on our board that needs to be addressed if the membership is to ever gain control of the organization again.

But back to barebow at Natioanls - the solution is there already, and it won't cost anyone anything. Shoot barebow archers one distance (or set of distances if shooting a fita) closer than their recurve counterparts, and watch the registrations roll in. Within two to three years, this will become a major issue for our JOAD barebow archers who aspire to shoot at our nation's premier outdoor target event. It already is for some of my barebow JOAD archers. The NAA is missing out on an entire family who would likely attend Nationals if only their barebow archer were allowed to shoot. I suspect that is a scenario that is repeating itself all over the U.S. right now. What's particluarly sad is that this family has donated literally hundreds of hours in the past two years to help run a JOAD program and NAA National Championship event. So, just like Liz and so many others, despite doing so much for the membership, they are not allowed to fully participate in the events sponsored by the organization they voluntarily support with their time and money.



John


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> Oddly enough bare bow is legal in either the compound or recurve divisions. Most are lumped in with recurve, so a bare bow can certainly compete in the recurve category and play with the rest of the folks, included, side by side, and just for the fun of it. So the four can still play at NTC.


Oddly enough recurves are legal in the compound division. So, lets just put them all in one division and call it unlimited. And while we are at it, lets have all the JOADs shoot as adults, women with men and we don't need any pesky PARA classifications either.


----------



## twofinger (Feb 12, 2012)

if i shoot in a tournament i don't want to be lump in with some one else. i want to see how i stack up against people shooting my style. if you are willing to take my money and "allow" me to shoot with the recurves than have my class!! The original question to this thread will never be answered because to do that they would have to admit that they only care about the top 10% of the archers the rest of us are allowed to belong to support them. For years i wanted to be able to shoot in the nationals and now kids are gone could do it now but........


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Twofinger, I think that's precisely what the leadership in NAA wants. For barebow/compound fingers/crossbow archers to just go away.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are some in the NAA who have become addicted to playing with the international community and are fine with ignoring what grass roots archers here in the US desire. They have forgotten that the NAA is overwhelmingly populated by a domestic, recreational membership and seem to think that it exists solely to produce international teams and venues to host international archers, teams, coaches and officials.
> 
> ...


there is no doubt that the USOC dictated change in how the board is elected was designed to limit the membership's input as much as possible


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

TomB said:


> Oddly enough recurves are legal in the compound division. So, lets just put them all in one division and call it unlimited. And while we are at it, lets have all the JOADs shoot as adults, women with men and we don't need any pesky PARA classifications either.


Starting to like you Tom....


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Ultimately, this is the only section of the By Laws that matters:



> ARTICLE XXII. AMENDMENTS OF BYLAWS
> These Bylaws may be amended, repealed, or altered, in whole or in part, and new Bylaws may be adopted, by a majority of directors of the Board at any regular or special meeting duly called and at which a quorum is present.


All it takes is 6 board members and they can do literally anything they want - and the membership has no say whatsoever.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> Oddly enough recurves are legal in the compound division. So, lets just put them all in one division and call it unlimited. And while we are at it, lets have all the JOADs shoot as adults, women with men and we don't need any pesky PARA classifications either.


i like it. And we'll need a new "universal" target - none of this "different targets for different distances stuff." The "40 cm" 6 ring, compound triple spot should be used at all distances.

/s


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Every state is in different place of programs development. States like Texas have a robust indoor, outdoor, field, development, collegiate program. Other states have few members and no state association.

A dozen years ago AZ in a steady decline. To stop the bleeding we developed a strategic plan. Keys were:

Start JOAD clubs since the youth are the future and a place to nurture volunteerism.
Certify Level 2 and 3 instructors and coaches to lead clubs and teach sound archery form and process.
Provide low or no interest loans to help new clubs equipment.
Provide the public with access to information to connect to clubs and programs, mostly be website and social media.
Develop indoor and outdoor ranges so there is a place to play and compete.
Support nearby high end events to give the archers access to top flight experience (So Cal, AZ Cup, Vegas, Rio Rancho) 
Provide grants to AZ world team members as a reward to high achievement.


I think AZ is in a good place after a dozen years. Note that field and bare bow was not on the list per se. Now that we have a good foundation we can target field development.

It’s going to take time and the work will benefit the next generation of archers and sadly not benefit todays archers. However if we do this soley for ourselves our sport will soon fade away with each retiring archer. Youth are the key to the future and parent hold the wallets. Give parents a reason to support and they will. The dream of a world championship is a good reason. Bare bow is a field world champion division.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Serious Fun said:


> Note that field and bare bow was not on the list per se.


No, but neither does target barebow, including supporting it in JOAD and at competitions, contradict any of the bullets in you strategic plan. :dontknow:


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I think John, Jim C and I need to get on this board. 

Chris


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> I think John, Jim C and I need to get on this board.
> 
> Chris


Y'all would have my vote - that is, if I ever got a ballot from USAA, and if I'm allowed to vote for any of you based on my voting category.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Y'all would have my vote - that is, if I ever got a ballot from USAA, and if I'm allowed to vote for any of you based on my voting category.


I am glad you mentioned voting category. Many list athlete as a voting category, however only those that have been on a world championship team in the past ten years or have placed highly in the NTC in the past few years are eligible to vote for athletes category board member. I recommend that members list themselves in the "At large" category or "coach" or "judge" category if eligible, to be able to vote.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Disclaimer - nearly 1/4 of my JOAD club is comprised of barebow archers, some of which are highly skilled. However, just for discussion's sake, I'm taking an argument on the other side of the fence.

Shouldn't we be concentrating on making changes from the top down? In other words, start petitioning and asking for changes to be made on a World Archery level?

Is targeting (pun intended) USA Archery on a Board level the proper thing to do? Not to be mean, but we need to take aim at those who hold the purse strings, not those who are handling the day to day business of the operation.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Someone brought up the 900 round and I see that as a parallel issue to BB. You can push USAA in the direction of WA distances with the specific target bows they have in their championships, at the specific distances shot by WA, which going to thin the herd in terms of the bow types involved as well as the archers who are good at those distances, or you can broaden it beyond WA -- while maintaining the core WA stuff for the Olympic Development so to speak -- and get the trad/BB people as well as adults with shorter range involved. This is not a threat to recurve at the big boy distance, because that is still the main show. But you are making the overall enterprise more accessible to a variety of classes, which might help grow and promote a smaller sport.

It's a tad inconsistent because indoor has a variety of permitted classes at a distance that is accessible to intermediate archers. But then outdoor is treated narrowly like Olympic development, and to be real about it, at the adult level the USAT qualification process reifies that. Unlike the kids, US indoor doesn't even count. That focus then seems to define the permitted classes outdoors even though the other ones are OK indoors.....perhaps because indoors has open entry World Cups up to the final, and I don't know if the US even funds indoor USAT entries.

BB might be a little more work at a slightly shorter distance, but I imagine the bales are either there or not and the work is volunteer. So it's not really added cost. Even if it is, there would also be concommitant added entries that might offset it. Kind of like, compound shouldn't be a threat to recurve at Olympics, I don't understand how adding other rings cheapens the outdoor national circus.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Beastmaster said:


> Disclaimer - nearly 1/4 of my JOAD club is comprised of barebow archers, some of which are highly skilled. However, just for discussion's sake, I'm taking an argument on the other side of the fence.
> 
> Shouldn't we be concentrating on making changes from the top down? In other words, start petitioning and asking for changes to be made on a World Archery level?
> 
> Is targeting (pun intended) USA Archery on a Board level the proper thing to do? Not to be mean, but we need to take aim at those who hold the purse strings, not those who are handling the day to day business of the operation.



World Archery did not decide to exclude Bare Bow from the USAA Nationals as a division. The decision sits squarely with the board.


Chris


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Serious Fun said:


> I am glad you mentioned voting category. Many list athlete as a voting category, however only those that have been on a world championship team in the past ten years or have placed highly in the NTC in the past few years are eligible to vote for athletes category board member. I recommend that members list themselves in the "At large" category or "coach" or "judge" category if eligible, to be able to vote.


Thanks for that note. That is not something I knew, nor could have reasonably expected. In fact, it sounded so ridiculous I had to double check it for myself, even though I consider you a consummate professional with a great deal of experience and accurate knowledge of USAA policies and procedures. 

I think most people would assume that since this is the definition of Athlete Member...:



USAA Bylaws said:


> Adult Membership. Adult membership shall be granted to anyone in the following categories over the age of eighteen, upon application and payment of dues.
> i. *Athlete members. Athlete members are those individuals who register as competitive athletes and are eligible for competition in Archery.*


...that every competitive USAA archer would be able to vote for either or both of the Athlete BOD positions. That is what would make sense.

Instead, the bylaws say this:



USAA Bylaws said:


> Section 7.5. Nomination and Election.
> The USAA Board of Directors shall be nominated and elected in the following manner:
> a. *The Athlete Directors shall be elected by the USAA Elite Athletes, as defined in Section 11.3 of these Bylaws, from among such group of Elite Athletes.*...


This confirms your post, saying that the athlete BOD members are not elected by the Athlete members, as one would reasonably expect, but only by people qualified to run for the 7 member Athlete Advisory council as defined in section 11:

Section 11.3:


USAA Bylaws said:


> Six individuals shall be elected to the Athletes Advisory Council as follows. Those *individuals*: (i) *who have represented the United States as athletes in the Olympic Games, the Pan American Games, World Championships or other major international competitions in the sport of Archery within the ten year period* prior to December 31 of the year in which the election is held, *or* (ii) *who have placed in the top third of their respective division at the USAA’s National Outdoor Target Championships as athletes within the two year period *prior to December 31 of the year in which the election is held (each an “Elite Athlete”) shall be eligible to vote in the election.


So, no one person one vote when it comes to athlete member representation... how does that even work? Do they do a cross check of team memberships and standings with the current membership list and send out ballots to just that subset of people? How many people is that compared to the total membership? :mg:

Do they even bother to tell non-elite archers who are registered as "athlete members" that they will be given no rights whatsoever to vote for BOD members in their category? *And, of course, with no separate BB category, no BB archer is going to qualify as an "elite" athlete for BOD purposes by their OTC standing. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the BOD eliminated BB as a category at the OTC?*

What's next? Only Level 5 and above can vote for the coach member?


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

Thank you Warbow, limb walker and two finger for your comments and input you guys have it right, IMHO.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> World Archery did not decide to exclude Bare Bow from the USAA Nationals as a division. The decision sits squarely with the board. Chris


The NFAA is great. They are a national level organization where the national membership sets the rules to do as they please. I think the NFAA suffers from not having a year around youth archery program like JOAD. JOAD being Olympic and World Championship style archery has parents focused on just that. If more parents started their children in NFAA, perhaps they would be more national competition centric.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*No quick fixes.*

I think clout and BB are screwed, and will remain so at the Outdoor Nationals based on the Ted Stevens act and the particular phrasing of the USAA Bylaws. 

I couldn't figure out why USAA had such odd requirements for Athlete BOD members (as pointed out by Bob), so I looked at USA Badminton and found the had the same requirements. A check on the USOC bylaws and the Ted Stevens Act seems to show where the problem originates.

USA Archery has requirements as a USOC NGB to have 20% of its BOD made up athletes competing in the sport for which USAA is the NGB (I'm not sure why they allow compound archers to serve since compound isn't an Olympic sport - the wording is a bit unclear):



Ted Stevens' Act on USOC NGB requirements said:


> that its board of directors and other such governing boards have established criteria and election procedures for *and maintain among their voting members individuals who are actively engaged in amateur athletic competition in the sport for which recognition is sought or who have represented the United States in international amateur athletic competition within the preceding 10 years*


USAA defines athletes for Athlete Advisory Council and BOD representation as those:



> who have represented the United States as athletes in the Olympic Games, the Pan American Games, World Championships or other major international competitions in the sport of Archery within the ten year period prior to December 31 of the year in which the election is held, *or* (ii) *who have placed in the top third of their respective division at the USAA’s National Outdoor Target Championships* as athletes within the two year period


Because of that wording, all the top third of the clout competition or the barebow shooters in their division, would be eligible for an Athlete BOD position, however, USAA likely sees that as not being commensurate with their Ted Steven's act requirements. I speculate that rather than fix the by laws to say "in the top third of WA Recurve or WA Compound at the USAA’s National Outdoor Target Championships" they decided to attempt to quietly dump clout and BB from the OTC, no pesky change to the bylaws by majority vote required. And that would be consistent with why they are forcing clout to be a *separate* tournament. 

When this all happened is unclear to me. I've reviewed all the posted minutes from 2013 and 2014, and neither barebow nor clout are mentioned - which shows how limited meeting minutes are for understanding how USAA makes decisions that affect its membership. From the minutes you'd never know *any* changes were made to the Outdoor Target Championship.

And even though the requirement for athlete BOD positions is forced on USAA, nothing prevents USA from labeling them what they are: Elite Athlete BOD representatives. They need to make it clear that athlete membership is a limited animal and cannot vote on the Elite Athlete BOD membership unless they meet literally exceptional standards (at the very minimum, 2/3ds of "athlete members" will always be ineligible to vote - even if every "athlete member" in the US showed up and competed at the OTC.)


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Serious Fun said:


> The NFAA is great. They are a national level organization where the national membership sets the rules to do as they please. I think the NFAA suffers from not having a year around youth archery program like JOAD. JOAD being Olympic and World Championship style archery has parents focused on just that. If more parents started their children in NFAA, perhaps they would be more national competition centric.


With all due respect, Bob, but what does the NFAA have to do with the discussion we are having about the BOD of USAA? The more and more you post to this thread the more I get the impression your goal is to somehow distract and redirect those that are participating. Please stick to the topic at hand.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> World Archery did not decide to exclude Bare Bow from the USAA Nationals as a division. The decision sits squarely with the board.
> 
> 
> Chris


Yes, but why did they exclude it?

Again, taking the position on the other side of the fence, USA Archery's role (in a nutshell) is to promote international style archery, ultimately Olympic style archery. 

So, you see USA Archery promote:

Olympic Recurve

...then somewhat reluctantly...

Freestyle Compound

...then even more reluctantly...

Field

...and lastly at the bottom of the barrel...

3D

Barebow lies in the lower depths of priority in the field world. USA Archery won't promote it more because they have no monetary reason to. Money gets generated in the Olympic Recurve and somewhat in the Freestyle Compound ranks. 

Why is that? Because World Archery promotes Olympic Recurve and then Freestyle Compound. Field is a very distant third.

Promote more Barebow in the world side, you get it to trickle down to USA Archery, because they will be forced to. 

