# Changes to NFAA Field round?



## nestly

If I have my info right, a proposal passed the vote that would change NFAA Field from 4 arrows at 28 targets (112 arrows total) to 3 arrows at 24 targets (72 arrows total). The Fans and the Walkups are the target stations that will be eliminated. Other changes permit the archer to shoot at any target on the bale. Apparently, this will be implemented at Sectionals next year, then considered again before making it a permanent change at Nationals. 

Personally, I think it stinks. We already have a 72 arrow/24 target round. It's called FITA Field, and as much we complain about low numbers in NFAA Field, they're much worse in FITA Field here in the US from what I can tell, so I think the reps that voted to turn NFAA Field into FITA Field didn't really put enough thought into this and/ore spent too much time in the sun last weekend.


----------



## LongTime

I for years thought we would get more people in field archery if we changed it to a 3 arrow per target round. It has my vote.


----------



## archer_nm

I don't like it at all, my Director will hear from me, I would suggest all of you let your Directors you feel


----------



## Bikeman CU

Not in favor of removing 80 yard walk-up. If you want to shorten the round just shoot 14 targets or remove everything 15 yards and under or shoot 3 arrow ends for 84 arrows. The membership should have been informed and allowed to have input. The length of time to shoot a round is more of a course set-up issue. At Yankton on the Rushmore range they had an elevated stand- 30 steps up for a 20 yard shot. Then 30 steps down to score. Shooting lanes only wide enough for 1 or 2 people. It's not the shooting time, it's the waiting to shoot time. Flooding was an issue at Yankton which they have little control of.


----------



## archer_nm

very good points


----------



## tcking1953

I still believe the outdoor 300 round would be perfect. 60 arrows, 15 targets and done. 10 to 65 yards.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

tcking1953 said:


> I still believe the outdoor 300 round would be perfect. 60 arrows, 15 targets and done. 10 to 65 yards.


The current NFAA Field course is a 280 round. 56 arrows, 14 targets, and when shot with the Hunter face, it's 11yards to 70 yards, so the difference is 1 target butt, 4 arrows total, and 1 yard difference on the close side and 5 yards difference on the long side. It that not already close enough to consider "perfect"?


----------



## archer_nm

I stated above that I hate it, but after thinking I am willing to give it a try. My question what does everyone think would fix the problem. What can we do? Please no haters just good old brain storming.


----------



## pokynojoe

Here in my state there are only two field clubs left, and they are a six hour drive apart. The state of field archery here is basically it's on life support. I'm not much in favor of changing the standard field round, but honestly, I don't think anything they do in Yankton, would improve the situation here. Anything short of super models in bikinis handing out free beer(and honestly, I doubt that would even work)probably won't improve the situation here.

That being the case, in our state, it probably won't help, but it won't hurt either.


----------



## nestly

pokynojoe said:


> Here in my state there are only two field clubs left, and they are a six hour drive apart. The state of field archery here is basically it's on life support. I'm not much in favor of changing the standard field round, but honestly, I don't think anything they do in Yankton, would improve the situation here. Anything short of super models in bikinis handing out free beer(and honestly, I doubt that would even work)probably won't improve the situation here.
> 
> That being the case, in our state, it probably won't help, but it won't hurt either.


You probably hit the nail in the head. Those who voted for it are probably in States where Field is already almost dead....so theres literally nothing to lose, but here in Pa where theres plenty of Field courses and Field shooters we do have something to lose, which is the support of all the field archers that already love field. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with field that this change will fix. The problem is not the round.....its schedules and lack of workers and that wont improve by the proposed changes.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk


----------



## V-STROM 650

This change strikes me as a double edged sword; you may draw in a few new shooters but will at the same time alienate those that love Field the way it is. Only time and a trial period will tell... We've tried here in WI to draw in new shooters for years by putting on a Lake of the Woods round w/ mixed results. I love shooting spots outside; field will always be my favorite but I think it may be too far gone. Hope Not!


----------



## tcking1953

nestly said:


> The current NFAA Field course is a 280 round. 56 arrows, 14 targets, and when shot with the Hunter face, it's 11yards to 70 yards, so the difference is 1 target butt, 4 arrows total, and 1 yard difference on the close side and 5 yards difference on the long side. It that not already close enough to consider "perfect"?


that would be half of a field round. A field or Hunter round is 28 targets, 560 perfect score.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

tcking1953 said:


> that would be half of a field round. A field or Hunter round is 28 targets, 560 perfect score.


I know, but there are only 14 target stations prescribed for NFAA Field, not 28. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot the same 14 target unit twice to make a full 28 target round, so there's nothing to stop clubs with only 14 targets from holding official NFAA rounds, or they can just have their own shoot on that same course that consists of only 14 (or 14 unit plus 1 for a total of 15) if that's what they think is "perfect" and will appeal to shooters. To that point, I do shoot 14 targets on Wednesday evenings at York Archers as part of a Field league. We alternate units and switch between Field and Hunter faces each week to keep it interesting, but the league is a 14/280 league. So I'm just saying, if "15/300" is what a person or a club thinks is "perfect" just shoot a 15/300 on an existing NFAA Field course. If that type of shoot draws people in, I'm sure NFAA would be interested in seeing the attendance numbers, but I can tell you it doesn't/won't. People that want to shoot Field, do shoot Field, and those that don't come to 560 rounds don't come to 280's (or 300's) either.


----------



## Bikeman CU

We have a 28 target field range in S/E Wisconsin. Within a 2 hour drive we have at least 4 field ranges. For league we shoot 15 targets, extra target is 40 yards for a 300 round. We have 8-10 shooters in league. Tried to increase interest by allowing adults to shoot youth stakes, 50 yard max. No interest from 3D shooters or bowhunters. We also have a 3D league, participation is also down. We have members who only shoot on the practice range, never go on the field range. Explain to them they can walk the range and shoot any distance they want at field or hunter faces, no interest. I don't know what the answer is.


----------



## huteson2us2

I hate the changes that the NFAA makes without consulting the members or getting their input. The field round is dead thanks to changes by the NFAA. We have a nice 28 field course at our range owned by the county. If they have to change the course around, they will just make the range go away. It doesn't pay to maintain as it is. One field tournament every two or three years. Now the county will dismantle it as that would be easier than making the changes. How about all the private ranges maintained by 2 or 3 members?


----------



## archer_nm

No one has made a change this is only a trial period so folks can give it a try and if you don't like now or ever let your Director know. I don't like it either but I applaud them for trying to try something to stop the bleeding.


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> No one has made a change this is only a trial period so folks can give it a try and if you don't like now or ever let your Director know. I don't like it either but I applaud them for trying to try something to stop the bleeding.


With all due respect, this "trial" is worthless. Its only going to be done at the Mids which is 2 days and nobody that doesnt already love Field goes to Mids. So the 50 people that are going to be at Mids anyway are gonna give input and we're gonna decide again next year based on zero shoots that actually had a chance to attract any new shooters

All this is gonna do is sour people like me that do shoot NFAA events but wont be able to justify setting aside 2, 3, or 4 days to go to these shoots and only actually shoot for 2 hours


----------



## archer_nm

Why are you so negative? Please come up with a better idea or make damn sure you bring someone new to your sectional maybe they will like it.


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> Why are you so negative? Please come up with a better idea or make damn sure you bring someone new to your sectional maybe they will like it.


Because I've shot FITA field rounds here in one of the strongholds left in Field archery, and we already have reduced Field rounds to try to entice those that may not be particurally interested in a "full" NFAA round, and those both do much worse on attendance than full Field. We also have social media groups to keep those of us from PA who are dedicated field archers informed about events and schedules, and a significant number of those people have also expressed concern that shortening the round will have the opposite affect as intended. Again, Field is declining here like everywhere, but it's still pretty strong comparitively. (I have 11 clubs with at least one 28 target course within an hour of my house.) There's probably no area in the whole US that has a higher concentration of Field archers than South Eastern PA, the propose changes are going to reduce that number greatly based on the local response if 24/72 becomes the "standard" Field round instead of the current 28/112.

And for the record, I did help introduce multiple shooters to Field this year who had never shot Field before (ditto for each of the previous several years). Both shoot regularly with me at local/state events and one of them accompanied me to Mids, which he won in AMFS.

