# Kind of sad really.....NFAA Field Nationals



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

It's NFAA Field Nationals week and there's not a topic on here about it. I guess that's indicative of how interested the field archery loyal are to go back to Yankton for the second time in three years. 

Yes, it will be a well run tournament at a state of the art archery facility. And Yankton is a relatively nice midwest farm town. What's not to like?

Anyone else going?


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

I tried to convince myself to go, but honestly the pics and video I've seen of the Yankton courses are uninspiring based on the lack of terrain and lighting conditions. Maybe there's more there than it appears, but Mburg has the least "interesting" courses in our area, and Yankton looks even more so.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

nestly, they did an amazing job on the three main ranges at Yankton considering what they had to work with. They are similar to Mechanicsburg but less intricate. 

Hate that you aren't making the trip but totally understand.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

The Army Guard came in and added more Hilly terrain from what I understand earlier this spring. Yes I am going as it is the closest to where I now live.


----------



## Bikeman CU (Nov 27, 2005)

I'm going for the second time. Will see how it compares to the last Nationals at Yankton. NFAA website states bring your boots due too flooding. Anybody have current information on range conditions? Another reason to go is the buffet at JoDeans' in Yankton.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Water proof shoes or boots as they have put wood pallets in the flooded areas.
As per my local connection.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

I’m not making the trip... thought about it for a minute but just didn’t get to work the trip into my schedule. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Well, Yankton is a pleasant 71 degrees today under the clouds. This is just like shooting someplace beautiful. Only it's not......


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Lazarus said:


> Well, Yankton is a pleasant 71 degrees today under the clouds. This is just like shooting someplace beautiful. Only it's not......


Haha. 71 sounds like pure heaven, the heat index was 110 for our 2-day State Field last weekend. Good luck and enjoy the weather, even if the scenery is lacking


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Bowjunky just posted this pic of Stephan Hansen shooting the 40yarder on the pro field course, which means it's a 50cm face. Why, at NFAA Headquarters at a national tournament, are there not 2 faces, as per NFAA Range and Target Guidelines?


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Perhaps I will go someday, but it is not a destination I would normally visit nor on the way to one. More likely I will see Lausanne, Switzerland before that. Not sure why Yankton was chosen for that facility or event.


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

^^^

I've wondered the same thing.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

nestly said:


> Bowjunky just posted this pic of Stephan Hansen shooting the 40yarder on the pro field course, which means it's a 50cm face. Why, at NFAA Headquarters at a national tournament, are there not 2 faces, as per NFAA Range and Target Guidelines?



It’s says MAY use two faces. It’s not mandatory. With the targets they use there’s no way to hang two faces of that size anyway. 

Notice how there are no arrows close to the edge of the dot... they aren’t worried about glance outs 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Brown Hornet said:


> It’s says MAY use two faces. It’s not mandatory. With the targets they use there’s no way to hang two faces of that size anyway.


Section *I.A.1.b. Targets* says that multiples "may" be used, but it also states the "minimum" that must be used. If the bales/butts aren't large enough to accommodate the prescribe minimum number of targets, then the range shouldn't be a NFAA certified course.



Brown Hornet said:


> Notice how there are no arrows close to the edge of the dot... they aren’t worried about glance outs


No arrows near the edge of the spot, or none near the edge of the "X"? The pic is from the Pro range, where an arrow glancing from the "X" into the 5-ring is a point lost on the scorecard.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Brown Hornet said:


> It’s says MAY use two faces. It’s not mandatory. With the targets they use there’s no way to hang two faces of that size anyway.
> 
> Notice how there are no arrows close to the edge of the dot... they aren’t worried about glance outs
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There should have been courtesy targets on all bales with 50cm faces. The butts will allow it, although it's tight. Further, there were no extra targets available. 

The worst error I experienced for the shoot was having 3 pegs yesterday with the wrong group animal target on the butt. The worst was a 32 yard group 4 crow. Holy smokes that thing was little. Given, everyone in the same class shot the same set of targets so no advantages was enjoyed by anyone. But it's a national tournament, what if someone was shooting for a new record and a 32 yard crow cost them from setting a new mark? Inexcusable.