It all comes down to money. If Barebow had the potential to generate money on the World Archery level, USA Archery would be promoting it. 

This is where Bob's comment about the NFAA is very pertinent. The NFAA's own by laws are set up to work with their state members. Their whole setup is quite different. NFAA cares not about Olympic or World or Pan American medals. Their livelihood doesn't depend on it.

Therefore, they can accommodate a healthy Barebow group. They aren't competitive for international and USOC dollars, they want the local pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the NFAA has no youth growth program like USA Archery has with their JOAD program. 

So again, making a change at the board level won't help much. It's got to be on a higher plane of thought before it trickles down and is forced upon the USA Archery BoD.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Next up for discussion points...

Is there a reason why Barebow isn't in national and international target competitions?

I can say one reason why. Television. Imagine an army of Jim clones out there with metal detectors after every other end looking for arrows. It makes for bad television when you spend more time looking for arrows versus shooting the bow. An army of Jim clones would be entertaining television, but not for purposes of televising archery!

And again, why Television? Money.

It all revolves around the dollar. If Barebow brought in the bucks, you'd get it in everything, including the NTC. You won't because it doesn't bring in money. Just the entry fee isn't enough to justify it, so they want the lane space and television potential for something more sexier and high speed/low drag.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> It all comes down to money. If Barebow had the potential to generate money on the World Archery level, USA Archery would be promoting it.


That is the circular logic can be generated by the efficient market hypothesis, that if it could make money we'd already be doing it. It becomes a generic, self-reenforcing argument for the status quo.

I'm not sure that your presumption is supported by the facts of World Archery in Europe, where FITA Field and Barebow Recurve are far more popular than they are in the US. Just because USAA isn't doing it doesn't mean it can't be done.

I'd also add that the NFAA is likely as beholden to Easton dollars as USAA is, as indicated by their headquarters name: The NFAA _Easton_ Yankton Archery Complex.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> That is the circular logic can be generated by the efficient market hypothesis, that if it could make money we'd already be doing it. It becomes a generic, self-reenforcing argument for the status quo.
> 
> I'm not sure that your presumption is supported by the facts of World Archery in Europe, where FITA Field and Barebow Recurve are far more popular than they are in the US. Just because USAA isn't doing it doesn't mean it can't be done.
> 
> I'd also add that the NFAA is likely as beholden to Easton dollars as USAA is, as indicated by their headquarters name: The NFAA _Easton_ Yankton Archery Complex.


Ah...yes, but where's Asia in this mix?

And, yes...the NFAA is as imbedded in the pockets of the ESDF as a lot of other entities are. It's a fact of life in the Archery world.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

I get what you're saying, but what about the money that's generated from memberships and tournament entries? I'm sure it's not the same level of revenue that comes from the coporate sponsors, but why eliminate revenue that takes such very little effort to obtain? Embracing barebow at an existing and successful tournament generates money from both of these sources. Yes, it'll cost some more money to have some additional bales for these archers, but no more than it costs for a bale for any of the other archers. 

I'm going to disagree with the idea that they reluctantly promote compound shooters. How many manufacturers of Oly recurve equipment are there in the US vs. the number of compound manufacturers? Hoyt, Easton, and PSE, to a limited extent. Likewise, how much of their revenue is generated by recurve? For Hoyt and PSE, it's probably very little. Easton, on the other hand, probably does a fair amount of their archery business between oly recurve and target compound. Then we could look at the number of X10s vs. X10 ProTours.

When the USAA BoD goes to their corporate sponsors, I have no doubt they really point to how well we do in the World Cup events in the compound arena more than how we're going in recurve. 

Besides all that, the issue here isn't that USAArchery isn't promoting Barebow, field, 3D, or whatever. Barebow just wants to be included in the outdoor tournament ranks. They don' want prmotion, just inclusion. At the end of the day, is that really too much to ask?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Next up for discussion points...
> 
> Is there a reason why Barebow isn't in national and international target competitions?
> 
> ...


 I expect that in the near future EJN and NTC will have to split apart due to over crowding. Also master have elimination rounds at NTC. Masters USAT is the logical next step. There are a lot of worthy efforts underway. Prioritize, plan, execute.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Ah...yes, but where's Asia in this mix?


Doesn't really matter in terms of what is proven possible by the popularity of FITA Field and Barebow in Europe. I think Europe is a better analog for the US than Asia, especially given how Archery in Korea is a job rather than something people do for fun as a hobby.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Serious Fun said:


> I expect that in the near future EJN and NTC will have to split apart due to over crowding. Also master have elimination rounds at NTC. Masters USAT is the logical next step. There are a lot of worthy efforts underway. Prioritize, plan, execute.


EJN and NTC was split before, most recently when EJN was held in Sacramento. I forget why it was rejoined (due to the Cadet/Junior/Senior double dip, if I recall, but I may be wrong), but it will likely be a split venture again sooner than later.

Sheer masses on the JOAD side will force it eventually. JOAD shooters have outnumbered the Senior/Master ranks at the EJN/NTC ever since the tournament was recombined.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Ultimately, this is the only section of the By Laws that matters:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is 6 board members and they can do literally anything they want - and the membership has no say whatsoever.


Aaaaand, here's where we're at. Including one board member that represents a serious conflict of interest.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Promote more Barebow in the world side, you get it to trickle down to USA Archery, because they will be forced to.


It is interesting to me that although Europe has such a strong barebow contingent, World Archery (largely directed by Europeans) does not promote barebow indoor or outdoor. That is a good question as to why.

Bottom line here folks is that we have our national archery organization putting a higher priority on what World Archery is doing, than on what the membership wants. 

Solution? Time to resurrect the NAA, and let USArchery handle the "elites" and follow World Archery wherever they lead. 

This is still America, right? It's a bit sickening that we are following and not leading anymore.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

:thumbs_up


limbwalker said:


> It is interesting to me that although Europe has such a strong barebow contingent, World Archery (largely directed by Europeans) does not promote barebow indoor or outdoor. That is a good question as to why.
> 
> Bottom line here folks is that we have our national archery organization putting a higher priority on what World Archery is doing, than on what the membership wants.
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up well said


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Beastmaster said:


> Imagine an army of Jim clones out there with metal detectors after every other end looking for arrows.


Good, as in National level, Barebow archers aren't spending anymore time looking for arrows then anyone else is. We may not shoot as many 10s and 9s but it's a rare moment that any miss the bale at 70m.



Beastmaster said:


> NFAA cares not about Olympic or World or Pan American medals. Their livelihood doesn't depend on it.
> 
> Therefore, they can accommodate a healthy Barebow group. They aren't competitive for international and USOC dollars, they want the local pocketbooks.


There is no Recurve Barebow in the NFAA healthy or otherwise. If someone wants to learn Rec BB with the goal of working toward the World Fields then it's only going to happen through a WA affiliate such as USArchery.

-Grant


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> Next up for discussion points...
> 
> Is there a reason why Barebow isn't in national and international target competitions?
> 
> ...


yeah archery in the USA gets LOTS of TV coverage. NOT


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I think it is an economies of scale thing as to why they were rejoined. It costs big bucks to have to fund two tournaments, and they were recombined when the economy was bad, and as far as I am concerned STILL IS BAD. 
I know the arguments, it's fun to travel places, but it gets expensive to go to TWO NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. I agreed that the move to combine them was a wise move for USA Archery. If JOAD gets split again, then I do not think JOADS should be able to compete at the NTC! Just saying, because then you have TWO JOAD CHAMPIONS, what the heck does that say?



Beastmaster said:


> EJN and NTC was split before, most recently when EJN was held in Sacramento. I forget why it was rejoined (due to the Cadet/Junior/Senior double dip, if I recall, but I may be wrong), but it will likely be a split venture again sooner than later.
> 
> Sheer masses on the JOAD side will force it eventually. JOAD shooters have outnumbered the Senior/Master ranks at the EJN/NTC ever since the tournament was recombined.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Costs no mor money except for a medal or two, or six if we have a a full class!
Targets? We shoot the same distances as recurve! NO BIGGIE. When I;m shooting a lot, I can hit the mark no problem.
YEP! That's it, I want to compete, but that'll have to wait tip next year...Y'ALL SHOW UP TO THE ANNUAL MEETING, and HELP ME OUT. I know Dee Falks and Skip Trafford will be fighting for BB comeback!!



Mulcade said:


> I get what you're saying, but what about the money that's generated from memberships and tournament entries? I'm sure it's not the same level of revenue that comes from the coporate sponsors, but why eliminate revenue that takes such very little effort to obtain? Embracing barebow at an existing and successful tournament generates money from both of these sources. Yes, it'll cost some more money to have some additional bales for these archers, but no more than it costs for a bale for any of the other archers.
> 
> I'm going to disagree with the idea that they reluctantly promote compound shooters. How many manufacturers of Oly recurve equipment are there in the US vs. the number of compound manufacturers? Hoyt, Easton, and PSE, to a limited extent. Likewise, how much of their revenue is generated by recurve? For Hoyt and PSE, it's probably very little. Easton, on the other hand, probably does a fair amount of their archery business between oly recurve and target compound. Then we could look at the number of X10s vs. X10 ProTours.
> 
> ...


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lizard said:


> I know Dee Falks and Skip Trafford will be fighting for BB comeback!!


well they are two of the 11 on the board. Why dont they say who it was that got rid of BB in the first place. Who on the board voted it out of Nationals and what was the reason, if they were the advocates for keeping it?

perhaps they can shed some light on this.


Chris


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Jim C said:


> yeah archery in the USA gets LOTS of TV coverage. NOT


In the United States, no. Elsewhere, yes. But the formats that World Archery pushes down to the masses are geared for Television coverage.

Look at it this way. 70 meter recurve. 50 meter compound. You have set camera angles. You know how many cameras you need based how many 50 and 70 meter bales.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> well they are two of the 11 on the board. Why dont they say who it was that got rid of BB in the first place. Who on the board voted it out of Nationals and what was the reason, if they were the advocates for keeping it?
> 
> perhaps they can shed some light on this.
> 
> ...


Frequently a BOD doesn't decide or vote on anything. Executive action decides day to day operations. The BOD is just informed after the fact.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

TomB said:


> Frequently a BOD doesn't decide or vote on anything. Executive action decides day to day operations. The BOD is just informed after the fact.


then who made this executive action? where is the buck stopping?


Chris


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

If one infers the BoD meeting notes for November 2013, the board reviewed the schedule for the 2014 NTC/EJN.

This basically means that the schedule was created by someone in the National Events group to bring it in front of the board. The BoD had no issue with it, so they tacitly approved it.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

A couple of other comments. Well, three.

1) Every tournament has a tournament director. In the 2014 NTC/EJN case, it's someone behind the email at [email protected]. Has anyone emailed that address?

2) Has anyone emailed Denise? I've found that she emails back rather quickly...at least to me when I've emailed her directly.

3) Has anyone emailed Sheri Rhodes? She's the current National Events Manager. If anyone knows, she would. 

-Steve


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> A couple of other comments. Well, three.
> 
> 1) Every tournament has a tournament director. In the 2014 NTC/EJN case, it's someone behind the email at [email protected]. Has anyone emailed that address?
> 
> ...


Denise said that the membership has to trust the board to make decisions for the best interest of all. I asked her what the reason was for BB being omitted, I never got an answer. I asked her what the benefit was for omitting bare bow I got no answer. Its more like-you have to trust us to do what is right for the membership. Unfortunately, I need more than that. Saying it was done in the "Best interests of all" with absolutely no additional information only accentuates my mistrust


----------



## CT MastersCF (Mar 14, 2009)

It is pretty clear what the BOD is doing to (not for) the membership. A few posts made mention of compound fingers and where that is (not) going.

I shot CF for 10 years, but switched to recurve two years ago. I've written a number of posts on this forum over the years about this, so I'm not going to hijack this thread and comment on why I believe it is a dying class. But I will comment on one of the reasons I switched styles.

Up to 2011 compound fingers had scored the outer ten indoors. In 2011 that was changed to the inner ten. The rationale was that "its a compound after all."
There is no CF class in world archery, so what difference did it make if the US continues to score indoors with the outer ten?

However, all the records were shot on an outer ten and no additional category was added for CF-inner ten. In fact, in the republish of the records recently, I couldn't find compound fingers at all.

I've heard a few people say what difference does it make as long as everyone scores the same? My answer is that the change was arbitrary, with specious justification, and affected no one at the elite level (ie, Olympic) anyway. 

I was at a plane and car show today at a local airport and saw a T-shirt with the following one it: FAA mission statement: we're not happy until no one is happy.
This almost seems to be the motto of US Archery.

Lest anyone think that this is a case of sour grapes with regard to my style switch, the other (more important) reason was that my daughter shot recurve for ten years and I didn't ever want my competing to put pressure on her. She was 10 when she started in JOAD, and confidence was an issue during her middle school years. It was fun to shoot tournaments together because there was never a direct comparison to be made. She didn't stay with it because her college made it nearly impossible to continue to shoot during the school year. (It's a weapon. Can't keep the bow on campus. But that another issue.)

My point is that this was another decision made without the best interest of the membership being considered. It didn't affect but a handful of members, so who cares seems to be the order of the day. 

Ray


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I have the answer: Jenni Edmunds who is not an archer at all, but the event coordinator for NTC/EJN. She told me herself that, "since there was only one entrant, ME (lizard), that there couldn't be a true championship, since there really wasn't a competition." 
Did I practice? Did I pay my $? Did I show up? Did I expect/hope someone else would shoot? Answer YES TO ALL. She apologized profusely, but that still doesn't get it back in the mix this year.
Nationals is about a championship, but it is also camaraderie, and seeing everyone at least once a year to catch up and hang together. If it's purely going to be about competition, then as I have said before, make a qualification for the tourney...thenLOSE YOUR FUND RAISING EVENT. Makes little sense to me.
So, there you have it, didn't want to point a finger, but now you know the who and why the decision was made.



chrstphr said:


> then who made this executive action? where is the buck stopping?
> 
> 
> Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

chrstphr said:


> then who made this executive action? where is the buck stopping?
> 
> 
> Chris


Look to the top. The crosshairs of this thread rest squarely on Denise. The chairman's thinking is always the big stick in direction setting. Changing the direction being traveled almost always involves changing the chairman.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lizard said:


> I have the answer: Jenni Edmunds who is not an archer at all, but the event coordinator for NTC/EJN.


I can not even find her name on the USAA website. How does she get this job? Is she elected? Just hired? 


Chris


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

She is hired staff, and with the 2013 changes thanks to Obamacare, had to go contract/1099 like 90 percent of USA Archery's staff.