I'm all for changes that make sense... this one doesn't. It's a desparate Hail Mary, supported by those that think they have nothing to lose, but it's short sighted and there is plenty to be lost, namely everyone that actually still cares about Field enough to still shoot it. FITA Field already shoots 24/72, and that's hurting worse than NFAA Field, so we already have data on whether "shorter" is more appealing to todays archers.


----------



## archer_nm

nestly what is your states web site and not there facebook site?


----------



## nock tune

The International round is a 3 arrow shoot. I always thought at Nationals it could be a 4 day shoot.
International,Field, Hunter, Animal.
I'm not a fan of the change!


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> nestly what is your states web site and not there facebook site?


We have three. 
- FITA Archers of PA
- Pennsylvania Field and Target Archers (PFATA) which is the NFAA affiliate organization.
- Pennsylvania State Archery Association (PSAA) 
Of the three, PSAA (PSAA.net) is "the" archery organization in Pennsylvania and they hold *four* Regional shoots in each of *8 different Regions* annually, as well as *four *2-day State Championships annually, and a one-day State 3D championship. As an organization, NFAA is barely alive in Pennsylvania, but PSAA Field archery is virtually identical to NFAA Field archery with the exception that we use a different naming convention for shooting divisions, and we shoot the Field fan targets in a more logical and intelligent order. In addition to PSAA, there are many local indoor and outdoor leagues that are based on PSAA rules/divisions. PSAA is like the NFAA, only better. PSAA also pre-dates NFAA.


----------



## Unclegus

I'm pushing 70 and not in the greatest health. this change would be a god send for me. NFAA is all but dead here in WV, we just haven't accepted it yet. but I don't see the round changes as a cure all, but it might be a step in the right direction. it kind of bothers me though that people are so closed minded that they won't even accept that something needs to be changed to make it more appealing??????? I do agree the change for the sectionals is not going to be enough to make up people's mind about the new round. Although I kind of think next September when it is voted on to accept or reject the round, it has a good chance of passing.


----------



## archer_nm

Good post Gus and if we don't try something we will surely die. Long live the NFAA.


----------



## huteson2us2

I never liked the number of arrows shot in a round and I know first hand that it is a turn off when trying to get others to try field. My question is what happens to the field courses that are already in place? Do we block off the targets not shot as we do when we have a FITA field round or do the clubs have to rearrange the course to be approved by the NFAA directors. The question is what does Bruce want because that is what will happen.

Our range is owned and ran by the county. They will not rebuild the Field range that is not being used. The county already put a stop to one man that was trying to introduce archers into trying field and showing them the ropes and rules. Did they ever think of keeping the 28 targets but dropping the number of arrows shot to two or one that is so popular among 3D archers. I am 72 and post stroke and only shoot two arrows per target when I practice. The NFAA changed the age groups to match FITA. Which did nothing to increase numbers of participants. Now the NFAA is trying to match the number of targets and arrows to a FITA Field round. My question is whether or not Bruce is for this change. If he is. then it is a done deal. If not then it will be tabled or dismissed as so many bad proposals are.


I have been looking for an excuse to take up 3D and quit paying NFAA dues every year as I have done for over fifty years. I quit the NFAA in 1977 after the target change for a couple of years and decided to join the many friends at the time who change over to 3D. Found out I didn't like 3D and came back to the NFAA for a straight 40 more years. I could use the money that I spend on membership in an organization that cares nothing about the members for something else and Vegas and Redding doesn't require NFAA membership because they are such a money maker. 

I will have to skip the NFAA Nationals next year because who knows where they will be held. I just got back from Seattle because the Nationals was suppose to be in Darrington and I talked my kids into taking their vacation during that time and then Bruce changed the Nationals to his home town. Should I have told my kids that I was not coming during the time they took off for vacation because I had to go to Yangton instead? Next year is the 75th Anniversary of the NFAA. You think Bruce will allow the Nationals to be held any place other than Yangton?

I have had enough. I took the NFAA coaching class twice and then was told that the NFAA turned the records over to the USAA. The USAA told me that they threw the records into the garbage. At Vegas, a couple of years ago, I talked to a Councilman who said that he would look into my coaching certificate after the many hours and hubndreds of dollars that I invested. I never heard back from him but I didn't expect too. I was asked to help give archery lessons at my club but cannot prove that I am qualified. The NFAA still offers the lessons showing that they have joined the other scammers out there.

I remember talking to two councilmen and two state directors trying to stop making 50 a senior. One of them was Archer NM who was the southwest councilman at that time. I was assured by everyone I talked to that the rules would not be changed to make 50 year old a senior. The proposal passed with a unanimous vote. This shows that even when a person makes his opinion known to the NFAA, they will be lied to and ignored. Once again, I know that if Bruce is for the change of trying to make the NFAA Field round similar to the FITA FIELD round, then you might start changing your field course now.


----------



## nestly

huteson2us2 said:


> I never liked the number of arrows shot in a round and I know first hand that it is a turn off when trying to get others to try field. My question is what happens to the field courses that are already in place? Do we block off the targets not shot as we do when we have a FITA field round or do the clubs have to rearrange the course to be approved by the NFAA directors. The question is what does Bruce want because that is what will happen.
> 
> Our range is owned and ran by the county. They will not rebuild the Field range that is not being used. The county already put a stop to one man that was trying to introduce archers into trying field and showing them the ropes and rules. Did they ever think of keeping the 28 targets but dropping the number of arrows shot to two or one that is so popular among 3D archers. I am 72 and post stroke and only shoot two arrows per target when I practice. The NFAA changed the age groups to match FITA. Which did nothing to increase numbers of participants. Now the NFAA is trying to match the number of targets and arrows to a FITA Field round. My question is whether or not Bruce is for this change. If he is. then it is a done deal. If not then it will be tabled or dismissed as so many bad proposals are.
> 
> 
> I have been looking for an excuse to take up 3D and quit paying NFAA dues every year as I have done for over fifty years. I quit the NFAA in 1977 after the target change for a couple of years and decided to join the many friends at the time who change over to 3D. Found out I didn't like 3D and came back to the NFAA for a straight 40 more years. I could use the money that I spend on membership in an organization that cares nothing about the members for something else and Vegas and Redding doesn't require NFAA membership because they are such a money maker.
> 
> I will have to skip the NFAA Nationals next year because who knows where they will be held. I just got back from Seattle because the Nationals was suppose to be in Darrington and I talked my kids into taking their vacation during that time and then Bruce changed the Nationals to his home town. Should I have told my kids that I was not coming during the time they took off for vacation because I had to go to Yangton instead? Next year is the 75th Anniversary of the NFAA. You think Bruce will allow the Nationals to be held any place other than Yangton?
> 
> I have had enough. I took the NFAA coaching class twice and then was told that the NFAA turned the records over to the USAA. The USAA told me that they threw the records into the garbage. At Vegas, a couple of years ago, I talked to a Councilman who said that he would look into my coaching certificate after the many hours and hubndreds of dollars that I invested. I never heard back from him but I didn't expect too. I was asked to help give archery lessons at my club but cannot prove that I am qualified. The NFAA still offers the lessons showing that they have joined the other scammers out there.
> 
> I remember talking to two councilmen and two state directors trying to stop making 50 a senior. One of them was Archer NM who was the southwest councilman at that time. I was assured by everyone I talked to that the rules would not be changed to make 50 year old a senior. The proposal passed with a unanimous vote. This shows that even when a person makes his opinion known to the NFAA, they will be lied to and ignored. Once again, I know that if Bruce is for the change of trying to make the NFAA Field round similar to the FITA FIELD round, then you might start changing your field course now.


Clearly you have an issue with Bruce, perhaps some of it valid?, at least some of it not. Fact is Darrington was never actually scheduled to hold 2019 NFAA Outdoor nationals. You and some others may have made that assumption based on the previous rotation, and I regret it caused you hardship, but 2019 Nats was never scheduled for Darrington and then changed at some later point, not by Bruce, and not by anyone else either. The location was only announced once, and it was Yankton for 2019. 

For the record, 75th Outdoor Nationals in 2020 will be in Darrington July 24-26, 2020 as per NFAA website. If that changes between now and Aug 2020, you will have a valid complaint, but it won't, just like it didn't in 2019. https://www.nfaausa.com/tournament/outdoor-field-nationals/


----------



## archer_nm

Let set the story straight first off as a Councilman I had no vote and anything I would have said was my opinion and I know it was stated to you in that manner. As far as the Nationals being in Yankton you my friend have your story completely wrong, Darrington had range and club issues and were not going to be ready for Nationals (They only have around 7 members), Yankton has a conflict in 2020 and needed to swap with the west cost, this was a mutual agreement between the 2 locations and not Bruce trying to do any harm. Bruce is only the Executive Director and answers to the President in Brian Sheffler. The change in the targets has been laid out and agreed on by a majority of the NFAA State Directors for use at the Sectionals only with a vote on a later date and it will not affect the Outdoor Nationals in 2020. I would suggest you have a long conversation with your State Director on any other issues you have.