Just a couple of more things, it was somewhat annoying to have targets with missing shooting pegs occasionally. The absolute worst and annoying thing about the ranges though is many of the pegs are half yellow, yellow letters, yellow rings around the outside etc, Yellow is only supposed to be used on animal pegs, many of the half yellow pegs had nothing to do with the animal round. As a former state director and Sectional councilman I doubt I would have approved any of the ranges we shot this weekend. 

Having said all that, the NFAA folks did a pretty descent job of playing the cards they were dealt regarding all the water issues. Was a pretty well run tournament I think. But still, one of the most technically boring field range settings imaginable.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Lazarus said:


> There should have been courtesy targets on all bales with 50cm faces. The butts will allow it, although it's tight. Further, there were no extra targets available.
> 
> The worst error I experienced for the shoot was having 3 pegs yesterday with the wrong group animal target on the butt. The worst was a 32 yard group 4 crow. Holy smokes that thing was little. Given, everyone in the same class shot the same set of targets so no advantages was enjoyed by anyone. But it's a national tournament, what if someone was shooting for a new record and a 32 yard crow cost them from setting a new mark? Inexcusable.
> 
> ...


Wow. those mis-faced targets are inexcusable. Watching the BowJunky coverage yesterday, the Animal round on the pro course (Missouri) struck me as being exceptionally "short" so I looked it up and yeah, according to the range maps, 17 out of 28 targets were closer than halfway between the min and max distances the animals may be placed. For comparison, Mechanicburg has only 8 out of 28 animals that are shot at less than half the permissible distance. 

A crow at 32 is crazy though. The pros shot their crow at 14 yards, so less than half as far as you had to shoot it. 

I'm not sorry I skipped it now. Reports of little or no shade on Field courses in July is not very appealing to me. It's a shame that NFAA invested so much building Field courses at a location that's so flat/open/boring.


----------



## Bikeman CU (Nov 27, 2005)

Lazarus said:


> There should have been courtesy targets on all bales with 50cm faces. The butts will allow it, although it's tight. Further, there were no extra targets available.
> 
> The worst error I experienced for the shoot was having 3 pegs yesterday with the wrong group animal target on the butt. The worst was a 32 yard group 4 crow. Holy smokes that thing was little. Given, everyone in the same class shot the same set of targets so no advantages was enjoyed by anyone. But it's a national tournament, what if someone was shooting for a new record and a 32 yard crow cost them from setting a new mark? Inexcusable.
> 
> ...


 Regarding the 32 yard crow on target 12, Rushmore range, I shot a 20, missed the bonus spot. Finished with a 579, tied the national record animal round for Silver Senior Male Free Style. Got a bowl, can't complain. I was not aware of the record until after I was finished. In my group we thought the raccoon at 10 yards was unusual to say the least. Don't recall if the raccoon was on target 3 or 18, both 10 yards. Shot 21 on both of those. Two faces on the 50 cm distances would be nice. Having extra faces for replacement after 14 target should be a requirement. One of our last targets was a 40 yarder, the spot was falling out of it. The last Nationals at Yankton there were extra faces. The fan spacing needs to be improved.
The rounds were long and hot, lukewarm water from the coolers wasn't cutting it. To provide better concessions, food and drinks, on the range, open it up to groups to run it as a fund raiser. At the Wisconsin State Indoor the concessions is run by a high school group as a fund raiser. 
Sunday evening I walked up to the ranges from the Best Western, I saw maybe 3 pieces of litter in the parking lot and a couple of water bottles on Rushmore. We left the place in good condition considering the number of people.


----------



## nock tune (Jul 5, 2009)

You all do know that the the field archery is the red headed step child of the NFAA and you know who!


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Bikeman CU said:


> Regarding the 32 yard crow on target 12, Rushmore range, I shot a 20, missed the bonus spot. Finished with a 579, tied the national record animal round for Silver Senior Male Free Style. Got a bowl, can't complain. I was not aware of the record until after I was finished.


First, GREAT shooting and congratulations! Second, wow. Never knew the possibility of that crow target costing someone a record would actually happen. That's too bad, sorry to hear that. I was one of the guys in the group in front of you yesterday, the one who showed up with brain clearly dis-engaged. Nevertheless, I think your rundown of the tournament above was fair. No bashing........just straight up facts.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

nock tune said:


> You all do know that the the field archery is the red headed step child of the NFAA and you know who!