She may not be an archer, but she has some idea on what she's doing from a 30,000 foot view.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jenni-bailey-edmunds/65/b81/b29?_mSplash=1


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

That's all fine and good, BUT the elimination of a growing discipline, is rather odd don't you think? 
There are four key letters in her resume: U.S.O.C. Who is now controlling the PTB at USAA, instead of the membership. DOn't get me wrong, I support the USOC whole heartedly FOR THE ATHLETES, and will continue to do so, for ARCHERY, and we will get to see how the progress is going on the new ARCHERY FACILITY at Chula Vista in a couple of weeks! Can't wait to see. I just worry that our top sporting arenas are turning into a socialist organization, expecting private and corporate donations to make things happen. USOC is not funded in any way shape or form by ANY government agency, and I'd hope and pray we keep it that way. So that said, we have to stand up and let our voices be heard! 





Beastmaster said:


> She is hired staff, and with the 2013 changes thanks to Obamacare, had to go contract/1099 like 90 percent of USA Archery's staff.
> 
> She may not be an archer, but she has some idea on what she's doing from a 30,000 foot view.
> 
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jenni-bailey-edmunds/65/b81/b29?_mSplash=1


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I have some of the BOD emails if anyone wants them, PM me!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's interesting to me how this one issue - barebow - is managing to expose a lot more about USArchery leadership and governance, than those in control must have ever imagined. 

There is no answer and no equal for passion. And there is no greater passion for archery than those who shoot barebow. It is the only reason to choose the discipline. For all those who pursue archery for other reasons, they can not, nor will not ever understand why barebow archers do what they do.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> It's interesting to me how this one issue - barebow - is managing to expose a lot more about USArchery leadership and governance, than those in control must have ever imagined.
> 
> There is no answer and no equal for passion. And there is no greater passion for archery than those who shoot barebow. It is the only reason to choose the discipline. For all those who pursue archery for other reasons, they can not, nor will not ever understand why barebow archers do what they do.


we have yet to find the answer I was seeking

or more importantly what benefit was bestowed upon the membership by eliminating BB from the NTC? Maybe I should ask Brady if he felt someone like Liz getting a gold medal similar to his cheapened his accomplishment because he has to beat 80 more athletes? I suspect not.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Why doesn't someone just start another archery organization based on more of a "grass roots" foundation - let the USA archery handle ranking events and such???


It's hard to change something once it gets so big and start new....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I suspect not.


And I believe you'd be correct Jim. I doubt we could find a stronger advocate for ALL forms of archery, than him. He has the passion for the sport. It's one of things I respect most about him. 

Where we run into issues is with those who choose to use the sport for other purposes.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Dacer said:


> Why doesn't someone just start another archery organization based on more of a "grass roots" foundation - let the USA archery handle ranking events and such???
> 
> 
> It's hard to change something once it gets so big and start new....


The NFAA is the grass roots national organization that follow the rules the nation membership reps vote on. USA Archery is the Olympic, International and Youth Development Association that follows internationally established rules. Both groups are great to have in the USA so that local group can have their fun and international competitors can play internationally.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dacer said:


> Why doesn't someone just start another archery organization based on more of a "grass roots" foundation...


They did, they called it the National Archery Association


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

My guess is that some day soon, the ranking round will be only 72 arrows so that there is time to conduct the round of 104 and more team rounds.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lizard said:


> Nationals is about a championship, but it is also camaraderie, and seeing everyone at least once a year to catch up and hang together. If it's purely going to be about competition, then as I have said before, make a qualification for the tourney...thenLOSE YOUR FUND RAISING EVENT. Makes little sense to me.


I think you have singled out one of the main problems with USAA and the nationals. Historically the nationals are the national gathering of NAA membership, not just a tournament. And that is why it has had such great variety. But it can get a bit unwieldy in size. Now there is talk about about having state or regional qualifiers for nationals so that only the elite archers make it to the nationals, which makes sense for managing a tournament or the vetting of "elite" archers, but not for a national gathering of the membership. So USAA has to decide what they think the nationals are for, and given their current trend, I think they are giving us some strong hints that they are dropping the idea that the nationals are for the membership.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> USA Archery is the Olympic, International and Youth Development Association


Where does one even begin...

This is what USArchery has become. The NAA was so much more, for over 100 years. 

"Youth Development Association?" When was JOAD introduced and formalized?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Where does one even begin...
> 
> This is what USArchery has become. The NAA was so much more, for over 100 years.
> 
> ...


here at CJO we don't know the exact date because our founders (George Helwig, Charlie and Mildred Pierson) have all died. it was sometime before the reintroduction of archery back into the Munich games. 1966 appears to be the most likely starting date according to our oldest member-Al Kramer. As I recall from George-FITA and the IOC basically directed the USA to begin a grassroots development program if archery was going to return to the games.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I am a LIFE member of NFAA but only a 3 year renewable member of USAA. Would love to see the NAA raise it's head out of USAA! 
Since Barebow is out USAA LOSES my $...what good does that do? Ic ould have paid for someone's lunches! 



Serious Fun said:


> The NFAA is the grass roots national organization that follow the rules the nation membership reps vote on. USA Archery is the Olympic, International and Youth Development Association that follows internationally established rules. Both groups are great to have in the USA so that local group can have their fun and international competitors can play internationally.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I do so enjoy watching how some choose to re-write history to further their own interests. Of course, that's nothing new. Just never thought I'd see it in an archery organization. The ability to re-write history and control the information only works if there is no accountability. After this latest pulse of new members due to the recent interest in archery, I give it about 3-5 years before many of those new members learn enough and begin to expect enough, to demand some answers.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

That's assuming they stick around that long...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Serious Fun said:


> USA Archery is the Olympic, International and Youth Development Association


Citation needed.

Last I checked (just now, in fact) USA Archery is a dba of The National Archery Association of the United States, not the "Olympic, International and Youth Development Association".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

From the website:



> the National Archery Association, known today as USA Archery, was formed in 1879 *to foster and promote the sport of archery*.





> Membership in USA Archery is open to everyone involved in* all *disciplines of archery


Membership is open. But not necessarily events.



> The mission of USA Archery is to provide the necessary resources to foster strong athlete participation, competition and training in the sport of archery.


At times, in every organization, it's helpful for everyone to go back to the basics and re-read the mission and purpose statements, just in case one were to become distracted by shiny objects.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh look. If you dig into the strategic outline, the mission has indeed been re-written... Not only that, but USArchery has declared itself the "National Governing Body for the Sport of Archery." I wonder how the other national archery organizations feel about that declaration. NGB for the sport of "Olympic Archery" perhaps, but the whole sport of archery in the U.S.? I think not.

According to the 2013-2016 outline,



> The mission of USA Archery shall be to enable United States athletes to achieve sustained competitive excellence in Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic and World Championship competition and to promote and grow the sport of Archery in the United States.


Looks like international competitiveness has now taken priority over promoting and growing the sport of archery in the U.S.

Like I said, when history gets re-written, it's because those with the pen are not being held accountable.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> From the website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't put too much faith the ever changing mission statements, though. From the current version of the Bylaws:



> Section 3.1. Purpose
> ARTICLE III. MISSION
> 
> The purpose of USAA is to foster the sport of Archery as a national pastime from which we can develop interest and abilities at all age levels to include international sports superiority in archery programs and athlete performance.
> ...


That language specific to the Olympics, Pan American games, Paralympic and World Championship comes right out of the Ted Steven's Act requirements for the incorporation of the USOC, which states the eligibility requirement for USOC member NGB organizations. The Bylaws of the NAA have literally been rewritten to comport with the demands of the USOC - and there is no way around that if you want to be a USOC sanctioned NGB, though I'm not sure if every NGB re-writes its mission statement to comport with the Ted Stevens Act / USOC focus on specific competitions.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

A time when barebow was all that was shot at NAA Nationals.

View attachment 1970095


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> I wouldn't put too much faith the ever changing mission statements, though. From the current version of the Bylaws:
> 
> 
> 
> That language specific to the Olympics, Pan American games, Paralympic and World Championship comes right out of the Ted Steven's Act requirements for the incorporation of the USOC, which states the eligibility requirement for USOC member NGB organizations. The Bylaws of the NAA have literally been rewritten to comport with the demands of the USOC - and there is no way around that if you want to be a USOC sanctioned NGB, though I'm not sure if every NGB re-writes its mission statement to comport with the Ted Stevens Act / USOC focus on specific competitions.


I have no problem with having a national archery organization focused on international competition. I and so many others completely support USArchery's efforts to do so. I think we just want our NAA back. That's all.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> A time when barebow was all that was shot at NAA Nationals.
> 
> View attachment 1970095


The attachment isn't working for me, but "A time when barebow was all that was shot at NAA Nationals" would be pretty much most of its history.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

OBJECTIVE #4 – PROVIDE QUALITY GRASSROOTS PROGRAMMING AND INCREASE OUTREACH PARTNERSHIPS
The sport of archery has seen an absolute explosion of popularity in 2012, primarily due to the inclusion of archery within mainstream media and films, including “The Hunger Games,” “Brave,” and others. Without knowing how long this surge in interest will last, with three “Hunger Games” sequels in development, we do believe we will see at least four more years of momentum. 
The key for USA Archery will be to turn this excitement into more clubs, instructors and archers. In the past, our grassroots strategy has been to “recruit” the archers from an existing introductory program, i.e. OAS, NASP, etc., and also from existing recreational providers such as camps and park and recreation departments. This is still the case; however, we have found that many of these programs, and recreational organizations, lack good program material and coaching and need support. So, in addition to recruiting archers from these programs into USAA clubs, we need to work more closely with these organizations on program development and pipeline development to ensure they have quality options for youth that will transition directly into USA Archery programs. 
Investment in these programs will greatly enhance the pipeline for our clubs while increasing the talent pool for potential high-performing archers.
OUTREACH PROGRAM KEY GROWTH STRATEGIES
Develop basic program curricula
Enhance current Junior Olympic Archery Development (JOAD) programming and opportunities
Continue to engage and partner with key youth-serving organizations: Park and Recreation Departments, Boy and Girl Scouts, 4-H, Departments of Natural Resources, NASP, OAS and others
Provide quality support material for programs, including curriculum, awards and equipment
Simplify the instructor certification process for all organizations.
GRASSROOTS GOALS – 
1. Increase national and state organizational partnerships
2. Provide high quality programming options and support material

*There is a grass roots component in the strategic plan. In fact, USAA is trying to recruit NASP, which shoots barebow exclusively. It bothers me greatly when barebow is viewed as a stepping stone to either compound, or Olympic recurve. It is a unique discipline. It is supported by USAA, by virtue of inclusion in the achievement pin program. In for a penny, in for a pound. Support it, or don't. The current situation is not tenable. We are asking barebow juniors to improve and measure their progress, shooting indoor and outdoor target rounds, but stop short of letting them compete for any national title except for field? *


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

midwayarcherywi said:


> There is a grass roots component in the strategic plan. In fact, USAA is trying to recruit NASP, which shoots barebow exclusively. It bothers me greatly when barebow is viewed as a stepping stone to either compound, or Olympic recurve. It is a unique discipline. It is supported by USAA, by virtue of inclusion in the achievement pin program. In for a penny, in for a pound. Support it, or don't. The current situation is not tenable. We are asking barebow juniors to improve and measure their progress, shooting indoor and outdoor target rounds, but stop short of letting them compete for any national title except for field?


Reminds me of a monopolistic method Microsoft uses to crush competition: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

USAA has embraced NASP and barebow in so much as the Stars Pin Awards now fully recognize them, but only to the extent that USAA wishes to *convert* NASP and barebow shooters. The two steps forward in the pins program was so promising it is really disappointing to see the big step back in the removal of BB from the nationals - a removal that is not necessitated by any of USAA's goals or obligations as the USOC NGB for archery. The nationals are not the Olympic trials.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Has anyone actually determined how many Barebow archers have competed in the NTC in years past? Has the numbers gone up?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beast, I'm afraid that's not the right question to ask, as the answer plays directly into the hands of those who have done what they can to dispose of it. Instead of asking "why should we bother" the question many want to hear is "what more can we do?"

The format has been stacked against barebow archers of late. Something as simple as moving from a traditional fita to a single-distance 70M round virtually excludes barebow archers from outdoor nationals. 

Not only that, but if the NAA is to embrace and encourage barebow, they need to adopt a format that provides equitable competition for the discipline at every age. The approach we've taken here in Texas makes sense, is easy to do, and doesn't cost anyone extra time or effort to set up. By following none other than World Archery's example in field, shooting barebow archers one set of distances closer than their recurve counterparts would require no extra bales or target faces besides what would be set up for any recurve archer. It's so simple, and it's amazing how well it works. 

At our recent Texas State Outdoor Championship this past weekend, we shot a single-distance 72-arrow ranking round, followed by double-elimination matchplay. We had Senior and Junior barebow archers shooting at 60 meters, Masters and Cadet barebow archers shooting 50 meters, Cub barebow archers shooting 30 meters, and Bowman barebow archers shooting 20 meters alongside our Yeoman division for our youngest archers. These distances work out perfectly for barebow archers and they can shoot right alongside their recurve counterparts. (You should have seen the head-to-head matchplay by the Bowman barebow archers. They had the entire crowd on their feet). The exact same thing could be done at Nationals with very little effort.

We really need to be careful about having a participation lower limit too, as there are several youth divisions each year that one could make an argument to throw out if that were the case. 

The comments above about barebow being taken seriously are spot-on. Some young barebow and NASP archers may eventually choose to shoot Olympic or compound, yes, but those who wish to dedicate themselves to skillfully shooting barebow in competition should not be discouraged by our national archery association.

This is a topic that hits very close to home for me, as I've seen many young archers, including my oldest daughter, leave JOAD because there was no place for them to go with barebow - the discipline they chose to compete with. We've made progress by giving them equal standing in the achievement pins. In Texas at least, we give them equal footing on the shooting line at all three of our championship events. Now it's time they are welcomed back to our national championship events as well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> The attachment isn't working for me, but "A time when barebow was all that was shot at NAA Nationals" would be pretty much most of its history.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> View attachment 1970165


I love those old NAA pictures. However, I spoke too soon about the NAA prohibiting sights for most of it's history. Although barebow has an ongoing tradition in the NAA, sights have been allowed in NAA completion for way longer than I remembered.

Ironically, it was FITA that banned pinsights (as opposed to pencil marks on the bow) starting in its founding years, in 1932, a ban re-confirmed in 1952 and finally lifted in 1954. The ban on pinsights slowed the adoption of FITA competition by the NAA. (FITA also banned the use of point of aim markers on the ground, something that was allowed by the NAA).