----------



## nock tune

Out of the 35 director that made this change you be hard pressed to find many that shoot the Nationals.


----------



## nestly

nock tune said:


> Out of the 35 director that made this change you be hard pressed to find many that shoot the Nationals.


Some don't shoot locally either....


----------



## pahuntr

I would like to see a tabulation of the votes to change on a trial basis. I would hope that something as drastic as changing a field round by eliminating the number of arrows shot at each distance, eliminating several distances, eliminating the fans and walkups, and doing away with the requirement to shoot at a specific target would have been undertaken with a recorded vote! Lets see who voted for what.


----------



## nestly

pahuntr said:


> I would like to see a tabulation of the votes to change on a trial basis. I would hope that something as drastic as changing a field round by eliminating the number of arrows shot at each distance, eliminating several distances, eliminating the fans and walkups, and doing away with the requirement to shoot at a specific target would have been undertaken with a recorded vote! Lets see who voted for what.


Indeed, I would be interested to see the vote tally. I would also like to know when/how this agenda item was proposed, as it's "Agenda code" is handwriten, and I don't see a "C-8" agenda item on the 2019 BOD Agenda published on the NFAA website. https://www.nfaausa.com/wp-content/uploads/BOD-Meeting-Agenda-Items.pdf


----------



## archer_nm

If they called for a roll call vote then there will be a record and if your NFAA Director did their job they kept track on how the other states voted. Check with that person. If you look closely it was a 15 signature Item and was given to them as the last item of business.


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> If they called for a roll call vote then there will be a record and if your NFAA Director did their job they kept track on how the other states voted. Check with that person. If you look closely it was a 15 signature Item and was given to them as the last item of business.


I expect I'll see my State director next weekend (Aug10) at our NFAA State Championship. I'll be submitting my opinion of C-8 changes to him in writing.


----------



## Bikeman CU

So the "new" outdoor round is a trial round. Is this a one year trial? As the Outdoor Range Chairman for my club I will need to make new signs with yardage and target numbers. I hope it does increase participation in outdoor rounds. I don't understand the NFAA. The outdoor round will be "easier". Pro's will score the "X" as six. Non-Pro's will score it as five, but keep an "X" count. Animal round scoring is an improvement, second and third arrow at same distance, if needed. 

Indoors we score the 300 round, five for bullseye, no points for "x", but keep an "X" count. Vegas round score ten for "X", no point for "super X", but count it. For shoot offs the scoring changes. Go to Midwest Open or Iowa Pro-Am or other large Non-NFAA tournaments and we shoot a 360 round or 330 round. The "X" gets a point value. Shoot Indoor Sectionals and we shoot a 300 round and also score last game inside out for tie breaker. Can we make the scoring the same for everything? A point value for each ring on the target face. The same for everyone. With electronic scoring at the Indoor Nationals it does not give an "X" count total. Score it as a six. I'm done ranting now, Thank You.


----------



## nestly

Bikeman CU said:


> .... Animal round scoring is an improvement, second and third arrow at same distance, if needed.
> 
> .


I think it depends on the reason for the "miss" If the archers skill level is such that its not a sure thing they will be able to hit the animal at the longest distance, im not sure the point of shooting a 2nd or 3rd from that longer distance? Zeros on the scorecard are not an encouragement for beginners or anyone for that matter. If they cant hit at the far distance let them move up rather than failing a 2nd or 3rd time


----------



## pahuntr

archer_nm said:


> Good post Gus and if we don't try something we will surely die. Long live the NFAA.


Trying "something" just for the sake of something makes no sense whatsoever. Whatever is tried should be carefully thought out and the pitfalls recognized before it is implemented! I do not see how the proposal will fulfill any of the 3 stated rationals - increase participation, ease burden on the host club, and reduce time on the course. 

Number of arrows, shot distance, length of time, etc are all excuses from those that do not wish to try. I have seen the outcome of a rule change to reduce the shot distance and number of arrows - that change did not garner any additional participant numbers. How does changing existing courses to meet these new standards "ease the burden on the host" when all the existing courses will need to be revamped to the new requirements. Reduce the time on the course? Simply make the shooting lanes wide enough to accommodate 4 shooters, not the current normal 2 that most sites have. Last years nationals at Mechanicsburg (where most lanes are wide enough for 4 across), most shooters were done in 3.5 hours.

I also have a problem with the way this was presented - "slight modifications" that:
- reduced the number of targets from 14 to 12
- reduced the number of arrows from 56 to 36
- eliminated the walkups
- eliminated the fans
- eliminated the 80 and 70 yard positions 
- eliminated the requirement to shoot a specific face

I sure don't want to see what might be considered "major" modifications by the council!


----------



## archer_nm

Folks I know that this was passed for 1 trial at the Sectional level as Amended only, what someone posted was the original amendment. Please contact your NFAA State Director for clarification.


----------



## archer_nm

nestly stated this in his original post please read the comments from the start.


----------



## pahuntr

archer_nm said:


> nestly stated this in his original post please read the comments from the start.


FYI - if this was in reference to my post and the use of the term "proposal", I will respond that I have read the thread from the beginning and have even spoken with my state director. However, that being said, since it was approved on a trial basis, it still is a "proposal" for consideration at a future time.


----------



## archer_nm

That was meant as a General Statement to everyone, just trying to make it clear.


----------



## TNMAN

Essentially an International Round, but keeping the two near meaningless (for freestyle) shortest targets. Don't we already have good feedback on the I-Round, as most States shoot it as one of their championships?


----------



## rsarns

archer_nm said:


> Let set the story straight first off as a Councilman I had no vote and anything I would have said was my opinion and I know it was stated to you in that manner. As far as the Nationals being in Yankton you my friend have your story completely wrong, Darrington had range and club issues and were not going to be ready for Nationals (They only have around 7 members), Yankton has a conflict in 2020 and needed to swap with the west cost, this was a mutual agreement between the 2 locations and not Bruce trying to do any harm. Bruce is only the Executive Director and answers to the President in Brian Sheffler. The change in the targets has been laid out and agreed on by a majority of the NFAA State Directors for use at the Sectionals only with a vote on a later date and it will not affect the Outdoor Nationals in 2020. I would suggest you have a long conversation with your State Director on any other issues you have.


You are correct it was never awarded as it should have been on the original rotation, but I can tell you that a lot of arm wrangling and twisting happened, and why some from Darrington who never miss Nationals stayed away this year. You make it sound amicable but my friends from Darrington who keep that course awesome will tell you different


----------



## archer_nm

Ren you know those folks better than most and from what I have been told that there has been some division at the club level including folks throwing in the towel after a very heated discussion. You are right I made it sound amicable but was it amicable on 1 side and not the other?? Please message me with the facts


----------



## rsarns

Pm sent. I know their side. I sat by them listening in mechanicsburg when they were told it was going to Yankton instead.


----------



## archer_nm

Got it thanks


----------



## wa-prez

I was only a "guest / spectator" at the NFAA Board of Directors' Meeting, gut I wasn't happy with the way the Field Round Change proposal (Agenda Item C-8) was introduced to the floor. I don't know why it wasn't included in the package with the other Agenda Items to the Directors could review it in some depth and get opinions from the people in the State they represent.

Here are some of my thoughts:

IF this is implemented, I'd see it as an alternate round only "Field Lite" for use in recreational settings or at Club level - possibly at State level, but not to replace the current official Field, Hunter and Animal rounds at Sectional and National level. 

I can see that some archers would appreciate the opportunity to get acquainted with Field without shooting 80 yards and without SO MANY arrows and adhering to SO MANY rules, and some Clubs would appreciate having only one Field, one Hunter and one Animal stake (plus the PeeWee, Cub and Youth stakes) on each lane, instead of sometimes four Field and four Hunter and 3 Animal. Clubs that don't currently have a field range might find it easier to put one in with only 12 targets and no 80 yarder.