I disagree. I believe it's worse than that.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Bikeman CU said:


> Regarding the 32 yard crow on target 12, Rushmore range, I shot a 20, missed the bonus spot. Finished with a 579, tied the national record animal round for Silver Senior Male Free Style. Got a bowl, can't complain. I was not aware of the record until after I was finished. In my group we thought the raccoon at 10 yards was unusual to say the least. Don't recall if the raccoon was on target 3 or 18, both 10 yards. Shot 21 on both of those. Two faces on the 50 cm distances would be nice. Having extra faces for replacement after 14 target should be a requirement. One of our last targets was a 40 yarder, the spot was falling out of it. The last Nationals at Yankton there were extra faces. The fan spacing needs to be improved.
> The rounds were long and hot, lukewarm water from the coolers wasn't cutting it. To provide better concessions, food and drinks, on the range, open it up to groups to run it as a fund raiser. At the Wisconsin State Indoor the concessions is run by a high school group as a fund raiser.
> Sunday evening I walked up to the ranges from the Best Western, I saw maybe 3 pieces of litter in the parking lot and a couple of water bottles on Rushmore. We left the place in good condition considering the number of people.


Congrats on the win and getting a piece of the record. 
I don't understand the target face mistakes or the lack of preparedness keeping food/water available, especially at NFAA Headquarters during Nationals. There were also issues with the target butts and target faces at MidAtlantic Sectionals this year, and also problems with empty coolers on the course (104 heat index). I don't get it, if you want to host the shoot, put in the effort to do it correctly


----------



## Bikeman CU (Nov 27, 2005)

Lazarus said:


> First, GREAT shooting and congratulations! Second, wow. Never knew the possibility of that crow target costing someone a record would actually happen. That's too bad, sorry to hear that. I was one of the guys in the group in front of you yesterday, the one who showed up with brain clearly dis-engaged. Nevertheless, I think your rundown of the tournament above was fair. No bashing........just straight up facts.


 Thanks guys. There were a couple targets I should have hit but didn't, you know how that goes. Maybe the NFAA should have a "Rain Factor" score adjustment, LOL. NFAA here is an idea- Buy a bunch of ice chests, put ice, food and water in them and run on the honor system, $1.00 per item. After placing targets have a Director walk the range and approve it. Were the ranges checked prior to shooting each day?


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

If a record is set on a course not in full compliance then it is not a record.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

archer_nm said:


> If a record is set on a course not in full compliance then it is not a record.
> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news


It will be interesting to see how NFAA handles it (if they are even aware)? I know it's not quite the same thing, but Linda Ochoa and Paige Pierce both broke the NFAA Outdoor Marked record this year even though one of the dots was the wrong size so everyone got a 22 on that target whether they earned a 22 or not.


----------



## Bikeman CU (Nov 27, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> If a record is set on a course not in full compliance then it is not a record.
> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news


 My questions- Did a NFAA Official certify the ranges prior to each days shooting? If they did, who certified Rushmore Animal coarse on Sunday? Why were we shooting a Range not in compliance at a National Championship Tournament? The record is nice to have, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.


----------



## huteson2us2 (Jun 22, 2005)

I am in Seattle right now near Darrington where the Nationals were suppose to be this year. Last January I had my kids in the Seattle area put in for vacation at this time as the Nationals were there and I was coming. The NFAA changed the location to Yangton, but my kids still had their vacations set so I had to go to Seattle. Next year I will wait until Bruce decides whether he wants the Nationals back in his home town of Yangton again before I make plans. Next year is an Anniversary year for the NFAA, so I would not be surprised if it is not back in Yangton again next year.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Bikeman CU said:


> My questions- Why were we shooting a Range not in compliance at a National Championship Tournament?


Shaking my head. This was a national tournament. And a stone's throw from the national headquarters. The organizers should be ashamed, but they're probably not.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Bikeman CU said:


> My questions- Did a NFAA Official certify the ranges prior to each days shooting? If they did, who certified Rushmore Animal coarse on Sunday? Why were we shooting a Range not in compliance at a National Championship Tournament? The record is nice to have, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.


The ranges should have been certified before the event. They weren't, if they were, whoever certified them did a poor job. Hanging the targets, the proper target on the proper butt should be a no brainer. But they should be double checked before the start of shooting regardless. They weren't. 