The NAA did ban "the contrivance" known as the "Peep-sight" back in 1880, on the basis that it gave unfair advantage to those few who used the rare device. However, sights and point of aim markers on the ground were used for many years throughout its history.

In 1927, From the History of the NAA, vol. 1, pp 289-90:



> A good deal has been said lately about the use of sights on bows. The National
> Archery Association has no ruling prohibiting the use of sights or artificial points of
> aim on the ground. Dr. Crouch and some others have always maintained that the
> sight on the bow was merely a matter of convenience and that an archer could make
> ...


In spite of that seeming proof, sighted shooting did increase scores overall.

Dorothy Smith Cummings, ladies champion 7 times from 1919-1931, is described as the last champion to shoot unaided:



> The interesting thing about her successes was that she was the last champion to
> win the N.A.A. title and to establish world records, without having the benefit of
> sights, or artificial point-of-aim, on her bow. This makes Mrs. Cummings' scores all
> the more remarkable, if not amazing for the equipment and rules under which she
> had to shoot.


----------



## D_Winslow (Mar 20, 2014)

Wow. Interesting and timely press release today. Maybe they do read the forums.

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...Key-Votes-Taken-at-Board-of-Directors-Meeting


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

They lurk. I know there are a lot of USA Archery personnel that are on AT all the time looking at the forums.


----------



## D_Winslow (Mar 20, 2014)

The release made it sound like they were/are considering cutting other divisions: 

"During the November Board meeting, it was determined that USA Archery would follow World Archery guidelines related to what classes were offered at National events."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh, they lurk alright. I actually have more respect for the ones who admit it too. 

The College archery consideration only makes sense. The barebow inclusion has been in the works for a while, and again, makes sense. It is a recognized discipline within World Archery, and has a long and distinguished history in competitive archery, esp. indoors. Not to mention all the NASP and JOAD barebow archers coming up who will be looking to continue competing in that discipline. 

John


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

So they had actually planned to remove traditional and barebow from indoor nationals as well.
But because we had a strong showing in 2014 they plan to keep barebow for 2015. 
That sounds like traditional is going to be removed from indoor nationals. 
What a sad day.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

NFAA will take all the nonsighted archers we can get. Trad Recurve is growing in California


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

D_Winslow said:


> Wow. Interesting and timely press release today. Maybe they do read the forums.
> 
> http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...Key-Votes-Taken-at-Board-of-Directors-Meeting


From the link:



> The Barebow division was also discussed. *During the November Board meeting, it was determined that USA Archery would follow World Archery guidelines related to what classes were offered at National events.* This eliminated the traditional categories and the Barebow division at all events except the U.S. National Field Championships. This change has been fully implemented for the upcoming U.S. National Target Championships.


Hmm...let's take a look at the minutes from November 2013:

First off, a little aside:


> VI. Guest Presentation
> Two grassroots community representatives conducted a presentation for the Board of Directors. Discussion followed; no action was taken.


That's it??? Nothing else to say about this? The minutes don't reflect *who* who made the presentation nor even *what* it was about. Just that there was a presentation and it was talked about. How is that a valid set of minutes for the meeting? Why even have minutes if they are just going to say: "We met and talked about stuff. The end."???

So, back on track, where in the minutes is the discussion about USA Archery changing to WA specs for equipment classes at national events? That is a significant change, so surely it will be clearly reflected in the minutes, right? Not so much...

Here is the item for National Events in the minutes:



> VIII. National Events
> a) 2014 Master Calendar- the Master Calendar was provided to the Board subject to some changes.
> *b) 2014 National Target Championships/Easton JOAD Nationals- The proposed 2014 schedule was reviewed with the Board.*
> c) Personal Coach Policy- The drafted changes to the policy were presented. Motion was made to approve the policy changes. Motion was seconded and passed.
> ...


So, if those are the official minutes, how does Denise even know that "During the November Board meeting, it was determined that USA Archery would follow World Archery guidelines related to what classes were offered at National events." I may have missed something but I'm not seeing at all, so please check the official minutes for yourself:

http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_...13 November BD Mtg Minutes-Final 122313-2.doc


I can't tell if they really discussed this at the November BOD meeting or if they are just making that up. I think it should no longer be considered acceptable to do the bare legal minimum in providing board meeting minutes. The minutes appear to be deliberately vague and obfuscating, seemingly allowing USAA to actively hide major changes from the public and the membership. I'd say at the least, audio recordings of the meetings should be made and archived on-line, along with the official minutes. Or maybe they could make the meeting minutes meaningfully detailed and accurate rather than deliberately, obfuscatingly vague, written like a press release filled with Hosanas? :dontknow:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

The 30,000 foot view to me is that the NAA has become, under this recent and current group, a lackey to WA. The fix is in - and nothing short of wholesale changes at the top will alter this direction.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Warbow said:


> From the link:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had the exact same thought. Either they didn't discuss or the minutes get heavily edited and redacted after the fact. I kinda believe we would have been talking about this last November had the membership known.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

WHat Gary said above. The NFAA embraces its non-sight classes. Even though attendance in some have dropped (BB Compound) some, there is a revival in the NFAA Trad (BB recurve) and longbow classes. The Compound Bowhunter (BB no string walking and 12" stab) has also seen a big increase in participation. The NFAA Indoor Nationals in Louisville (March) has had huge increase in the Trad numbers over the past 5 years, many IBO and NAA archers coming over to shoot. The competition is tremendous and a lot of fun is had by all. We even had a guest appearance by Limbwalker 2 years ago.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

First let me say that I truly enjoy shooting NFAA events, and I'm a proud state record holder for TFAA in the traditional men's division.

However, NFAA does NOT embrace a style of shooting that many of us barebow archers enjoy most - the same style that is shot WORLDWIDE under Fita/World Archery rules. And in fact, NFAA further separated their "traditional" division from the WA/USArchery "barebow" division this year by allowing a 12" stabilizer.

So, unless NFAA wants to offer a division that's consistent with what barebow target archers worldwide are shooting, there is always going to be a decision to make for barebow archers.

I can tell you that shooting our TFAA State Indoor in the traditional division, and USArchery Indoor Nationals in the barebow division on back-to-back weekends was enough to throw this archer into a tailspin. I had months to prepare, but it's almost impossible to be fully prepared to switch back and forth between the two divisions in less than a week. So I made the decision to train for the TFAA event, and then let the chips fall where they may for the USArchery event, ultimately costing me about 20 points/day below my average. It's that significant of a difference.

If NFAA and USArchery could ever agree on what a barebow recurve actually is, and how it can be shot, we'd see even more crossover between the two organizations, and that would be good for everyone.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Amen!



limbwalker said:


> first let me say that i truly enjoy shooting nfaa events, and i'm a proud state record holder for tfaa in the traditional men's division.
> 
> However, nfaa does not embrace a style of shooting that many of us barebow archers enjoy most - the same style that is shot worldwide under fita/world archery rules. And in fact, nfaa further separated their "traditional" division from the wa/usarchery "barebow" division this year by allowing a 12" stabilizer.
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm sure some folks are wondering "what's the big deal about unscrewing a 12" stabilizer from your bow?" LOL. 

Trust me. It's a big deal. An entire arrow spine, just for starters.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I'm sure some folks are wondering "what's the big deal about unscrewing a 12" stabilizer from your bow?" LOL.
> 
> Trust me. It's a big deal. An entire arrow spine, just for starters.


But you're also talking about different sanctioning bodies.

USA Archery has to follow what World Archery sets in their rule books. I'd have to look (mainly since I'm not an NFAA or IFAA judge), but there could be differing rules between NFAA and IFAA with regards to equipment.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> I'm sure some folks are wondering "what's the big deal about unscrewing a 12" stabilizer from your bow?" LOL.
> 
> Trust me. It's a big deal. An entire arrow spine, just for starters.


Exactly.. was jumping back and forth between the 2 and it was driving me nuts retuning.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

USArchery can allow more divisions than WA recognizes.  They've done it for years. Just like NFAA can allow more divisions than IFAA recognizes. They too, have done it for years. The 12" stabilizer, I don't believe, was an effort to get in line with IFAA rules, unless it was the Bowhunter Recurve division. IFAA doesn't have a "traditional" division that I can find in the rules. I was told it was simply an American thing to bring "trad" in line with an IBO or ASA division so the NFAA shooters didn't have to switch gear between those two shoots. I can understand that, but it certainly took things further from World Archery/USArchery barebow. We all but need two completely different bows/arrows to be competitive now, when before we could at least use the same gear.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> USArchery can allow more divisions than WA recognizes. They've done it for years.


Absolutely true as evidenced by the JOAD divisions below cadet. There is no cub, bowman and yeoman division in world archery. Collegiate neither.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

It breaks my heart to see this happen. I hate the fact that it is so easy for an organization to eliminate classes (USA archery) and change rules (nfaa). That fact that this can be done by such a small select few in either organization's is disgusting. 
It sounds like we need to get some of "us" on the boards to look out for us. The IBO gave us a couple of trad board members. Now we don't have to worry so much about the ones changing or eliminating out classes so willy nilly like others. We have trad guys helping in the desicion making. We have a voice in the board room, and it seems to be working great.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

John, I agree. And I hold out hope that there is still room in the USArchery board for someone who still sees the whole sport.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> John, I agree. And I hold out hope that there is still room in the USArchery board for someone who still sees the whole sport.


Don't worry, John, given that Greg Easton currently is:


"At Large" Member, USA Archery Board of Directors
Chairman of the Board, Archery Trade Association
Executive Board Member, World Archery Federation
President, Easton Foundations Board of Directors
President, Easton Technical Products Inc.
...you can be assured that *someone* will see the whole sport :wink:

:mg:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, why do you bait me like that? LOL.

I'm trying to get better. Really.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, why do you bait me like that? LOL.
> 
> I'm trying to get better. Really.


You can't beat the classics 

However, I actually brought it up because I just found out about Greg Easton being elected to the World Archery Executive Board reading the November USA Archery BOD meeting minutes. They had space to note that "Board member Greg Easton has been elected to serve on World Archery’s Executive Board and the U.S. was recognized for a number of awards at the World Archery Congress. " But none to note the significant changes by USAA to the National Outdoor Target Championship. 

Edit: I updated the list for you. Let me know if I left out any of them...


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

The rub was it was not just to the Outdoor Championship but to all National events except Field.

From the press release.
The Barebow division was also discussed. During the November Board meeting, it was determined that USA Archery would follow World Archery guidelines related to what classes were offered at National events. This eliminated the traditional categories and the Barebow division at all events except the U.S. National Field Championship


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Big +1 right here!

I shoot WA in Canada and NFAA in the US. Being able to do both with one internationally recognized set-up would be ideal.
Also much easier to use one set-up for everything when you can change your POD without changing limbs or arrows.

-Grant




limbwalker said:


> First let me say that I truly enjoy shooting NFAA events, and I'm a proud state record holder for TFAA in the traditional men's division.
> 
> However, NFAA does NOT embrace a style of shooting that many of us barebow archers enjoy most - the same style that is shot WORLDWIDE under Fita/World Archery rules. And in fact, NFAA further separated their "traditional" division from the WA/USArchery "barebow" division this year by allowing a 12" stabilizer.
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> it was determined that USA Archery would follow World Archery guidelines related to what classes were offered at National events


So simple, so clean, so easy to do. Pilate-like, except that in his case, the masses were crying out and he listened to them. 

If I were a para-athlete, I would have some reason to be concerned by this move.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> So simple, so clean, so easy to do. Pilate-like, except that in his case, the masses were crying out and he listened to them.
> 
> If I were a para-athlete, I would have some reason to be concerned by this move.


It is a little bit of the French banning sleeping under bridges with equal application to rich and poor alike. It sounds neutral but then you read the recent press release (I sometimes wonder if they are reading us, so eerily responsive to discussions in here they can seem to be) and it's like, for indoors, we're going to be loosey goosey, all manner of categories, but for outdoors it's WA, but we're open to reconsideration.

If it's any solace the "door opening" aspect of the release re outdoor nationals seemed to suggest they are feeling pushback on barebow.

I don't think the paras have to worry too much as long as there is a paralympics.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I don't think the paras have to worry too much as long as there is a paralympics.


I'm sure that's right. It is after all, about the medals... 

But what about the young para-athletes? Or do they just have to wait until they "grow up" too have a division to shoot in?

If we're following WA rules, why then do we bother with Bowmen or Cubs? Are they next on the chopping block? 

Too much uncertainty. An organization with the history of the NAA should be CLEAR about their purpose, and what they stand for. There should be consistency, and accountability.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Really and truly, I think the key here is the accountability. The BOD has nothing to fear from us other than a bit of headache when we have issue with something they're doing or have done. The barebow decision, to me, shows that they didn't do it because they thought it was the right thing to do, but rather easier to put it back in than listen to the membership take exception to the idea.

You know, we complain a lot (A. LOT.) about the decisions that have come from USAA of late. As far as I know, the board are volunteers just like the lot of us. I'm sure there are days when they're faced with deciding which is the lesser of the bad options they have. They're still there because they love the sport and have made a commitment to making sure it keeps rolling along for the next generation. I know I don't want their jobs right now and I suspect part of the reason many haven't thrown their hat into the ring is similar to my thoughts. I don't want to have to be one of the people who get to fix the mess. I've been down that road before and it takes a special kind of person to be able to wade in there and set things right. The rewards are great on the other side, but it's not always worth the cost to get there.

Still, it would be nice if the board was transparent to the membership. One of the things I've learned being married is that whenever I decide not to go to a shoot, practice, or meeting in order to do something with my wife I make sure I let her know. We had gotten to where she was complaining about the time I spent in archery and I realized that she was complaining because she didn't get to see all the things I don't do so I can spend time with her. If I don't tell her that I made the choice to spend the evening with her rather than archery, what's to keep her from thinking I'm just there because I have nothing else going on. One of the best decisions I've made in my marriage!

All that to say, if the BOD would be plain about what they're doing for the organization and why they're doing it, I think they would see a lot of these ruffled feathers would not happen. John's said it before, and he's absolutely right, taking a poll of the membership once in awhile on what we think of various issues and how the BOD is doing would go a long way to mending this relationship.

With as much as I have disagreed with Bob Pian and things that he has said here, I have to respect that he is fully committed to USAA. It takes a lot of guts to stand before this mob! :darkbeer:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> Really and truly, I think the key here is the accountability... it would be nice if the board was transparent to the membership.