That said, I think there are some flaws in the proposal that need to be addressed before it is voted on or implemented:

1. Distance for the "birdie" field target is not addressed. I'd assume 10 yards, but some others might assume 35', so it should be specified. As a mater of fact "shoot all from the furthest prescribed distance" would bean 35'.

2. Instead of eliminating the two longest Hunter distances (70 yard walkup and 64 yard walkup), since ALL walkups are being eliminated and targets to be shot at the furthest red stake, eliminate the 70 yard and the 53 yard targets. the 53 yard is shot at a 50cm target face, and is hard enough for one arrow in the walk-up, would be even harder with all three arrows at that distance.

3. Similarly, instead of eliminating two (of the three) Group 1 animal targets (and note that no specific distances are required, only that they be in the range of 40-60 yards), eliminate ONE of the Group 1 and ONE of the Group 2 targets.


----------



## bowtechky

It appears we will need some clarification before put into use, as I read it all walkups will shoot from the furthest distance so the birdie/bunny would be shot from 35’. A question I have on the animals, would the score be changed to 15+1 to correspond to the field and Hunter score or stay 20+1 as it is now. I do agree with a couple of changes, shooting any target on the butt, how many have lost points especially new shooters who have shot the wrong target on a fan just because they couldn’t remember the rules. Also eliminating the fan, most aren’t too bad but I have shot a few that were spread at such extreme angles you were in danger on tearing up arrows from side impacts. Eliminating walk ups and going to 3 arrows per target will speed up the shooting time.


----------



## nestly

Anyone know when the meeting minutes will be published, those should eliminate a lot of the confusion about what was/wasn't changed, not just with C-8, but everything that might be different in 2020 than previous. 

As for the fans, here in PA we shoot primarily a slightly modified NFAA ruleset. How fans are shot is the main difference. We shoot the 28 and 32yd fans in a "U", meaning outside left shoots top left, inside left shoots bottom left, inside right shoots bottom right, and outside right shoots top right. Basically every arrow shot at each of the 4 faces is shot from the same fan marker, so there's no "crossing" at all on 28 and 32 fans. 35 and 36 are still shot per NFAA with inside out outside on each side shooting 2 arrows into each into two 50cm faces.


----------



## Unk Bond

nestly said:


> If I have my info right, a proposal passed the vote that would change NFAA Field from 4 arrows at 28 targets (112 arrows total) to 3 arrows at 24 targets (72 arrows total). The Fans and the Walkups are the target stations that will be eliminated. Other changes permit the archer to shoot at any target on the bale. Apparently, this will be implemented at Sectionals next year, then considered again before making it a permanent change at Nationals.
> 
> Personally, I think it stinks. We already have a 72 arrow/24 target round. It's called FITA Field, and as much we complain about low numbers in NFAA Field, they're much worse in FITA Field here in the US from what I can tell, so I think the reps that voted to turn NFAA Field into FITA Field didn't really put enough thought into this and/ore spent too much time in the sun last weekend.


========================

This is some "messed up" logic. [ Later


----------



## archer_nm

Only for next years Outdoor Sectional and then they will vote on the original amendment, so let your NFAA Director know how you fill.


----------



## erdman41

All the Sectionals are going to have to use the new trial round?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

erdman41 said:


> All the Sectionals are going to have to use the new trial round?


This is my assumption, but here's a twist. Bids and voting for the 2020 Sectionals occurred before anyone knew about this change (at least Mid-Atlantic did). If I was from a 2020 host club, I'd be raising Cain about the terms being changed after the ink on the contract was dry.


----------



## archer_nm

That is a good question? how about the fact it is not an official round, does that mean Sectional awards as we know them will not be awarded?

4. Sectional tournaments shall consist of official NFAA rounds. If Field and Hunter rounds are shot, the Championship Field Round target and the Championship Hunter Round target will be used. 

That is straight out of the C&B, the proposed round needed to be voted into the book and then voted in as a trial round for the sectional.


----------



## wa-prez

bowtechky said:


> A question I have on the animals, would the score be changed to 15+1 to correspond to the field and Hunter score or stay 20+1 as it is now.


This is a very good question, because some people have always been unhappy about including the Animal round because it can skew the aggregate results - many people shoot considerably better on the Animal round than on Field or Hunter, and a few score somewhat poorer. Having the Field worth 360 points (24 targets at 15 points max per target) and the animal at 504 points possible (24 targets at 21 points per target) could get interesting.


----------



## Bikeman CU

wa-prez said:


> This is a very good question, because some people have always been unhappy about including the Animal round because it can skew the aggregate results - many people shoot considerably better on the Animal round than on Field or Hunter, and a few score somewhat poorer. Having the Field worth 360 points (24 targets at 15 points max per target) and the animal at 504 points possible (24 targets at 21 points per target) could get interesting.


Can of worms....opened.


----------



## nestly

wa-prez said:


> This is a very good question, because some people have always been unhappy about including the Animal round because it can skew the aggregate results - many people shoot considerably better on the Animal round than on Field or Hunter, and a few score somewhat poorer. Having the Field worth 360 points (24 targets at 15 points max per target) and the animal at 504 points possible (24 targets at 21 points per target) could get interesting.


Well it's just wrong to have the arrows in animal worth more than arrows in Field or Hunter. If you're going to award "bonus" points in Animal for "dots" then "X's should be bonus points as well in Field/Hunter. The pros figured it out, why it hasn't happened yet for Amateurs is baffling to me


----------



## Lazarus

It's pretty obvious by the fact that the proposal wasn't presented properly that it was a haphazard, thrown together document, probably hashed out by two or three directors (who may not shoot field, or even a bow) over cocktails.

It's also pretty obvious that there are/will be unintended consequences. 

One thing I have a problem with is the item that you don't have to shoot a specific target. Not really sure what that has to do with speeding up the round and if you're competing there should be guidelines on which target you shoot. I'm unclear how it could be otherwise

Oh, and nestly. Disagree that the pros got it right. Hate the xring=6 scoring. Someone should not be able to shoot a 560 and be in 19th place that day unless there were 18 other 560's.. I believe this also points to one of the huge downfalls of field archery, which is, every time the more proficient archers have approached perfection (560) for some reason we've moved the goalposts. Imagine if it were so hard to shoot a perfect indoor round. Or imagine if a 300 indoors was no longer a 300 on either face. Doesn't make sense. But that's kind of off topic.


----------



## nestly

Lazarus said:


> .....
> 
> Oh, and nestly. Disagree that the pros got it right. Hate the xring=6 scoring. Someone should not be able to shoot a 560 and be in 19th place that day unless there were 18 other 560's.. I believe this also points to one of the huge downfalls of field archery, which is, every time the more proficient archers have approached perfection (560) for some reason we've moved the goalposts. Imagine if it were so hard to shoot a perfect indoor round. Or imagine if a 300 indoors was no longer a 300 on either face. Doesn't make sense. But that's kind of off topic.


To be clear.....im not a fan of the "x" being an extra point, but if its is in animal it should be in the field/hunter rounds also. Otherwise the 28 arrows shot in animals have a disproportionate affect on the final scores and standings. 

"X's should be "X"s in all 3 rounds and they should be only be used for tie breaks. If the aggregate score of all three rounds is tied, go to X's, if it's still tied, have a shootoff as prescribed in the existing rules.


----------



## Bikeman CU

If the number of arrows or distance for some individuals is an issue create a division shooting fourteen targets at youth distances. Shoot their fourteen targets and be done. No special stakes or removing targets. One division, male, female, open, bowhunter or whatever. You could figure a way to handicap it. Just a thought. Trying to keep it simple.


----------



## erdman41

nestly said:


> This is my assumption, but here's a twist. Bids and voting for the 2020 Sectionals occurred before anyone knew about this change (at least Mid-Atlantic did). If I was from a 2020 host club, I'd be raising Cain about the terms being changed after the ink on the contract was dry.


I think my home club is hosting both sectionals and state shoot. I'm 99.9% sure nobody who shoots our state shoot is gonna want the new round.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## Bikeman CU

The trial Field/Hunter rounds sound like a V formation, Lake of the Woods round, only shot on a field course.


----------



## Lazarus

erdman41 said:


> I think my home club is hosting both sectionals and state shoot. I'm 99.9% sure nobody who shoots our state shoot is gonna want the new round.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk



Which brings up another issue. Off topic I know. But there is no longer any such thing as a Sectional Championship. All they are is (for the most part) a duplicate of a state championship since nearly every section hosts as many Sectional locations as they have bids. Might as well call it the "Sectional Mail In Tournament." 