I think one of the problems at this tournament was this; some of the directors/councilmen were actually shooting a bow on the course. Which in and of itself is somewhat refreshing since finding a councilman/director that actually shoots a bow is about like finding a unicorn. *Please, to my director friends that actually do shoot a bow, no offense intended.*  

In spite of the above, it was still a fun tournament.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

huteson2us2 said:


> I am in Seattle right now near Darrington where the Nationals were suppose to be this year. Last January I had my kids in the Seattle area put in for vacation at this time as the Nationals were there and I was coming. The NFAA changed the location to Yangton, but my kids still had their vacations set so I had to go to Seattle. Next year I will wait until Bruce decides whether he wants the Nationals back in his home town of Yangton again before I make plans. Next year is an Anniversary year for the NFAA, so I would not be surprised if it is not back in Yangton again next year.


The story I heard was Darrington decided they didn't want NFAA Outdoor Nationals this year (2019) due to another event they had to prepare for. As far as I know, it's always been the case that next year's shoot is only scheduled 1 year ahead. It's unfortunate that the "expected" rotation got interrupted, but AFAIK, it never was actually scheduled to be in Darrington in 2019.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

nestly said:


> The story I heard was Darrington decided they didn't want NFAA Outdoor Nationals this year (2019) due to another event they had to prepare for. As far as I know, it's always been the case that next year's shoot is only scheduled 1 year ahead. It's unfortunate that the "expected" rotation got interrupted, but AFAIK, it never was actually scheduled to be in Darrington in 2019.


*Darrington was asked to switch. They were ready to host the 2019 Nationals. It was Yankton that requested the change. After, the 2019 location was changed, the archers in Washington were concerned that Darrington giving it up would be the last time the Nationals would be held there. I spoke with Tom Daley about this issue at Redding and again in Yankton. He told me, the Nationals will be held in Darrington, unless they (Darrington) turns it down or isn't prepared for the shoot. So, as of today 2020 Nationals are scheduled for Darrington WA.*


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Are Nat locations not decided by bids put in by potential host clubs and voted upon a year in advance? Perhaps Darrington was requested not to submit a bid for 2019, but I don't think 2019 was ever "theirs" and then "taken" from them as has been suggested.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

On my course for the Animal round (Badlands), there was also a target miss-measured. The stake said 28 yards, but it was about 4 yards in front of the 30 yard field stake, so our group shot it for 26 yards and all got 20 points.

It was really hard to understand using white stakes with the word Hunter written on them as the hunter round stakes, instead of making some red stakes.

And fundamentally, using the Morrell target butts with the animals and so forth printed on the bale covers also violates an NFAA rule "They shall not be placed over any other larger targets nor shall there be any marks on the target butt or foreground that could be used as points of aim." Look at the photo in Nestly's post!


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Linda where did you find the violations in the rule book??


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> Linda where did you find the violations in the rule book??



What I'm going to look in to is how they violated the Constutution by submitting an agenda item last minute (bending the procedure but probably legal,) presenting it for a vote, it gets tabled, but somehow its agreed to use the agenda item (the new proposed field/hunter/animal round) for sectionals next year.....even though the item was tabled. 

I'm probably wrong but none of it passes the smell test. I know the Executive branch is really adept at manipulating Roberts rules but not sure how this can be right.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

It was a 15 signature item (as far as I know) and it was brought back to the floor by some one on the winning side and it got a second all are in accordance with Roberts Rule of Order and the Constitution of the NFAA. As the former Southwest Councilman 2007 - 2017 all is legal. What all of you need to know, at that Level of the NFAA it is politics it can be real.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

I attended Yankton for the last time. I try to attend every Outdoor Nationals but this year was terrible. The animal round had 3 issues, one target shot at wrong distance, a 57 yard walkup that the 57 was between the 48 and 44 yard makers for the hunter round, the 28 that was probably 23 or so. Let alone white markers with a magic marker saying animal. Lol. Field round two targets didn’t have any field markers, we had to “guess”.... hunter round there was a red gator aid cap marked 53!!! This was a National Championship for god sakes. Let alone yardages were suspect, Many told me they were glad they had their range finders as “temporary markers” were sometimes off by 2 yards. Let’s not even discuss the flooding and bugs.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> It was a 15 signature item (as far as I know) and it was brought back to the floor by some one on the winning side and it got a second all are in accordance with Roberts Rule of Order and the Constitution of the NFAA. As the former Southwest Councilman 2007 - 2017 all is legal. What all of you need to know, at that Level of the NFAA it is politics it can be real.