I think that transparency, and the subsequent accountability transparency allows for, are really the crux of the issues a lot of people have with the unilateral changes by USAA - lack of transparency and notice to the membeship, so no chance to comment or object before changes are made and implemented nationwide by USAA. There are times when USAA doesn't seem to be accountable to the membership, but only to it's financial sponsors and the USOC. Perhaps USAA should just make it official and stop calling us "members" (which imply it is a membership-based organization) and pick a new name for whatever we are to them? :dontknow:



Mulcade said:


> You know, we complain a lot (A. LOT.) about the decisions that have come from USAA of late. As far as I know, the board are volunteers just like the lot of us.


Yes, there is no direct compensation for board members work on the board, though they can be reimbursed for expenses (which could include transport to board meetings - that isn't specified). The two Elite Athlete BOD members, though, are explicitly to be reimbursed for their expenses to attend meetings. 

I'm not sure how much the USAA BOD members do outside of the meetings. In some non-profit orgs, BOD members are really volunteer part time employees who do a lot of the heavy lifting, in others, they are just a rubber stamp who meet once a year in person to give a legal imprimatur to the policies and decisions of the orgs full-time, paid leadership who really run the show. Where in that spectrum the USAA BOD falls I really don't know.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Let's be fair here to the board members. They cannot come here and defend themselve or the decisions they may or may not have made. The minutes do not reflect who said what, who advocated what position and who argued against it or what procedural measures were taken to table an initiative brought forth by the members through a board member. We have no CSPAN to see how the sausage is made. As a former committee member (coaches development and board of justice) there are constraints of confidentialty that can and do inhibit transparency and adequate communications. Nevertheless, the membership should not confuse silence from the board members as not listening. Quite the contrary. They hear you.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> Let's be fair here to the board members. They cannot come here and defend themselve or the decisions they may or may not have made.


It is a fair point, but I'm not sure if it is true, or, if so, to what extent. Board Member ldfalks has already posted in this thread:

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2259302&page=3&p=1070303588#post1070303588

And, as far as I can see, the Bylaws do not require BOD members to be silent on BOD matters - I'm not saying they may not have signed something to that effect, only that if they did, that was not something I can find to be required by the bylaws (and I'm not sure to what extent it would be legal to require a duly elected BOD member to agree to restrictions not called for in the bylaws.)

Certainly Denise, after a brief period of participation here at AT around the start of her tenure as USAA CEO, has decided that posting on AT, or other sites not controlled by USAA, is not the way she will communicate with the public. But that doesn't mean that the BOD can't - technically, the BOD are her boss and she doesn't get to tell them what they can or can't do.



TomB said:


> The minutes do not reflect who said what, who advocated what position and who argued against it or what procedural measures were taken to table an initiative brought forth by the members through a board member.


Yes, not only do they not say who said what, much to my surprise as someone not versed in the details of corporate governance, that kind of omission is SOP for corporate minutes - minutes typically report what was _done_ not what was _said_, consistent with _Robert's Rules of Order_. However, a reading of USAA minutes shows that USAA his happy to report what was said when it is to the benefit of USAA, as when the November minutes incorporate at length, in press release style, what Denise _said_ in her "CEO Update". Yet USAA did the opposite when it came to what the unnamed grassroots presenters gave in their presentation to the board. Not even the general topic is noted, and failing to note the *topic* of a presentation seems to fall out of even the terse style of _Robert's_. So, USAA does not appear to be following a consistent principle when it omits what is said and who said it. Instead, it seems, it picks and chooses its principles according to what is convenient and will cast USAA in the best light.



TomB said:


> We have no CSPAN to see how the sausage is made. As a former committee member (coaches development and board of justice) there are constraints of confidentialty that can and do inhibit transparency and adequate communications. Nevertheless, the membership should not confuse silence from the board members as not listening. Quite the contrary. They hear you.


Well, with today's technology, a minimal recording of the meetings is almost a trivial exercise as every single BOD member has a computer capable of doing so in their pocket. 

I'd think that the board of justice would have more confidentiality issues to deal with than the BOD. I can see that, perhaps, details of contracts in negotiation might be confidential, and other limited issues, such as personnel issues, should they make it to the board, but for the most part, I'm not seeing a lot of confidentiality issues required of the board in general. Granted, they could be there and I'm not privy to them, that being the nature of confidentiality, but they don't seem to be in the bylaws... :dontknow:


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

As much as we would all love to see the board haveva presence here, I think at least most of us understand why that's not feasible. Also, I wouldn't want to know who voted which way on the issues. The board members need to be able to vote how they believe is right with fear of retribution. I'd also hate to see individual members of the board speak out for or against the board. No matter what happens in the meetings, the board has to present itself as a single unified entity or else it looses its legitimacy. You're absolutely right about those points, Tom.

Still, I have to believe there's some room between the level of information we get currently and what could be given without compromising the duties and unity of the board.

They've shown they hear us by putting barebow back into the NTC for 2015. Hearing the uproar is not the same as asking us what we think. I think if they took a poll right now of the membership on what we think of the Explore Archery campaign, most of the coaches would tell them that we don't have enough information on it outside of the marketting efforts. Do they expect JOAD and AAP clubs to pick it up and run? Are we supposed to get our communities and parks and rec to put these on? How are we hoping to turn these participants into new.club members? What is USAA doing to help us create more coaches and instructors for the influx of new members they're hoping to generate? Lord knows most of us are stretched thin as it is.

I don't see how these things are too much to ask. Hell, it's not everyday a group of people are clamoring for more information from their organization. I see it more on the other end of the spectrum. :grin:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> The board members need to be able to vote how they believe is right with fear of retribution. I'd also hate to see individual members of the board speak out for or against the board. No matter what happens in the meetings, the board has to present itself as a single unified entity or else it looses its legitimacy.


That it certainly one common way to do things, to keep governance secret. However, you know the public is allowed to attend the USAA BOD meetings, right? In fact, Board Member Coach Dee dropped by this very thread to highly encourage people to do exactly that:



> * If you want to know firsthand what goes on during the Board Meetings then you should attend and there will be firsthand knowledge of who said what and how the decisions are made.* The following is copied directly from the By-Laws. You don't have to wait until the Outdoor Target Nationals to see the Board and CEO in action. Of course if things go as advertised, there won't be any barebow archers at Outdoor Target Nationals to confront the Board and CEO except Lizzard and a few others who live around Hamilton.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The things you say need to be secret already aren't. So secrecy, with limited special exceptions allowed by the bylaws, isn't a valid objection. Instead, *the only question that remains is whether the knowledge of what happens in the meetings should be limited to people who are able to afford the time and significant amount of money needed to attend board meetings in person or whether everybody should be allowed to learn that same information now that we have the technology to disseminate it at little or no cost* and at nearly trivial effort, thanks to the ubiquity of smart phones and various services to share audio and video presentations.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Warbow, I'm not trying to say the votes should be secret, but I certainly don't think they necessarily need to be part of public record. Yes, anyone can attend the meetings should they have the means and desire to do so, but that doesn't mean they will have the opportunity to see how each member votes. There are many, many ways to take a vote and I have no idea which ones they might be using. For all I know, they could in fact use anonymous ballots.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> Warbow, I'm not trying to say the votes should be secret, but I certainly don't think they necessarily need to be part of public record. Yes, anyone can attend the meetings should they have the means and desire to do so, but that doesn't mean they will have the opportunity to see how each member votes. There are many, many ways to take a vote and I have no idea which ones they might be using. For all I know, they could in fact use anonymous ballots.


Indeed, you may well be right on that - though I'd think advocating for them not necessarily be part of the public record would be related to advocating for secrecy. However, as Coach Dee noted, regardless of how the votes are cast, "there will be firsthand knowledge of who said what and how the decisions are made" - information you can't get from the terse meeting minutes.

I'd like to see the democratization of knowledge that right now only rich gadflies have access to. If USAA had its BOD meetings in my area I'd attend, but they don't. But that shouldn't keep me or any other member from being able to access that same knowledge now that technology makes it simple to provide via the internet and now that pretty much every smart phone and laptop can record high quality audio and video. Terse meeting minutes come from the days when notes were taken with quill pens and there was no other way to record a meeting, but even so, the minutes from the NAA in the 1800's were more detailed than they are now. In this age of the internet the NAA provides *less* detail about its BOD meetings than it did when they had to record them with a dip pen and had to have each individual letter hand typeset in order to print and send out copies of the minutes to members. There's just no excuse in my mind for there being less information available now from the NAA about BOD meetings then there was in 1880, or even for there only being the *same* amount of information as there was 130 years ago.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I'd like to see the democratization of knowledge that right now only rich gadflies have access to. If USAA had its BOD meetings in my area I'd attend, but they don't. But that shouldn't keep me or any other member from being able to access that same knowledge now that technology makes it simple to provide via the internet and now that pretty much every smart phone and laptop can record high quality audio and video. Terse meeting minutes come from the days when notes were taken with quill pens and there was no other way to record a meeting, but even so, the minutes from the NAA in the 1800's were more detailed than they are now. In this age of the internet the NAA provides *less* detail about its BOD meetings than it did when they had to record them with a dip pen and had to have each individual letter hand typeset in order to print and send out copies of the minutes to members. There's just no excuse in my mind for there being less information available now from the NAA about BOD meetings then there was in 1880, or even for there only being the *same* amount of information as there was 130 years ago.


That part I definitely agree on. Only thing I'd add is that I don't really care if the information comes via the minutes or a press release. Hell, even an email with what they did, why they decided to do it that way, what's still being worked on, and what the goals are without a marketing spin on it would be sufficient. This isn't Fox News, I don't need infotainment from my archery organization. :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Two words. Doodle poll.

Or, if you prefer, Survey Monkey.

Yes, it is that simple. Even this technologically-inept 40-something knows that much.

These tools are so powerful and so easy to use, it's unfathomable as to why the membership has not been more involved in decisions that affect them.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Two words. Doodle poll.
> 
> Or, if you prefer, Survey Monkey.
> 
> ...


It works, too! The one time USAA sent one out I voted for some dude, once they fixed the poll with all the names that is. :embara:

It has never been easier to interact with a geographically diverse membership than it is now. Thanks in part to smart phones, pretty much everybody is on line now, even older members in their 40s


----------



## twofinger (Feb 12, 2012)

I voiced my concerns to the bod on this discision. but i did want to say i may not get to all of the tourneys but i still have a goal of getting there. i will just shot in the state events.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Does trad still have the really long distance USAA championship or has that disappeared altogether? Because what I'm looking at is a gap neither USAA nor NFAA fills. Ditto if you have a recurve and think they should have a serious national-level tournament with 900 or international, something less than the WA distances.

I say this because NFAA isn't filling the gap either. Some people upset with USAA are like I'm off to NFAA. But they don't really compete at outdoor target at a national level, which leaves a lot to USAA's whims. Now you can do field or 3d all summer in NFAA -- and then be covered indoors -- but that's not addressing the hole I see.

On the trad board I asked, who's hosting your championship? If you don't get a serious answer maybe set up your own.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Ditto if you have a recurve and think they should have a serious national-level tournament with 900 or international, something less than the WA distances.
> 
> I say this because NFAA isn't filling the gap either. Some people upset with USAA are like I'm off to NFAA. But they don't really compete at outdoor target at a national level, which leaves a lot to USAA's whims. Now you can do field or 3d all summer in NFAA -- and then be covered indoors -- but that's not addressing the hole I see.


Great points, and part of the reason why you see so much discontent in the barebow ranks within USArchery. We'd like to stay in USArchery, and continue to shoot outdoor target rounds, with barebow equipment set up under World Archery rules. 

Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record here, the precedent for how to address barebow vs. recurve is already in place under World Archery rules, and the rounds are already available, and set up at every event. Nothing new needed other than a new mindset.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Azzurri said:


> Does trad still have the really long distance USAA championship or has that disappeared altogether? Because what I'm looking at is a gap neither USAA nor NFAA fills. Ditto if you have a recurve and think they should have a serious national-level tournament with 900 or international, something less than the WA distances.
> 
> I say this because NFAA isn't filling the gap either. Some people upset with USAA are like I'm off to NFAA. *But they don't really compete at outdoor target at a national leve*l, which leaves a lot to USAA's whims. Now you can do field or 3d all summer in NFAA -- and then be covered indoors -- but that's not addressing the hole I see.
> 
> On the trad board I asked, who's hosting your championship? If you don't get a serious answer maybe set up your own.


This has changed, this year the directors voted in a National Outdoor Target championship, day 1 will be a 900 round and day 2 a 600 round. May not cover the same as a USA Archery Outdoor championship but the NFAA has added it. Looks like it will be held in Yankton in the future.


----------



## deadeyedickwc (Jan 10, 2010)

the shoot is scheduled for the first week of oct in yankton the format is still to be decided do to the jr worlds coming in 2015


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

You're right, per NFAA board minutes, there is an entry approving tournament and then a calendar note, 2014 National Outdoor Target – Yankton, SD October 4-5, 2014. How bad do I want to go to South Dakota, the question now becomes. Low 41F high 68F. Last year a tornado outbreak. Does every tournament have to be in Yankton?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Azzurri said:


> Does trad still have the really long distance USAA championship or has that disappeared altogether? Because what I'm looking at is a gap neither USAA nor NFAA fills. Ditto if you have a recurve and think they should have a serious national-level tournament with 900 or international, something less than the WA distances.
> 
> I say this because NFAA isn't filling the gap either. Some people upset with USAA are like I'm off to NFAA. But they don't really compete at outdoor target at a national level, which leaves a lot to USAA's whims. Now you can do field or 3d all summer in NFAA -- and then be covered indoors -- but that's not addressing the hole I see.
> 
> On the trad board I asked, who's hosting your championship? If you don't get a serious answer maybe set up your own.


 I have no information on the USA National Traditional Target Archery Championship, here are the 2013 results: http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_...ditional_Target_Archery_Championships__4_.pdf 
I am reasonably sure they do a lot of shooting and base the result on ranking. Perhaps, this is the place to focus on a ranking round and avoid team and individual elimination rounds. Perhaps there is a place for Clout to join in. In a perfect world such an event would be held in conjunction with a field event.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Elitists rarely have a reason for the things they do Jim. It's not how they think. They are so elite, they don't NEED reasons.


He said elite...what I need is more cowbell! :wink:


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Info for this years National Traditional Target Archery Tournament

http://demmercenter.msu.edu/events/18th_annual_national_traditional_archery_tournament


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> I have no information on the USA National Traditional Target Archery Championship, here are the 2013 results: http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_...ditional_Target_Archery_Championships__4_.pdf
> I am reasonably sure they do a lot of shooting and base the result on ranking. Perhaps, this is the place to focus on a ranking round and avoid team and individual elimination rounds. Perhaps there is a place for Clout to join in. In a perfect world such an event would be held in conjunction with a field event.