At this point I honestly believe the NFAA (Field Archery) ship is too far sunk to salvage. Field Archery's only hope is a new, vibrant leadership and organization that comes up with a format that appeals to a majority of archers and promote, promote, promote it. Without that, its history. 

Sorry...got off topic there, but it's all somewhat related.


----------



## nock tune

nestly said:


> To be clear.....im not a fan of the "x" being an extra point, but if its is in animal it should be in the field/hunter rounds also. Otherwise the 28 arrows shot in animals have a disproportionate affect on the final scores and standings.
> 
> "X's should be "X"s in all 3 rounds and they should be only be used for tie breaks. If the aggregate score of all three rounds is tied, go to X's, if it's still tied, have a shootoff as prescribed in the existing rules.


The animal spot just a X, good point !>>>>


----------



## nestly

We had our State NFAA Field today (14F /14H / 14A. Two experienced Field shooters (myself and a Master Senior) were grouped with two first time youth Field shooters to show them the ropes. We all had a great time, there where no complaints about the number of arrows or the amount of time we spent on the course. I have no doubt both youth will be shooting Field again and no doubt they have a firm grasp of the rules. I've been in that position often being paired with new shooters and Ive always come away being very satisfied and encourage by the newbies reaction. 
Also our State Rep confirmed Pennsylvania voted against the C-8 proposal...a position that was well received by all the PA archers there.


----------



## RJH1

I have only shot one field round, so take this for what it is worth. I would NOT change field rounds from what they are now. This topic reminds me of another sport i shoot where the powers that be changed the rules to increase participation but in doing so made the equipment that the current participants had obsolete, and effectively made participation go from low to almost zero. This change seems it might make the actual field courses obsolete and if a club is already having low participation, there is a strong chance they will choose to just do away with field all together. In my state there is not a lot of field, so for me to shoot it i have drive at least 2 hours and i am willing to do that, but IMO lack of information is the biggest problem here for field matches, not the length of the round. I had to stumble across field archery on the internet, search out where to shoot it, etc. to even start to shoot it. There needs to be a bigger social media presence first and then maybe make adjustments to the round, but it is hard to get new shooters when they have no idea that there is such a thing as field archery. There are 3d clubs all over that have FB pages, sharing info with them would have no cost and might get some new shooters showing up.


----------



## ArcheryNut2006

nestly said:


> Some don't shoot locally either....


If that is a problem, then why do you vote them in as your director?


----------



## ArcheryNut2006

IF this change is adopted after the trial time, ranges do not have to be completely rebuilt. Simply remove two existing targets, the 80 yard, and 45 yard walk up, everything else is the same as today except for removing some closer walk up shots.

What I thought was interesting, and surprised me is that the Professionals are the ones who came up with this proposal and brought it up. At least that is what I was told.

With all this complaining about it and not liking it, I have seen very few better ideas suggested.

As far as I am concerned, I will give it a try, but it does not really matter to me.


----------



## Lazarus

ArcheryNut2006 said:


> With all this complaining about it and not liking it, I have seen very few better ideas suggested.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, I will give it a try, but it does not really matter to me.


If you really don't care why are you criticizing some of us who do and are discussing it?

To be quite Frank, "better ideas" is not what this topic is about. It's a discussion about the haphazard changes and the way it went down.


----------



## ArcheryNut2006

Lazarus said:


> If you really don't care why are you criticizing some of us who do and are discussing it?
> 
> To be quite Frank, "better ideas" is not what this topic is about. It's a discussion about the haphazard changes and the way it went down.


I certainly did not mean to be critical of anyone. I think this has been a great discussion and many excellent points have been brought up. At this point "better ideas" really would probably be too late for the trial.

From what I was told, the item was brought up after having the required number of signatures to do so. Which is a "legal" way to bring up an agenda item. I do think it would have been better to have it on the agenda that was sent out so directors could have been better prepared for the vote.


----------



## nestly

ArcheryNut2006 said:


> What I thought was interesting, and surprised me is that the Professionals are the ones who came up with this proposal and brought it up. At least that is what I was told.


Not true according to the chairman for the professional division (see screencap below)



ArcheryNut2006 said:


> With all this complaining about it and not liking it, I have seen very few better ideas suggested.


There are lots of other ideas. A significant number pros expressed their sentiments and ideas on these changes in this FB thread, including why the "rational" is flawed. It's a long thread, but I suggest everyone actually read the entire discussion started by a pro, and heavily participated in by pros. And here's another large FB thread about the same topic started by a somewhat recognizable pro archer


----------



## ArcheryNut2006

nestly said:


> Not true according to the chairman for the professional division (see screencap below)
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of other ideas. A significant number pros expressed their sentiments and ideas on these changes in this FB thread, including why the "rational" is flawed. It's a long thread, but I suggest everyone actually read the entire discussion started by a pro, and heavily participated in by pros. And here's another large FB thread about the same topic started by a somewhat recognizable pro archer


I will stand corrected, I think your source is more reliable than the counselman that told me my version.


----------



## wa-prez

Lazarus said:


> Which brings up another issue. Off topic I know. But there is no longer any such thing as a Sectional Championship. All they are is (for the most part) a duplicate of a state championship since nearly every section hosts as many Sectional locations as they have bids. Might as well call it the "Sectional Mail In Tournament."


I can't speak about the other sections, and Indoor of course is a different matter, but the Northwest still has a single location for the Outdoor (Field) Sectional. The host state rotates with each taking a turn (or passing as Alaska often does).


----------



## wa-prez

ArcheryNut2006 said:


> From what I was told, the item was brought up after having the required number of signatures to do so. Which is a "legal" way to bring up an agenda item. I do think it would have been better to have it on the agenda that was sent out so directors could have been better prepared for the vote.


I was at the meeting, not as a Director but as a Guest. The proposal was not in the original Agenda Items packet that was distributed in advance, and was not a "Fifteen Signature" item either. As far as I know, the Directors had not had opportunity to read it before it was brought to the floor in the last half-hour or so of the meeting. If they HAD seen it, I'm sure some of the issues brought up here would have already been handled with amendments. 









Fifteen Signature items have a grid at the bottom where fifteen of the directors sign it. This Agenda Item does not.


----------



## archer_nm

If it was not a 15 signature item then it was an illegal item brought to the floor. Article VI C. 5.9 States that agenda Items have to be to HQ 90 days prior to meeting, additional Items have to have 15 signatures of the Board of Directors to be brought to the floor. Once again the State Directors did not do their job ONE of them should have stopped this action. This crap pisses me off.


----------



## coastiehunter2

Something has to change obviously the format they have now isn't working to draw archers.


----------



## fmoss3

I think the scoring on the animal round should change. 17 for a 1st arrow spot. The 21 for a first arrow spot is too much for the shorter round. 
I say eliminate the old first arrow scoring and use 2nd. arrow as first. 17-16-14 , 13-12-10 for 2nd. arrow, and 9-8-6 for the 3rd. arrow.

My personal opinion is I'm in favor of the change. Just may help get a few shooters out. Everyone doesn't have 4 to 41/2 hours to shoot a field round anymore.


----------



## archer_nm

Change is probably needed but at least do it in accordance with the Constitution/Bylaws


----------



## nestly

fmoss3 said:


> I think the scoring on the animal round should change. 17 for a 1st arrow spot. The 21 for a first arrow spot is too much for the shorter round.
> I say eliminate the old first arrow scoring and use 2nd. arrow as first. 17-16-14 , 13-12-10 for 2nd. arrow, and 9-8-6 for the 3rd. arrow.




Can you further explain the logic of reducing the point value of the arrows in Animal round? By my math, it doesn't matter if every arrow is worth 10 points, or 10,000 points, if a "dot" is worth 1 point more than the small (oval) scoring ring, and the large scoring ring worth 2 points less, the archers that aren't shooting zeros will still finish in the same order.



fmoss3 said:


> My personal opinion is I'm in favor of the change. Just may help get a few shooters out. Everyone doesn't have 4 to 41/2 hours to shoot a field round anymore.


Since the C-8 changes were made public, I've been to a regional and a state Field shoot in PA, and I have a non-leading questionaire that has a copy of the proposed changes, and two sheets that merely ask whether the person generally agrees with the changes and rationale, or generally disagrees with the changes and rationale. There are no signatures on the "agree" sheet yet, and only 2 people have said they are undecided, both in the Silver Senior age divisions and indicated an interest in fewer arrows. 