You were there then when Bruce with aid of his lackey Tim Austin suspended Roberts rules long enough to take a vote for the directors to meet only bi-annually, get the vote, then re-instate Roberts rules. Never seen anything quite like that. And one of the dumbest things the directors have ever done. Or even allowed to happen. 

Yes, the politics are real. That's why it's so tough to find good people that want to be a part of it. 

I'm still not convinced they acted appropriately on these round changes. How can an agenda item be tabled then a decision be made to use the round (if only on a trial basis?)


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Who said it was tabled? I under stand it was passed to be implemented in full then Gary McCain thought it over and got it brought back up and after further discussion it was put in as amended on a trial bases. That came from Gary directly


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Ok, I believe both the KS and MO directors told me it was tabled. I may have misunderstood. Either way it's the wrong way to go about it. Most people who I know have looked into the changes strongly disagree with them.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Time will tell and I am with you it stinks, my councilman said it is not an approved NFAA round and therefore we should not be using at the Sectional level. The fight may not be over.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Totally agree about the unapproved round. Isn't right. Can't be.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

rsarns said:


> I attended Yankton for the last time. I try to attend every Outdoor Nationals but this year was terrible. The animal round had 3 issues, one target shot at wrong distance, a 57 yard walkup that the 57 was between the 48 and 44 yard makers for the hunter round, the 28 that was probably 23 or so. Let alone white markers with a magic marker saying animal. Lol. Field round two targets didn’t have any field markers, we had to “guess”.... hunter round there was a red gator aid cap marked 53!!! This was a National Championship for god sakes. Let alone yardages were suspect, Many told me they were glad they had their range finders as “temporary markers” were sometimes off by 2 yards. Let’s not even discuss the flooding and bugs.


Absolutely shameful. A national tournament in the backyard of the national headquarters.


----------



## Bikeman CU (Nov 27, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> Linda where did you find the violations in the rule book??


C. Targets:
1. They shall not be placed over any other larger targets nor shall there be any
marks on the target butt or foreground that could be used as points of aim.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Wonder how the RIC would interrupt that rule? I can see the larger target situation, but the bags are the question. You could use anything on the butt to am at


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

archer_nm said:


> Wonder how the RIC would interrupt that rule? I can see the larger target situation, but the bags are the question. You could use anything on the butt to am at


I personally don't have a big problem the bag covers not being mono-chromatic. I don't think they provide any archer a potential advantage, which is no doubt the reason for that rule, but the rule(s) in place should be adhered, especially at NFAA Headquarters. It's terrible optics, and dangerous precedent when HQ can't/won't even do it right.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

You are 100% correct and there needs to be some major changes at that level.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

archer_nm said:


> Linda where did you find the violations in the rule book??


BY-LAWS
ARTICLE I
General Rules for Field Archery Games
The following applies to all NFAA approved rounds
C. Targets:
1. They shall not be placed over any other larger targets nor shall there be any marks on the target butt or foreground that could be used as points of aim.

(page 28 of the current Constitution and By-Laws book)


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Linda it was answered a few post ago but thanks anyway


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

That rule is useless.... it’s 2019. With today’s bows nobody is using the marks on a bag to aim off. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Brown Hornet said:


> That rule is useless.... it’s 2019. With today’s bows nobody is using the marks on a bag to aim off.


Some forms of barebow would/could benefit from additional reference points on the target/target butt, so could bowhunter/fixed pin classes. But even if they could, I agree that rule is not needed for this round because everyone in the class shoots the targets. Additional reference marks for rounds like indoor should continue to be restricted because every archer shoots a different target/face.

My issue is that it looks bad visually, also if they had hung a 2nd courtesy target at 35 thru 50 yards like they "should" have, the markings on the bag faces would have been mostly covered anyway.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Brown Hornet said:


> That rule is useless.... it’s 2019. With today’s bows nobody is using the marks on a bag to aim off.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Gap shooters do and did. Remember we still have non sight shooters like me.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

rsarns said:


> Gap shooters do and did. Remember we still have non sight shooters like me.


So 1% of the participants had help on a couple targets and still probably shot the same scores 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Brown Hornet said:


> So 1% of the participants had help on a couple targets and still probably shot the same scores
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If that's the ways "rules" are veiwed theres an aweful lot of them that could be cut out. Most rules arent in place because most would break them if they werent....they are in place because "some" will.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk


----------