Bob, what exactly is your experience with competitive barebow archery?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

trevorpowdrell said:


> Info for this years National Traditional Target Archery Tournament
> 
> http://demmercenter.msu.edu/events/18th_annual_national_traditional_archery_tournament


Thank you! Clout too.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Bob,
I don't understand your insistence that barebow competition be associated with field archery and removed from target rounds. I enjoy both target and field. Why try to exclude barebow from target rounds?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Bob,
> I don't understand your insistence that barebow competition be associated with field archery and removed from target rounds. I enjoy both target and field. Why try to exclude barebow from target rounds?


Internationally WA bare bow is a division in field archery only. There is bare bow competition at the USAA indoor nationals 1200 target round. I support the indoors for bare bow target as a significant meaningful national level target archery competition.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Well that's something. I'm hoping to at least see JOAD barebow included at the 2015 Indoor Nationals.

Exclusion of this important style of archery in outdoor rounds needs a serious discussion with membership.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Well that's something. I'm hoping to at least see JOAD barebow included at the 2015 Indoor Nationals.
> 
> Exclusion of this important style of archery in outdoor rounds needs a serious discussion with membership.


This current BOD is completely dismissive of the 'dues payers'. They have defacto transformed 'National' Archery Association into 'WA-west'.


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Nice to know Bob that you support indoor barebow even though it not a WA division. But the question I ask is why does everything in archery revolve around olympic and international WA competition. Why limit the competition at the national level ? There are barebow and traditional archers who would like to shoot outdoor targets. My state had and I hope still does have those divisions at the state championship. 
There are 2.3 million NASP archers that shoot barebow. 10,443 competed at the nation tournament. Where do these archers go when the school program ends ?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interesting to see that the Barebow discussion isn't limited to USA Archery.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2061497


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

trevorpowdrell said:


> There are 2.3 million NASP archers that shoot barebow. 10,443 competed at the nation tournament. Where do these archers go when the school program ends ?


If the NASP program was so successful in converting people to archery, we collectively would see a huge jump in Barebow style competition across all ranks.

Instead, you don't. Bear in mind that the 2.3 million number is merely smoke and mirrors due to the amount of kids that get shuffled through the Physical education portion of NASP. Many schools do not have the resources to field an adequate or competitive team.

NASP tends to be very insular in nature. They do not give any growth path for the success of the archer outside of their world. That's a severe problem in their marketing department.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> Internationally WA bare bow is a division in field archery only. There is bare bow competition at the USAA indoor nationals 1200 target round. I support the indoors for bare bow target as a significant meaningful national level target archery competition.


Well, that seems to be the opinion of one man with, from what I can tell, very limited exposure and quite possibly zero personal experience with competitive target barebow. 

What some folks in USArchery conveniently choose to ignore is that some of our most experienced and competitive archers in this country are barebow archers.

It's also pretty stunning to see an experienced event organizer blatantly ignore a very simple and inclusive solution for this issue, and continually deflect and redirect the conversation. Very sad, esp. when the answer is so damn simple.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If the NASP program was so successful in converting people to archery,


http://naspschools.org/news/news.php?id=1372



> two million three hundred thousand (2,300,000) students participated in NASP® as a part of their in school physical education curriculum.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> http://naspschools.org/news/news.php?id=1372


John,

Then where are those NASP kids in other tournaments? We see them in Arizona because we cater tournament specifics to include Genesis classes. Do you see them in TOTS?


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Beastmaster said:


> John,
> 
> Then where are those NASP kids in other tournaments? We see them in Arizona because we cater tournament specifics to include Genesis classes. Do you see them in TOTS?


Yes, we do. Not in as great of numbers as I think we'd like, but they are definitely there! :grin:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> But the question I ask is why does everything in archery revolve around olympic and international WA competition. Why limit the competition at the national level ?


Easy. Money and status (i.e. ego). The two things that make some folks put the blinders on, check their values at the door, and blatantly ignore the community as a whole. And archery isn't the only sport, or issue, where the lure of playing with the international community has resulted in serious mission creep. It's the newest form of political correctness. You're just not "hip" if you're not hanging out with the internationals anymore.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Beastmaster said:


> NASP tends to be very insular in nature. They do not give any growth path for the success of the archer outside of their world. That's a severe problem in their marketing department.


I would tend to say that the problem is with _our_ marketing department. NASP isn't setup to give anything more than the introduction to archery. That's part of why they are so successful. I'd like to see them stick to what they are doing very well.

I think it's up to the other organizations to come in alongside NASP and show the kids that they can keep shooting after the PE class has gone on to the next sport. JOAD _should_ be the perfect place for them, but we'll never see them if we're not in those classes showing them where the next archery door is.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Serious Fun said:


> Internationally WA bare bow is a division in field archery only. There is bare bow competition at the USAA indoor nationals 1200 target round. I support the indoors for bare bow target as a significant meaningful national level target archery competition.


I am still trying to fathom how the MEMBERSHIP is benefited by removing BB from the NTC

saying indoor is a significant target competition is a big fat DUH

so is outdoor-why is BB included INDOOR and NOT OUTDOOR

what BENEFIT does the MEMBERSHIP GET BY TREATING BB LIKE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN

I guess is what drives me up the wall-we never can get a STRAIGHT ANSWER from those in charge and when I see a lack of a straight answer I SEE dishonesty and facades.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Well that's something. I'm hoping to at least see JOAD barebow included at the 2015 Indoor Nationals.
> 
> Exclusion of this important style of archery in outdoor rounds needs a serious discussion with membership.


the membership needs to remove from office, those who are standing in the way of including so many potential members


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Jim C said:


> the membership needs to remove from office, those who are standing in the way of including so many potential members


Is there even a mechanism in the bylaws where the membership could do that?

EDIT: I'm not advocating the removal of the board members, just asking the serious question.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> John,
> 
> Then where are those NASP kids in other tournaments? We see them in Arizona because we cater tournament specifics to include Genesis classes. Do you see them in TOTS?


Respectfully, Steve, I've always felt the critics of NASP were missing the point. When I see those numbers, and work with NASP kids, I don't see lifetime tournament particpants or future world class athletes. I see advocates for the sport of archery and bowhunting. If those millions of kids never buy their own bow, I'm fine with that because I know that they will become fans of the sport, tuning into Olympic and world cup coverage, they will become supporters of archery in P.E. programs, and they will support our right to hunt with a bow. And that's good enough for me. But like Kevin says, we have to show them the next step. 

Here in Texas, we've done just that, including Genesis/NASP bows in our barebow divisions in ALL of our events statewide as early as January of 2013. It was nice to see USArchery follow suit, by adding Genesis bows to the barebow achievement matrix for JOAD and Adult Archery - a move I completely supported because it just makes good sense. So, there is some effort by those "in charge" to be inclusive. It was a great first step. Why it seems the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing sometimes, is another matter, but one I feel will be rectified so long as a good solution to the question is offered. There are those who support barebow who are doing just that right now.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> we never can get a STRAIGHT ANSWER from those in charge


In fairness Jim, we're not hearing from anyone "in charge" here on AT.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

This is top down stuff like when FIFA tries to tell MLS to move to the English/European soccer calendar. Few in the US customers are saying, I want to see January soccer. Nor are we playing the game different. We just want to play in warmer months.

This is an elite down deal where someone at WA knows someone at USAA and they've got an agenda that we shouldn't have a bunch of extraneous classes outside of WA outdoors that could be said to "distract" from the core competitions. Few probably wanted this, and it actually may hurt the amount of registered archers, because people outside the core are not going to switch gear to fit USAA, they will find someplace else where they are wanted. It's not even political per se, at some point it's practical.

But then that's the risk of implementing unthinkingly some directive from HQ. I assume the recent press release means they are already re-considering, so this may be a one year issue. But it should be a lesson learned on other decisions, consider the base.

I simply cannot see how it hurts to have "more" than WA. I could see if we were misaligned with WA. But we have all the WA stuff and then some. That serves USAA's interests because you extend beyond the WA classes and corral the largest numbers possible.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> This is an elite down deal where someone at WA knows someone at USAA and they've got an agenda that we shouldn't have a bunch of extraneous classes outside of WA outdoors that could be said to "distract" from the core competitions.


I don't believe that to be true. If anything, WA should be even closer to the truth that barebow archery is extremely popular in parts of the world, and is taken as seriously as any other discipline. 

What I think we have here are two things: 1) Folks in leadership positions who have little or zero experience either shooting, or being around serious barebow target archers. Frankly, they don't understand what's possible with a barebow rig when someone chooses to train in the discipline and take it seriously. (And with no incentive to do so, the quality of barebow archery becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who tend to see it as a second-class sport). So I think there is simply a lot of ignorance about barebow archery, but they're getting an education right now. 

2) There are some in key positions who are overeager to satisfy the USOC and WA. Partly because they feel this is their job, and partly because those are the circles they want to run in. They have sold their soul, so to speak, to be accepted by the international community. This behavior I find particularly distasteful because it is very self-serving and egocentric.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Mulcade said:


> Is there even a mechanism in the bylaws where the membership could do that?
> 
> EDIT: I'm not advocating the removal of the board members, just asking the serious question.


From the by laws.



> Section 7.11. Resignation, Removal and Vacancies. A director’s position on the Board of Directors shall be declared vacant upon the director’s resignation, removal, incapacity, disability or death. Any director shall resign at any time by giving written notice to the Chair or the Chief Executive Officer of USAA, except the Chair’s resignation shall be given to the Chief Executive Officer. Such resignation shall take effect at the time specified therein, and unless otherwise specified therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. In addition, the unexcused absence of a director from more than one half of the regular meetings of the Board during any twelve month period shall be deemed to constitute the resignation of such director from the Board of Directors and shall have such effect without further action by such director or the Board of Directors. Directors shall also be removed for cause at any duly noticed meeting of the Board, and after being provided an opportunity for the directors to be heard by the Board, upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the total voting power of the Board (excluding the voting power of the director in question). Directors shall also be removed without cause at any duly noticed meeting of the Board, upon the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of the total voting power of the Board (excluding the voting power of the director in question). Any vacancy occurring in the Board shall be filled as set forth for the election of the director of the Board. A director elected to fill a vacancy shall be elected for the unexpired term of such director’s predecessor in office. No director shall be subject to removal or to not being re-nominated based on how they vote as a director, unless such voting is part of a violation of USAA’s Code of Ethics. Any vacancy occurring in the Board shall be filled as set forth for the election of that director. A director elected to fill a vacancy shall be elected for the unexpired term of such director’s predecessor in office. Similar rules shall apply to resignations, removals, and vacancies in the office of Chair. If the members of any class are entitled to elect one or more directors by the provisions of these Bylaws, the provisions of this section shall apply, in respect to the removal of a director or directors so elected, to the vote of the members of that class and not to the vote of the members as a whole.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> In fairness Jim, we're not hearing from anyone "in charge" here on AT.


I am talking about face to face, telephonic and email conversations Liz and I have had John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gotcha.

"telephonic."  I haven't used that word since my last statement of probable cause. ha, ha.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Shorthand...



> shall be declared vacant upon the director’s resignation, *removal...*





> No director shall be subject to *removal* or to not being re-nominated based on how they vote as a director, unless such voting is part of a violation of USAA’s Code of Ethics.


In other words, choose your BOD members very carefully, and be ready to live with their votes.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Thanks, Beast. It's interesting. The bylaws go into pretty good detail on how the board can eject its own members, but only says that the class of membership for a particular member can vote to have that member removed. It says nothing to the effect of how that vote should or could be initiated. Of course, that could be stated in a later part that's not included in what you quoted. 

Certainly an interesting foray into the parlipro, but I think this is a bit off topic so I'll let it rest Maybe do some reading up on my own. :grin:


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

When Rick McKinney was posting here, he brought up how winning a medal with little competition diminishes the value of the medal. If you were to cede the point, it is still worth the effort to entice all the shooters USAA recognizes are out there shooting barebow. 

If USAA includes barebow next year and there are a whole bunch of divisions with one, or two shooters, does this act as a magnet to attract those who are looking on saying to themselves 'hey I can beat that score!'. Might USAA entertain the notion that promotion and development of tournament barebow shooting will take some time to build and be patient as shooters are developed? Or perhaps they will use a short window of inclusion to show membership that the numbers are chronically low and not worth pursuing? 

I think the 'Field of Dreams' approach is appropriate, but just like when archery was brought back to the Olympics, it will take time and active promotion from the entire organization. I'm not sure that is in the cards.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Midway, it's a glass half full or half empty question, and a matter of will and direction. If it is the desire of USArchery to grow the sport, then they will continue the next step beyond the inclusion of barebow/basic compound into the JOAD and AA achievement programs by making sure those archers are welcome at all of the national championship events. However, if the mindset is that barebow archers are but a vocal minority, and one they do not wish to encourage (for whatever reason), then they can and will use the low participation numbers to justify any decision they wish to make.

It truly is a chicken or egg conundrum. Had they simply stated 2 years ago they would not recognize barebow outside of field archery and not include it in their key developmental programs like JOAD and AA, then that would be consistent with removing barebow from indoor and outdoor nationals. However, the decision to, on one hand, open the door for barebow/basic compound archers to JOAD and AA, and then right afterwards remove it from two of our three nation's premier target championships, is inexplicable. This is partly, where the rub is. Nobody likes inconsistency and mixed messages. What we're seeing here is 11 pages of frustration from folks who just don't get why it has to be this way.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I believe you are correct. And the JOAD/AA piece is what puzzles me so much. I'm sitting here wondering why I care so much. Heck, I don't shoot barebow competitively. I could convert young barebow archers to Olympic recurve, or compound. But the whole thing rankles me.....a lot


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good. It should rankle all the members. Because it's a slippery slope. What next? What seemingly arbitrary decision will be made next that might affect another "minority" group? 

One of the things I have always liked about the NAA/USAA and FITA/WA is the relative simplicity with which they approach the sport. Three basic disciplines - Compound, Recurve, Barebow. Done. All we're asking is that the three stand on equal footing at ALL the national championship events. And again, it doesn't even require much, if any, extra work on the target side.

The only reason I can see those in control would resist allowing barebow in our outdoor target events is that they are afraid we would be calling for a Barebow USAT team someday, along with the corresponding selection process.