I understand why regions where Field is already dead may want to change things up, but those changes will absolutely reduce the participation of areas that currently have a decent base of dedicated field archers. In your area, how many Field shoots are there annually? I can see how reducing the length of the round could possibly draw some participation from those with tight schedules, but IMO getting archers on and off the course as quickly as possible should not be a goal for State championships, and certainly not for 2 or 3-day Sectional/National events. Do we not go to those events because we enjoy shooting our bows in competition, or is "archery" just an excuse to take a vacation and we grudgingly shoot the prescribed number of arrows as fast as possible so we can go do the other stuff we really traveled to the event to do?


----------



## bettylou

would you know where the shooters come from that travel to national events ? wouldn't it make sense to hold the national events where the majority of the shooters come from! looking at numbers ,shoots in mechanicsburg have a much higher turnout than washington and south dakota ! Rules don't need to change,location needs to change


----------



## nestly

bettylou said:


> would you know where the shooters come from that travel to national events ? wouldn't it make sense to hold the national events where the majority of the shooters come from! looking at numbers ,shoots in mechanicsburg have a much higher turnout than washington and south dakota ! Rules don't need to change,location needs to change


PA through New England is without a doubt the strongest remaining region for Field, but I don't necessarily agree all the National shoots should be here. Field needs national participation, and when you're buying a plane ticket or scheduling time off, it doesn't much matter if the venue is 2 states away, or the whole way on the other coast, time and expense to get there is not all that much different. I didn't go to Yankton in part this year because the courses look boring. I have lots of opportunities to stand in the sun and shoot on flat ground, I personally love the challenge of incline/sidehills/uneven footing, and a variety of lighting conditions that occur when shooting in the woods.


----------



## huteson2us2

I see this as the same thing that almost destroyed the NFAA in 1977 and caused half the archers to change to 3D. This is a very bad idea. If you just wanted to reduce the number of arrows shot, why not keep the range as it is now and reduce the number of arrows shot to 2 or 1? I don't like this idea but it is better than what the NFAA wants. As far as contacting our Directors, I have done this in the past many times only to see them change their vote from what they promised at the yearly meeting.

I will now plead WA-Prez to ask her husband, if he is still the Washington state NFAA director, to vote no. I will also ask the Arizona Director to also vote no when I contact her. But I feel that if there is a trial period already, then it is a done deal. So who did propose the change if not the pros? I still believe that it was decided in a secret conference call or meeting and brought up too late for a vote by design. I would also like to see the Nationals held in a place that has an airport nearby and plenty of hotels and camping near. This won't happen until the numbers increase to make the location profitable like Vegas or the Indoor Nationals.

I was told by several (what I thought were reliable people) that Darrington won the bid for the 2019 Nationals at their last Nationals. I had to call several people from Washington, Oregon, and California this year to inform them that it was in Yangton instead this year. Like me, they were all surprised. It will be interesting to see how many show up for Darrington next year if the changes become permanent.


----------



## Lazarus

Huteson2us2, 

There should be no trial period. The vote was taken improperly. The Constitution/Bylaws do not allow an unofficial round to be used at Sectionals. It's clearly stated there.

End of story.


----------



## wa-prez

nestly said:


> Can you further explain the logic of reducing the point value of the arrows in Animal round? By my math, it doesn't matter if every arrow is worth 10 points, or 10,000 points, if a "dot" is worth 1 point more than the small (oval) scoring ring, and the large scoring ring worth 2 points less, the archers that aren't shooting zeros will still finish in the same order.


The reason for suggesting changing the scoring on the Animal round is to make it more on par with the Field and Hunter rounds.

Currently, the Field round is worth 560 points possible, the Hunter is 560 points, and the Animal round has 588 points possible (because of the bonus spots). 

Previously, there were TWO rounds of Field and TWO rounds of Hunter and one Animal round included in the Aggregate total to decide winners. 
Currently there is ONE Field, ONE Hunter and ONE Animal. So the Animal round is worth a few more points.

Add to that the fact that many people score somewhat to significantly better on the Animal round and it is weighted even heavier. For example I shoot in the 450's on Field and Hunter most years and usually 520+ on the Animal.

In the new round, maximum possible on the Field and Hunter each will be 360 (24 targets at 15 points possible each). The Animal round would be 504 points possible (24 targets at 21 points each). So the proportion is even more lopsided than current.

People feel the Field and Hunter rounds, with smaller, circular scoring zones is a better reflection of precision shooting than the Animal round with large, irregular shaped scoring zones.

Some states do not include the Animal round in their State Championship, or hold two different events - one F / H and one Animal at a separate time.


----------



## wa-prez

bettylou said:


> would you know where the shooters come from that travel to national events ? wouldn't it make sense to hold the national events where the majority of the shooters come from! looking at numbers ,shoots in mechanicsburg have a much higher turnout than washington and south dakota ! Rules don't need to change,location needs to change


One factor that is very important to many archers is the rotation of the National Championship tournament sites between East, West, and Central regions. Some would never attend their first National Championship and many wouldn't attend regularly if it wasn't offered within a day's driving time.

As to the specific locations WITHIN those regions, all it would take for a different spot (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, Kentucky, Virginia, etc) is for someone to develop at LEAST three ranges co-located with potential for up to five, and to submit a bid. 

One thing I like about the current three sites is that they are very different in character - both the terrain and layout of the ranges, and the facilities and amenities of the surrounding community.

For example, Mechanicsburg is a beautiful wooded range with mild terrain (not much for hills) and LOTS of hotels and restaurants nearby. It is also very close to a significant airport. 

Darrington is a hilly, challenging range, but quite a haul from the airport and also a ways from hotels and few restaurants. The BIG thing it offers is opportunity to camp onsite so we see our fellow archers not only on the range, but fellowship in the evenings. 

Yankton is a FLAT course, where "terrain" is artificially created with dirt mounds and wooden platforms. It was so hot this year I couldn't shoot the second day. There are some hotels and restaurants in the area, and some shopping. It is 65-80 miles from the three airports serving the area. The KOA campground is within (by a stretch) walking distance of the ranges. There are only three permanent ranges, a fourth range requires driving a couple miles. Advantage is the HQ, Museum, and both indoor and outdoor practice ranges.

My son and grandkids have shot Darrington, they haven't gone to Nationals anywhere else. BUT as close and nice as Darrington is, I wouldn't want to go there EVERY year, every third year is often enough and I'd be game to a different west coast rotation location if someone would bid.

I have shot both Mechanicsburg and Yankton 2 or 3 times, and also Watkins Glen, Blue Springs, Wausau, Detroit Lakes (about the same number of times each). And at Darrington every time it has been there - every three years (or so) since 1982.


----------



## nestly

wa-prez said:


> The reason for suggesting changing the scoring on the Animal round is to make it more on par with the Field and Hunter rounds.
> 
> Currently, the Field round is worth 560 points possible, the Hunter is 560 points, and the Animal round has 588 points possible (because of the bonus spots).
> 
> Previously, there were TWO rounds of Field and TWO rounds of Hunter and one Animal round included in the Aggregate total to decide winners.
> Currently there is ONE Field, ONE Hunter and ONE Animal. So the Animal round is worth a few more points.
> 
> Add to that the fact that many people score somewhat to significantly better on the Animal round and it is weighted even heavier. For example I shoot in the 450's on Field and Hunter most years and usually 520+ on the Animal.
> 
> In the new round, maximum possible on the Field and Hunter each will be 360 (24 targets at 15 points possible each). The Animal round would be 504 points possible (24 targets at 21 points each). So the proportion is even more lopsided than current.
> 
> People feel the Field and Hunter rounds, with smaller, circular scoring zones is a better reflection of precision shooting than the Animal round with large, irregular shaped scoring zones.
> 
> Some states do not include the Animal round in their State Championship, or hold two different events - one F / H and one Animal at a separate time.


As long as the dot inside the high scoring ring is worth 1 point more than the high scoring ring (oval), and the body outside the high scoring ring (oval) is worth 2 points less, it does not matter what the actual value of the high scoring ring is. The finishing position of the archers in the tournament will be the same. The only thing that reducing the high scoring ring from 20 to 16 accomplishes is messing up both animal and aggregate records.

As I said before, I'm not a fan of "bonus" points being available in for the 28 arrows shot in Animal, but not the 224 shot in Field/Hunter, but if the dot is worth 1 extra point in animal, it doesn't really matter what "par" is the archers will still finish the same number of points above or below "par" whether "par" for an animal target is 16, 20, or 50, or 1,000.


----------



## nestly

Lazarus said:


> Huteson2us2,
> 
> There should be no trial period. The vote was taken improperly. *The Constitution/Bylaws do not allow an unofficial round to be used at Sectionals. It's clearly stated there.*
> 
> End of story.


With you! 
This is a portion of a letter I sent to my state director. Thanks for pointing out the relevant portions. Anything pertaining to the C-8 agenda item needs to be nulified, as it was enacted and voted upon improperly, and the proposed changes do not constitute a round that Outdoor Sectionals may use without first ammending Article6 to make the "trial" and "official" round. There needs to be some sanctions imposed on whoever, or whatever pushed this through without regard for proper procedure.


----------



## Lazarus

nestly said:


> With you!
> This is a portion of a letter I sent to my state director. Thanks for pointing out the relevant portions. Anything pertaining to the C-8 agenda item needs to be nulified, as it was enacted and voted upon improperly, and the proposed changes do not constitute a round that Outdoor Sectionals may use without first ammending Article6 to make the "trial" and "official" round. *There needs to be some sanctions imposed on whoever, or whatever pushed this through without regard for proper procedure.*


 You're right. I'm not acutely familiar with every facet of the Constitution and Bylaws but immediately after I heard this went down I thought, this can't be in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws. Here's the thing, I would expect that every single person on the Council and the Executives (not every state director) is more familiar with the Constitution and Bylaws than me, yet they sat idly by and allowed this to happen. I wasn't there, but how do I know this? Because if just one person, one, would have stood up and pointed out that this isn't in accordance with the Constitution it would have died right there. Not only did this group of people sit idly by, I'm pretty well convinced that one of them was the "brains" (or lack thereof in this case) behind this. But then, this is nothing new, this person pretty much does exactly what they want regardless..........if it's not in accordance with the rules, they just make sure to get them changed to suit their needs.


----------



## Lazarus

.......but then I guess all of this is a nice distraction from the fact that we just shot a National Championship on courses that weren't certified, with missing markers, improper stakes and incorrect targets on the butts. Right out the back door of the National Headquarters.


----------



## nock tune

560 archers =5 ranges at a national tournament. If they get a larger turn out were do they put the over flow?
The round's need to stay the same just find different places to shot them! Ask Bruce to find some alternatives.
Stay with the 5/3 format If I have to spend what ever to get there, I'd like be able to shoot more than 3 days.


----------



## archer_nm

What does Bruce have to do with this ??


----------



## Joe Pf

If the goal is to shoot fewer arrows, why not shoot a 14 instead of a 28 and keep everything the same for yardages. Allow people to shoot 2 14's in one day and take the best score, kind of like the 5/3 set-up. Ranges are set up with 28 targets already.
That being said, I am not in favor of the change and would like to keep it at the current 28 Field, Hunter, & Animal and 5 days too.


----------



## nock tune

archer_nm said:


> What does Bruce have to do with this ??


He found the resources to build Yakton maybe he has the connections to find other locations!


----------



## Bikeman CU

The second paragraph of the C8 Agenda item states there was feedback from a broad spectrum of shooters and they were in favor of the changes. Was anybody here asked or were they aware of this agenda item? Who introduced this item?


----------



## archer_nm

He along with NFAA Council made the move to Yankton but he is not on office anymore and now works for the NFAA. You need to talk with your NFAA Director as he has the vote to make any changes to the round, as far as the 5/3 issues your SE Councilman is one of the people that make the decision on the contract offered and signed by both parties for Outdoor and Indoor Nats.


----------



## archer_nm

It was brought to the floor by the Council and then voted on by the Directors, C = Council, 8 being the agenda 8th item that was presented by Councilman.


----------



## Lazarus

Bikeman CU said:


> The second paragraph of the C8 Agenda item states there was feedback from a broad spectrum of shooters and they were in favor of the changes. Was anybody here asked or were they aware of this agenda item? Who introduced this item?


Exactly, and the answer is NO! The whole thing reads like a script to a Barnum and Bailey advertisement. So that gives us a pretty good idea of who probably drafted it.


----------



## Lazarus

archer_nm said:


> It was brought to the floor by the Council and then voted on by the Directors, C = Council, 8 being the agenda 8th item that was presented by Councilman.


And again..........NONE of this is valid. It was out of order. The Constitution/Bylaws plainly state that the Sectional Championships must use *official* rounds. While the discussion of how to get more people involved and potentially changing the round (without damaging it's integrity) is a *good* discussion, the discussion of whether this new "round" will be used at outdoor sectionals has to be a moot point. It can't happen without the Board changing the Constitution.


----------



## pick1

we already have the international round. Why not use that? I enjoy shooting it as it's shorter with 3 arrows and 20 targets on the hunter face. A local club has one every month along with a 3d shoot. 4 or 5 people are all that shoot the international. I don't think a shorter round is going the help participation anytime soon.


----------



## Unclegus

If any one thinks Bruce still doesn't run the show is very, very naïve. All of the councilmen except one voted to present this in the director's meeting. From what little I think I understand is that since 35 directors voted for this change for the sectionals, it is a done deal.... the final vote on this will be next September and it will be a mail in vote. I really don't like that part. I don't really like it, but I'm 70 and this is probably going to be the only way I'll be able to shoot field, but I still don't like the change and don't think it will do a drop in the bucket to encourage attendance. But alas I'd bet a twenty against a donut hole this is going to fly.


----------



## archer_nm

Gus when was the last time you set in a NFAA Council meeting??


----------



## Unclegus

Been a while, but I know what I know. I know enough people who are in all of these and I'm sure they don't lie about it. bob, you can believe whatever you want. that's your choice. I can't reveal my sources, but they are damn good ones and I'll leave it at that. One of them speaks rather highly of you.


----------



## archer_nm

Gus don't take what I wrote as a insult and you probably know my background of spending 19 yrs in the Political arena of the NFAA and the last 10yrs as the Southwest Councilman (2007 - 2017) I then moved to Texas in June of 17. My point was toward Nock Tune and just letting him know the Council makes the 3/5 day or 3 day decision, but you are correct in that there needs to be a throttle of power put on at certain levels of the NFAA Executive Board. I am on your side about the issues.


----------



## Unclegus

Well, Bruce is a well known control freak. but he has done some really good things. Not really happy with some of some of his methods he has used in the past.


----------



## nock tune

No club that holding a sectional with the amount of work involved is ever going to want to rebuild the range to accommodate this round.
Especially since no Pros will show up to shoot it and I think some of them are the ones pushing the chance.
I'm fairly sure our State will not hold it.


----------



## nestly

I obviously dont agree with the proposed changes, but I also dont understand what additional "work" you are referring to. You simply do not hang a target face on the 80 and 45 walk ups, instead you hang a sign that tells the archers to walk through to the next station. "If" the changes are made permanent then perhaps clubs could remove/rearrange the unused butts and redo signage.
At Mid Atlantic this year scorecards were printed specifically for that shoot so if thats the norm, simply print them as 24 instead of 28. If the club isnt printing special scorecards....simply draw a line through the unused targets with a sharpie.....maybe take 30minutes while watching tv some evening


----------



## nock tune

The 80 field and 70 hunter match up but the 45 field and 64 hunter are different targets and you lose two of three group 1 animals. 
I just don't get it, why change something with such a History .


----------



## rjfoy

I shot my first nfaa field last weekend. Three of us in my group were first timers (two teenagers, and one old guy; me). I can tell you by the second day our butts were wore out. Now, a large part of that was the 100+ degree heat index but part of it was certainly the number of arrows. From the comments made by the folks in attendance, I'd say most thought the change would alienate the old timers, but might just bring in more rookies as the current number of arrows scares some folks off. Bottom line: From my foxhole it looks like a good idea.

Seems a lot like the "speeding up baseball discussion" in terms of trying to increase interest vs. tradition.


----------



## nestly

Glad you and the others gave it a try. All outdoor archery games can be exhausting in extreme heat. 
Stamina is certainly an element to Field, I dont think you can take that away and still have a game that challenges an archers skill shooting a wide variation of distances and situations though. 