Barebow USAT? #ohnohediunt


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

From the minutes from last years annual meeting there are a few enlightening parts:


> Chair Bill Corbin introduced the USA Archery (USAA) Board and thanked Board members. He thanked attending members for their participation, level of commitment and passion for the sport of archery. Bill stated that it has been another successful year with 701 participants competing in the Easton JOAD and National Target Championships. The increase in both individual and club memberships along with sponsor support demonstrate a successful year. Bill announced that this will be his last year (due to term limits) as Chair of the USAA Board of Directors. Over the last 6 years the organization has grown to 3 million in revenue. Beginning with a leap of faith from Jim Easton of the Easton Foundations, which provided much needed financial support, the organization was able to triple its budget, recruit professional leadership and staff and build a Board that is more transparent and responsive to member concerns. Board priorities are for a more united sport. Going forward the percentage of member funded support needs to be balanced to keep the sport strong. *Only a small percentage of what goes to the sport comes from membership dues.*


USOC does not care about barebow and since the membership dues are such a small fraction of the revenue stream and there is is no consequences for upsetting the membership (unlike upsetting the USOC), the benevolent dictator has no incentive to do anything on barebow.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I don't believe that to be true. If anything, WA should be even closer to the truth that barebow archery is extremely popular in parts of the world, and is taken as seriously as any other discipline.
> 
> What I think we have here are two things: 1) Folks in leadership positions who have little or zero experience either shooting, or being around serious barebow target archers. Frankly, they don't understand what's possible with a barebow rig when someone chooses to train in the discipline and take it seriously. (And with no incentive to do so, the quality of barebow archery becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who tend to see it as a second-class sport). So I think there is simply a lot of ignorance about barebow archery, but they're getting an education right now.
> 
> 2) There are some in key positions who are overeager to satisfy the USOC and WA. Partly because they feel this is their job, and partly because those are the circles they want to run in. They have sold their soul, so to speak, to be accepted by the international community. This behavior I find particularly distasteful because it is very self-serving and egocentric.


I'm not saying it's WA policy, I'm saying someone with power at WA decides his agenda item for a while will be going around encouraging people to mirror WA championships in terms of format, classes, distances. They don't have to be jerks per se, it's just like a politician that gets a pet policy to push, regardless of how well thought out, and then goes on a mission. If the mission converts enough WA members, they reflexively put it on their agenda and vote. Perhaps they are just as oblivious to the variety of classes and amount of shooters they are impacting. Maybe their intent was even to push the WA target classes like compound or recurve in countries where archery is a small sport. But here we have a wide variety so it actually narrows participation.

If you come at this from a sports executive perspective and aren't a shooter, maybe you don't realize what this category game does in practicality, maybe someone fools you that this saves money, blah blah, and you don't know better about the impact on the archer body. You don't think that shutting down classes might cost archers and cash too. etc.

I mean, US Soccer is run by an economics professor who did not play. I'm not sure how many of the soccer board played. I know the coaches did but they don't make board level decisions.

What are the backgrounds of the USAA board, and should they know better? If they are effectively hired guns, politicians, lobbyists, they might be good at some things and schmooze and maybe adopt WA dictates without knowing archery implications. If they are archery people, how did they get to this point? I would think archers should know better. [I say that, but then I've had the experience that sometimes the industry reps on a panel are harder eggs than the pols because they feel like they have to show they can be tough on their own.]


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Azzurri said:


> What are the backgrounds of the USAA board, and should they know better? If they are effectively hired guns, politicians, lobbyists, they might be good at some things and schmooze and maybe adopt WA dictates without knowing archery implications. If they are archery people, how did they get to this point? I would think archers should know better. [I say that, but then I've had the experience that sometimes the industry reps on a panel are harder eggs than the pols because they feel like they have to show they can be tough on their own.]


Another issue is to what degree the Board is steered by the org rather than the other way around. The board only meets a few times a year, and the the current Bylaws say they must always go through the CEO when interacting with USAA. How much of the change is really the choice of the board and how much is USAA saying here, vote on this this way? The Bylaws require the board to be diverse, but that also means that it may diffuse the board in a way that makes the influence of USAA over the board greater. :dontknow:

I wish I was in a position to take Coach Dee's suggestion and attend the board meetings. (Hence why I really think they need to be recorded and made available on line, so we can all have the ability to learn what goes on in them even if we can't afford to spend the time and money it would take to go in person.)


----------



## D_Winslow (Mar 20, 2014)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Or perhaps they will use a short window of inclusion to show membership that the numbers are chronically low and not worth pursuing?
> 
> I think the 'Field of Dreams' approach is appropriate...


The lack of a BRIDGE to get this mass of NASP barebow archers over to USAA is the problem. With a better bridge, yes they will come. To me, the BB solution seems so evident.

USAA is an island to NASP archers, who(like me just a few months ago) have no idea even where or how to crossover. We did venture out beyond NASP this year, but the bridge is hard to find and the intitial crossover is not a welcoming price for the NASP masses to pay, especially for just one tournament(Indoor Nationals). 

For us to crossover, we had to buy a new recurve bow, which was a hurdle not knowing anything about recurves, but at least it was bare;-) Membership, entry and travel were not exactly cheap to shoot in the indoor Nationals. My NASP archer had to shoot in the adult division since there was no youth barebow. Then of course, wait three months to find out the results. This was just a few of the many seemingly unnecessary obstacles we encountered.

The silver lining to our experience was that the form and technique NASP archers use, translate almost seamlessly to barebow recurve. The only difference is the arrows fly straight!

We have a large number of 200+ dedicated and very talented NASP barebow archers from 4th-12th grade in our archery program. This year I began coaching the NASP high school team which unfortunately is the last stop for most NASP archers. One of my biggest missions is that I REALLY want to encourage, guide and provide a way for these kids to continue archery beyond NASP. I'm certain if I can help them cross that bridge, put a quality barebow in their hands and have them compete in just one big non-NASP tournament, then I can let go of them with confidence that they at least have to knowledge to continue. 

I would like to take my entire high school team(24+ kids) and compete in at least one JOAD, USAA or NFAA tournament next year. USAA is where I'd love to take them since it provides a collegiate and international competition path. However, the NFAA path, where they can use their current Genesis and just go compete barebow is beginning to look like the one of least resistance and now maybe the only future option.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

> ...build a Board that is more transparent and responsive to member concerns. Board priorities are for a more united sport.


Ooops. Failed on that one. :wink:



> Going forward the percentage of member funded support needs to be balanced to keep the sport strong.


Ok. Someone learn me here. What exactly does that statement mean?

Balanced how? Balanced over the different member groups? Balanced vs. the money coming in from corporate sponsors and USOC? 

How balanced should they be? All equal? Membership just having a larger percentage?

The impact that statement could have on the membership is huge and not in a good way.

On the other hand, it could be used as the impetus to really drive a campaign at expanding the ranks of USAA in a good and meaningful way, rather than just putting up a 'pay to play' sign. I know which hand MY money is on... :bored:


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

D_Winslow said:


> The lack of a BRIDGE to get this mass of NASP barebow archers over to USAA is the problem. With a better bridge, yes they will come. To me, the BB solution seems so evident.
> 
> USAA is an island to NASP archers, who(like me just a few months ago) have no idea even where or how to crossover. We did venture out beyond NASP this year, but the bridge is hard to find and the intitial crossover is not a welcoming price for the NASP masses to pay, especially for just one tournament(Indoor Nationals).
> 
> ...


You, sir, are a keg full of awesome. This is exactly what we need. NASP coaches like you who are finding and investing in ways to make sure the students have somewhere to go when NASP hands them off to the real world. I would encourage you to look at the Texas Outdoor Target Series (TOTS) as a model for bringing JOAD and NASP together. Here in Texas we put the Genesis archers in with the other barebow fans for one big happy Barebow class. It has worked very well for us so far and the Texas State Archery Association has made Barebow (includes Genesis) a statewide bow class for our state events. If you're curious, the TOTS page is here.

Keep up the good work!

Credit goes to Limbwalker for being the father of TOTS. (No, that's doesn't sound creepy at all.... :wink


----------



## D_Winslow (Mar 20, 2014)

Mulcade said:


> You, sir, are a keg full of awesome... here.


Thanks, but no, archery is the awesome. I've seen first hand the incredible changes that it can make in a young persons life. I just want every opportunity to keep these kids in archery and I feel it is important to keep NASP archers barebow as long as possible. 

I have come across some of the Texas Archery stuff in my many google searches(hard to miss) but hadn't realized they/you included Genesis. Some good stuff there I will give it a closer look.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Credit goes to Limbwalker for being the father of TOTS. (No, that's doesn't sound creepy at all.... )


Well, I've fathered at least three tots that I know of. Four if you count this one, so no, nothing creepy about that. ha, ha. Looks like my most recent "tot" is finally walking on their own and will be out of diapers soon. Such a good feeling. It also has some great godparents, aunts and uncles to help it along.  

D Winslow, you sir, get it. I could not have said it better myself. Thanks for what you do.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Bringing another side of the argument to the table...I'm going to bring the attendance back into play again. This time, from a business standpoint.

In the Indoor Nationals, there has been a steady attendance of barebow and traditional archers, across all regions. This is a trend from 2011 to 2014, and I can't pull more statistics because 2010 and back haven't been posted up again.

Because they have been attended on a constant basis with a steady stream of archers across the board and across multiple divisions, one can argue that Indoor Nationals should be left untouched, because it's a bunch of divisions that have constant, steady activity across the board. And, the decentralization of the Indoor Nationals regions allow easier access to archers wanting to shoot for a National Championship, even if it's a modified Mail In.

Outdoor, because of the forced centralization, makes it harder to draw people there. I'm doing this from memory, but the one year that the NTC was in Yankton, I don't believe there was one single barebow or longbow competitor there. 

Bluntly put, if there isn't a dedicated amount of archers for outdoor barebow/longbow compared to the amount of archers in indoor barebow/longbow, why would a business dedicate the resources, even though it's a minimal amount of resources, to that group?

A lot of businesses operate on the process of "Feed the actual demand, not the theoretical". If the attendance is crap to nonexistent for a period of time, why would anyone offer it after a while?

Stepping away from the devil's advocate position and speaking on a personal view - I'd hate to see all this pent up demand push for the reinstatement of barebow to the NTC, and we still have dismal attendance numbers after it's been restored as a division. Somebody better shoot barebow other than Liz if the division becomes a reality again.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Beast, another aspect of this from a business model is USA archery is selling Rolls Royce's. They could care less about marketing minivans and compact cars. They are not even trying to "feed the actual demand". Oh, they want the membership dollars, but are not willing to allocate any resources to those marginal market segments. For me this is self evident by the total lack of attention to the JOAD barebows and genesis bows outside of the achievement pins, which by the way took us most of a decade to get. This is despite the clear evidence that the customers are there. But even more troubling is what John alluded to, the process is what stinks to high heaven. What is going to be marginalized next? Barebow to field, which we don't support financially. Indoor only at the mail in level, but we don't support a world indoor team. Crossbows gone, traditional tournament gone. Clout is on probation.

Maybe the real fear is that if we really tried to accommodate everyone with reasonable fees and an inclusionary perspective, we might have a couple of thousand archers sign up for events.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Tom,

The issue for both of our states is that both Texas and Arizona willingly and openly accept Barebow and Genesis shooters with open arms. Considering that both of our states' and their overall leadership in both in-state and out of state archery affairs are well known, the two states collectively lead the pack when it comes to the archery world in the United States.

We find it rather normal to have Genesis/Barebow shooting events all the time. We can justify the numbers within our own two states. However, in using the current registration list from the 2014 EJN, Texas and Arizona have a combined 33 archers registered versus 126 from California. I don't know what numbers that TOTS brings in for barebow/Genesis, but in Arizona, barebow/Genesis comprises about 2% of all tournament archers registered.

If one extrapolated the 2 percent from all the entrants (as of 6/6, there is 469 archers registered), you get just under 10 archers if you use the 2 percent extrapolation. If you take the 33 archers from Texas and Arizona, you're looking at 6/10th of an archer. 

How does one justify that to a tournament organizer? 

RE: Reasonable fees. What constitutes a "reasonable fee?" Considering that from a judging perspective, the EJN/NTC is sorely understaffed, I know that from a USA Archery perspective, they actually either barely break even to losing money some years. CJO can't lose money - I don't think they would undertake the venture if they were to lose money on their end.

It's really a chicken and egg thing - if a tournament puts out the divisions for barebow, and no one shows up, how can one really justify it's existence? In larger tournaments like the EJN/NTC, single digit numbers isn't a huge justification to provide the space for some organizers.

As I've alluded to, USA Archery isn't immune to this discussion. The NFAA is looking for ways to prune it's multitude of divisions as well, and they are getting negative feedback in dropping lower attended divisions, but the attendance numbers don't really prove things out for justifying it on the NFAA side of the world either.

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

On a side note, I did go through the 2011 to 2014 Indoor Nationals, and they average a 2 to 3 percent turnout. 2014 averaged a 2.5 percent turnout for Barebow and traditional combined across all divisions. 

So, a 2-3 percent number is sustainable for USA Archery. If interest can be generated to hit that percentage for Outdoor Nationals, it's able to be argued for to the board and the organizers.

-Steve


----------



## gitnbetr (Jan 17, 2007)

I for one came very close to not shooting at all at the National indoors because of the BS USAA put forth as to classes for barebow. The only reason I shot was because of my respect for Lizard and Jim and their tournament in Ohio. I decided to shoot in Recurve instead of Barebow because that gave me a chance to learn how I could shoot the newly allowed stabilizer for NFAA traditional in the upcoming NFAA National indoor. As John and others have pointed out and have been largely ignored in doing so, we will never know how many others did not shoot because of the USAA barriers that were erected. I thought it amusing that the first place and 5th place shooters in Recurve Master 60+ USAA 2014 National indoor shot BAREBOW, not recurve rigs.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> On a side note, I did go through the 2011 to 2014 Indoor Nationals, and they average a 2 to 3 percent turnout. 2014 averaged a 2.5 percent turnout for Barebow and traditional combined across all divisions.
> 
> So, a 2-3 percent number is sustainable for USA Archery. If interest can be generated to hit that percentage for Outdoor Nationals, it's able to be argued for to the board and the organizers.
> 
> -Steve


For the last say 15 years I have been trying to get barebow JOAD into at least Indoor nationals. This same argument is always thrown back to me. There aren't enough archers to justify. I simply respond, how do you know until you offer the division. I looked at the combined Indoor 4H tournament, TSAA state indoor and Texas Field Archery indoor and there were 154 archers that shot barebow or traditional. This does not include the state NASP tournament. When I look through the names to eliminate folks that shot multiple events there seems to be about 130 archers that shoot barebow or traditional in Texas that we can attract to tournaments that punch holes in paper. I don't know how many more there are shooting 3D. About 6 years ago, the TSAA officers, of which I was one, said we can't wait on USA Archery and we started offering barebow in Texas JOAD archery. They now represent anywhere from 10-15 percent of the entries. At our just completed State JOAD we had 14% barebow archers. My point is that until it is offered and supported, you will never know the number you will attract. I do know there is not a better time to try with the Hollywood bump we have had in archery interest. I remember when computer workstations were first being introduced into the chemical plant I was a manager for (yes I am that old). We were asked to justify the expense before we could purchase it. I just laughed and said we have no earthly idea what the potential is for the use of this tool until we get it in our hands to play with it. I ended up justifying it by saying we wouldn't hire two secretaries to do our typing for us as we grew. Likewise, we have no idea how many kids we could attract and the multiplier effect for membership until we offer the division for a couple of years. And, this is just a cursory part of the issue. This thread is for adult barebow which we are phasing out. JOAD barebow is not even being discussed, except by a few of us. But, I can assure everyone of one thing. Without JOAD barebow, there will be no adult barebow to speak of once the current adult players move on.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

gitnbetr said:


> I for one came very close to not shooting at all at the National indoors because of the BS USAA put forth as to classes for barebow. The only reason I shot was because of my respect for Lizard and Jim and their tournament in Ohio. I decided to shoot in Recurve instead of Barebow because that gave me a chance to learn how I could shoot the newly allowed stabilizer for NFAA traditional in the upcoming NFAA National indoor. As John and others have pointed out and have been largely ignored in doing so, we will never know how many others did not shoot because of the USAA barriers that were erected. I thought it amusing that the first place and 5th place shooters in Recurve Master 60+ USAA 2014 National indoor shot BAREBOW, not recurve rigs.


Precisely. If a barebow archer shoots as a recurve their numbers get buried in the statistics. There have been some kids that have done that for years.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> why would a business dedicate the resources, even though it's a minimal amount of resources, to that group?


Wrong argument for a NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WAS CREATED TO SERVE THE MEMBERSHIP. 

I'm getting pretty da*& tired of the "they're only 2-3%" argument. Barebow archery has the longest tradition of any discipline in the sport. It is also the pathway INTO the sport for about 99% of archers. Who among us didn't get our start with a BARE BOW for pete's sake?

USArchery needs to figure out what they are. Are they a NON-PROFIT that exists to serve the membership, or are they a division of USOC and World Archery?

I've said it for years. A man can't serve two masters.

Why we can't have USArchery working for USOC and WA and the NAA/NFAA working for the recreational member, is beyond me. 

I wish like He## that the NFAA and USArchery would get together, and make this happen. Let USArchery handle all the national and international teams, and NAA/NFAA handle recreational membership, programs and events. If an archer wants to shoot the USAT series, they can join USArchery. But Nationals should remain an "open" event - with qualifiers if necessary (Like USGA does with the U.S. Open) - but still an open event for recreational archers who can qualify. 

Two organizations, one for the "professional" or semi-professional archer, and one for the recreational archer. Just like the PGA and USGA cover golf.

I don't see why on earth is this so difficult and why us archers always have to re-invent the wheel.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

TomB said:


> They now represent anywhere from 10-15 percent of the entries. At our just completed State JOAD we had 14% barebow archers.


Some extra support for Tom: My club is hosting one of the TOTS events this weekend. I just checked the numbers and 34% of the registered archers are barebow. Tom's right. We have the archers, USAA just needs to not only give them the chance to shoot, but also show that barebow is a meaningful part of the archery community.

(On a personal note, this post marks my 1,000th smart ass comment on this forum. :darkbeer


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Why on earth is this so difficult.


Because USA Archery isn't interested and NFAA seems to be in status quo mode.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Beastmaster said:


> If the NASP program was so successful in converting people to archery, we collectively would see a huge jump in Barebow style competition across all ranks.
> 
> Instead, you don't. Bear in mind that the 2.3 million number is merely smoke and mirrors due to the amount of kids that get shuffled through the Physical education portion of NASP. Many schools do not have the resources to field an adequate or competitive team.
> 
> _NASP tends to be very insular in nature. They do not give any growth path for the success of the archer outside of their world._ That's a severe problem in their marketing department.


I can attest to this firsthand. I've contacted almost every school in my area regarding offering archery opps outside the school NASP program, and almost none of those schools program leaders have shown the slightest interest in that idea. I've had better luck with schools that don't have an NASP program. 
But, word of mouth, nonetheless, has brought me some NASP competitors who want to improve their form and shooting skills and improve their chances next year of success in NASP competition. Maybe if these students have some notable success, it will get the attention of some of the NASP school people around here.

As an anecdote, I watched about 300 kids at NASP regionals this Spring, and saw maybe only five kids that looked like they actually had had some decent 'form, shot sequence' (anchor, alignment, back tension, etc) instruction. Many of them looked like Obama throwing a baseball.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, in fairness, NASP instructors often only have a day's worth of archery instruction themselves. 

Again, it's an INTRODUCTION program, and the focus is as much on giving kids a reason to go to school and learn to focus/concentrate/try, as it is about archery. I think too many folks want to turn NASP into something that it was never designed to be. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about archery any more than the First Tee program is about golf. Archery and golf are merely the teaching tools.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Well, in fairness, NASP instructors often only have a day's worth of archery instruction themselves.


Hehe. And our Level 2 program isn't much better either. 

I did have the lead NASP BAI person here in Arizona tell me that if I took his BAI course, I would become a far better instructor than what USA Archery and the NFAA has with their Level 3 and 4 programs. I found that an interesting statement.



> Again, it's an INTRODUCTION program, and the focus is as much on giving kids a reason to go to school and learn to focus/concentrate/try, as it is about archery. I think too many folks want to turn NASP into something that it was never designed to be. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about archery any more than the First Tee program is about golf. Archery and golf are merely the teaching tools.


NASP roots is/was to generate more interest in bowhunters and bowhunting. It has been extremely successful in generating interest, and the millions of kids that have run through it's program have all been exposed to archery when normally they would not have.

The problem is that we (as an industry) do not have a decent transition program to divert the NASP kids either into a good recreational program or a good competitive program (for the rare nuggets that crop up) after they are done with NASP.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

lksseven said:


> I can attest to this firsthand. I've contacted almost every school in my area regarding offering archery opps outside the school NASP program, and almost none of those schools program leaders have shown the slightest interest in that idea. I've had better luck with schools that don't have an NASP program.
> But, word of mouth, nonetheless, has brought me some NASP competitors who want to improve their form and shooting skills and improve their chances next year of success in NASP competition. Maybe if these students have some notable success, it will get the attention of some of the NASP school people around here.
> 
> As an anecdote, I watched about 300 kids at NASP regionals this Spring, and saw maybe only five kids that looked like they actually had had some decent 'form, shot sequence' (anchor, alignment, back tension, etc) instruction. Many of them looked like Obama throwing a baseball.


How many of them own their own Genesis bow? It would be interesting to see how many own their own versus use the state/club owned equipment.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The problem is that we (as an industry) do not have a decent transition program to divert the NASP kids either into a good recreational program or a good competitive program (for the rare nuggets that crop up) after they are done with NASP.


Yup, just as D Winslow so eloquently stated. However, we're doing our part here in Texas, and sounds like you are in AZ as well. And USArchery did a "little" bit to help when they included Genesis bows along with barebow in their JOAD/AA achievement matrix. So there are areas of progress.

I was one of the original JDT coaches (little-known fact these days) and we pulled into the pilot program (before the title JDT existed) the top two NASP shooters in the nation - one boy and one girl. And man could they ever shoot those Genesis bows. They shot a demo for the other JDT kids, RA's and coach Lee one afternoon, and I'm not sure I could have out-shot them with those bows. They never missed. But for whatever reason (would be a great question to ask those two today), despite all the training opportunity they were given, Ashley and Chad chose not to stick with the Olympic recurves. 

This is an interesting read from the past, and there are some clues in it.

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/localsports/x681537322/Olympic-Hopefuls/print

So, right there is one example for USArchery can learn from. If the most competitive NASP kids are not willing to switch to a bow with sights/clicker/stabilizer, what does that tell you? It tells me they love to shoot barebow, and appreciate it as it's own competitive division. 

On the other hand, I understand Mackenzie Brown is an archer who successfully made the NASP/Olympic recurve transition. So, choose your data, right?!? ha, ha. 

When I see Mackenzie next, I'm going to ask her if she misses shooting barebow, and when her Olympic recurve career is over, if she's going to go back. Should be interesting to hear what she says.

John


----------



## D_Winslow (Mar 20, 2014)

Beastmaster said:


> ...If one extrapolated the 2 percent from all the entrants (as of 6/6, there is 469 archers registered), you get just under 10 archers if you use the 2 percent extrapolation. If you take the 33 archers from Texas and Arizona, you're looking at 6/10th of an archer.
> 
> How does one justify that to a tournament organizer?


I would agree that fragmentation and low numbers in any class "should" cause concern and perhaps action. But the action USSA has taken to eliminate barebow is directed in a wrong way against and all too important discipline. 

I would agree that there must be the big three "Barebow, Recurve and Compound". If USAA believes there is too much fragmentation than they should explore ways to consolidate within those three main classes(or not). But barebow is the feeder to the other two classes. Although it can be a lifelong discipline for some, USAA and USOC should view the barebow class as to what little league does for college and pro levels. It's where it all begins.

I would wager if someone were to pole the 10,500 NASP archers and 20,000 parents as each walked through the entry into the Kentucky Expo Hall, than less that 2 percent had even heard of JOAD or USAA. That is not a NASP marketing problem it is a USAA marketing problem (and one that is so easy to fix).

If you were to pole those same 30,000 individuals this year if they have heard of IBO or 3D, I guarantee nearly half would say "why yes". Because 1/4 of the attendees shot in the IBO 3D Tournament that NASP had during the National Target Tournament. I bet next year the IBO 3D entries will exceed 5000. I may be mistaken, but the NASP IBO Tournament was the largest IBO 3D Tournament ever held. And it was ALL BAREBOW. However, before this year's NASP IBO tournament I can attest that probably less than one tenth of one percent of the previous years 9800 NASP National attendees could say they had heard of IBO or 3D archery.

If IBO can do it I would think USAA could do it. USAA needs to jump into NASP and partner with them in a big way like IBO has. And NOT because we want a bigger barebow turnout at USAA events, but because NASP is HUGE and these archers are VERY talented in spite of the bottom 10% that may have been seen shooting like Obama throws. Most of these archers would transition to compete in bigger classes and divisions with all the strapped on gadgetry, if presented the opportunity. 

It's also EXTREMELY important that USAA understand the simplicity of the barebow class as an entry point is what makes the sport accessible and appealing to the beginner. The simplistic NASP model of one bow, one arrow, one class, is a primary reasons the NASP program is so hugely successful. One look at a full fledged, decked out Hoyt rig is enough to scare off anyone looking at "Exploring Archery".


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

D, I'm glad you mentioned "Explore Archery." For the life of me, I can't understand why USAA would invest resources in a program that competes with a highly successful program that doesn't compete in any way with USAA. It just doesn't make sense why they would roll out Explore Archery or Olympic Archery in the Schools (OAS) when those programs already exist and have huge numbers. It would have made much more sense to partner with NASP and ASAP, give them support, and use their success to show kids where they can take that next step. The schools across the nation aren't going to be interested in having two archery programs. They're going to see it as a waste of time and resources. They aren't going to get excited about changing the program, either. It works, why "fix it" with OAS? They're just going to have to send the teachers for more training and buy more and specialized equipment.

It just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

"not our idea" is unfortunately a major roadblock to progress and inclusion in our sport. Trenches get dug, masters need to be served, egos must be stroked...

When you don't invent the program, you can't control the message, I'm afraid. Competing sponsors will be the death of us.

You know the real irony of NASP not being welcomed into USArchery is that every single NASP archer is shooting a World Archery/USArchery target face. I have to laugh every time I see this and think about it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> D, I'm glad you mentioned "Explore Archery." For the life of me, I can't understand why USAA would invest resources in a program that competes with a highly successful program that doesn't compete in any way with USAA.


This is the first I've heard of it. Clearly I've not been paying attention. From the USAA site:



> You can utilize Explore Archery to either start new archery programs or to complement existing programs. Explore Archery is designed for:
> 
> Park and Recreation Departments
> Camps
> ...


Notice who's missing from that list? JOAD clubs. The JOAD requirement that everyone must be a USAA member (with limited, temporary exemptions) would make it harder to utilize the "Explore Archery" marketing and curricula for summer programs. Granted, I don't know if any JOADs would want to run one of these sessions, but if the USAA plan is for people taking them to "graduate" to JOAD, then shouldn't JOADs be integrated with this plan, rather than just imposed upon by USAA? :dontknow:

I'm glad USAA is working on more grass roots opportunities, but I wish they'd bothered to try to integrate them with existing programs better, and offer more official opportunities for, you know, barebow, since that is what people are taught in these kinds of programs.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> If the NASP program was so successful in converting people to archery, we collectively would see a huge jump in Barebow style competition across all ranks.
> 
> Instead, you don't. Bear in mind that the 2.3 million number is merely smoke and mirrors due to the amount of kids that get shuffled through the Physical education portion of NASP. Many schools do not have the resources to field an adequate or competitive team.
> 
> NASP tends to be very insular in nature. They do not give any growth path for the success of the archer outside of their world. That's a severe problem in their marketing department.


In Washington, we have been inviting NASP archers to our indoor events for the past three years. We modify the rules a little so that the NASP archers are only required to shoot one round (the official event is two rounds on two days, and the logistics of school group travel was keeping a lot of the kids / coaches away). We also waive the usual State and National association membership requirement for archers competing in the NASP division - restricted to Original Genesis bows, full length aluminum 1820 arrows, no sights, no release aids.

Result is that we have so many in this category, they make up 1/3 to 1/2 of the total competition. We hold the Indoor at three locations across the state (because of winter travel) and some of the sites have had to add several additional lines to accommodate all the NASP archers.

This is of course different from USAA / WA "barebow" because of the Genesis bow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Actually, USAA barebow includes Genesis now - at least for JOAD and AA achievement recognition. Wouldn't be any harm at all,or cost anyone a red cent, to allow Genesis bows into JOAD Indoor Nationals in the barebow division. (hint, hint USAA). Talk about an easy way to increase participation and add members.


----------