My problem is there's been no testing to see if the shorter format actually appeals to new shooters, or if it will only run off the existing shooters without bringing in at least an equal number to replace them. It's pointless to do a trial at a 2-day Sectional.... That not the type of event anyone new to Field attends.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk


----------



## wa-prez

nock tune said:


> The 80 field and 70 hunter match up but the 45 field and 64 hunter are different targets and you lose two of three group 1 animals.
> I just don't get it, why change something with such a History .


That's my comment exactly. Instead of taking out both the 70-yard and the 64-yard hunter, take out the 70 and the 53. And on the Animal, take ONE of the Group 1 and one of the Group 2. That will match better with the two Field targets being dropped.

I can see this for a recreational / novice round, or for Clubs that can't fit in the full component of targets (14 or 28 including 80-yard shot) but for National and probably Sectional, keep the full round as it is!


----------



## archer_nm

Just a little reminder if your section does not want to do this then DON'T, as I have said before this is not an OFFICIAL NFAA ROUND and as per the C&B should not be used for NFAA Sectional awards.


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> Just a little reminder if your section does not want to do this then DON'T, as I have said before this is not an OFFICIAL NFAA ROUND and as per the C&B should not be used for NFAA Sectional awards.


I agree the vote/decision to use the modified round was done in improperly and in violation of the C&B, but I'm not sure it's proper for each state/section to just shoot whatever round they want because they disagree with the vote results. Is there an actual provision to to shoot the traditional field round at Sectionals or is that just you goading on others to rebel? Look, I think NFAA made a huge mess by not doing things by the book, but if I was running an Outdoor Sectional in 2020, I'd be trying to get the whole C-8 proposal thrown out on the basis it's unconsitutional, and if that didn't work, I'd decline to host it because Mid Atlantic had already decided the host and location, and NFAA changed the terms afterward. Just as the whole C-8 proposal is inappropriate, so would it be for a Sectional to just do their own thing because they disagree with the manner it was decided, IMO


----------



## archer_nm

The SW Councilman informed the Pres & VP he would not make his section do this unless they wanted too. This entire Illegal agenda Item needs to be thrown out and disregarded as it is.


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> The SW Councilman informed the Pres & VP he would not make his section do this unless they wanted too. This entire Illegal agenda Item needs to be thrown out and disregarded as it is.


Interesting. I know our Sectional Counsilman is/was opposed to the changes and is working with my State director to document opposition by NFAA members in this Section as well. My director is in possession of a survey. It is merely a copy of the C-8 proposal and then asks if they generally agree with the proposed changes and rational, or generally disagree with the proposed changes and rational. Last time I saw it, 46 had that indicated they disagree with the C-8 changes, vs 1 indicating agreement with C-8 proposed changes.


----------



## archer_nm

I was at first in favor of trying to make a change and then I found out what is really behind this change (At this time I can not say what happened but if all of you will dig deep enough you will discover what I found out) This whole illegal action stinks highly of the target change of the 70's, you older archers will know what I am talking about.


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> I was at first in favor of trying to make a change and then I found out what is really behind this change (At this time I can not say what happened but if all of you will dig deep enough you will discover what I found out) This whole illegal action stinks highly of the target change of the 70's, you older archers will know what I am talking about.


If you feel the proposed changes make sense and will improve the overall state of Field archery, you should support the changes egardless of what you believe is the "real" reason, they were proposed. Doing otherwise is politicing, and there's way too much of that going on already.


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> I was at first in favor of trying to make a change and then I found out what is really behind this change (At this time I can not say what happened but if all of you will dig deep enough you will discover what I found out) This whole illegal action stinks highly of the target change of the 70's, you older archers will know what I am talking about.


If you feel the proposed changes make sense and will improve the overall state of Field archery, you should support the changes regardless of who proposed it, or what you believe is the "real" reason they were proposed. Doing otherwise is politicing, and there's way too much of that going on already.


----------



## archer_nm

The NFAA is politics and we need to make sure they are kept in check by following the C&B of the organization. You, if anybody should know about following the C&B.


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> The NFAA is politics and we need to make sure they are kept in check by following the C&B of the organization. You, if anybody should know about following the C&B.


Absolutely rules need to be followed. If the rule needs changed, change it properly.
What perked up my ears is when you said you were in favor of trying to make change, but not after you learned the back story.


----------



## archer_nm

Because it is the REAL story, just ask around and see the real reason the Target change took place (In the 70's) and how many NFAA members we lost at the time. This whole thing is the same even smells the same. This really makes me MAD


----------



## nestly

archer_nm said:


> Because it is the REAL story, just ask around and see the real reason the Target change took place (In the 70's) and how many NFAA members we lost at the time. This whole thing is the same even smells the same. This really makes me MAD


Who would you suggest I ask?. I had a lengthy sit down with my state director who was there, I didn't really hear any stories of nefarious behavior and conspiracy, just mention of last minute proposals that weren't on the agenda ... not unlike the proposal banning arrow twirling. Perhaps the last minute agenda items are the biggest problem. If the Directors/Councilmen/Committees/HQ/etc can't be bothered to compile their suggestions into a thoughtful and coherent proposal that doesn't violate the C&B in the 11months and 28 days prior to the BOD meeting agenda is prepared, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to scribble them down at the last minute and bring them to the floor right before the meeting adjourns either.

As for the target change, I can't really say as details are mostly 2nd/3rd/4th/ 67th person accounts. It does seem to me that if it didn't happen in '77 (or whatever year it was) it certainly would have happened shortly thereafter anyway.


----------



## Bikeman CU

Why isn't the C-8 agenda item on the NFAA website. Others such as C-1/7 are posted in the documents section. I am not seeing a transparency here in how the BOD is operating.


----------



## archer_nm

BINGO!! Let me set the stage for some of you, Influenced by someone in the industry, brought up at the last minute when everyone is biting at the bitt to go home, not to mention being brought forward in my opinion not in accordance with our Constitution/Bylaw. Need I say more, where was the point of order?


----------



## Ksman62

you are right. they have not thought this out.


----------



## nock tune

Ksman62 said:


> you are right. they have not thought this out.


Not to mention holding a national and world event at the same time.


----------



## Lazarus

If Brian Sheffler had one bit of stones he would make a statement that the round cannot be used at Sectionals because it is not an official round and does not meet the qualifications as mandated by the constitution. Further, he needs to appoint a committee to create a whole new round, (if one is actually needed.) Then it needs to be presented to the membership in the form of an agenda item, THEN a proper vote take from the directors. 

But this won't happen, because everyone in power is a puppet being controlled by the great one.


----------



## archer_nm

In post #53 I pointed this out but no one paid much attention. Sectionals have to be shot with official NFAA Rounds


----------



## Lazarus

archer_nm said:


> In post #53 I pointed this out but no one paid much attention. Sectionals have to be shot with official NFAA Rounds


I paid attention, because I've been saying it from the beginning. I pointed this out yesterday to the Councilman from New York (in person.) His response to me was, and I quote, "yes, the new round is an official round, the directors made it that way." 

How do you respond to that? I didn't. I just walked away. Shakin my head.


----------



## archer_nm

There is nothing in the Agenda Item that says this is now an official round and Dave is wrong as far as it is written, problem is that the picture of the agenda sheet does not show the entire page.


----------



## rsarns

According to the NFAA Constitution Page 42, item 4 under Sectional Tournaments: Sectional Tournaments shall consist of Official NFAA rounds. This trial is not an official NFAA round. It has not been approved by the directors via any vote, therefor it is an unofficial round, despite what happened at the meeting.


----------



## nestly

rsarns said:


> According to the NFAA Constitution Page 42, item 4 under Sectional Tournaments: Sectional Tournaments shall consist of Official NFAA rounds. This trial is not an official NFAA round. It has not been approved by the directors via any vote, therefor it is an unofficial round, despite what happened at the meeting.


Agree, however no one seems to care to follow the Constitution and Bylaws. I composed an email making that very point and copy/pasted the excerpts from the C&B to my state director (who said he did not raise his paddle in support of C-8 and has expressed his opposition to the C-8 changes). To my dismay, he didn't seem overly concerned that shooting a non-official trial round at Sectionals is explicitly prohibited unless Article IV B.4 AND Article4, E.1 were also ammended, OR Article 6 was changed to make the C-8 proposed changes an "official round". I don't get it, it's so clearly not permissible to do it, yet no one seems to care that they are doing it anyway.


----------



## Unclegus

nestly said:


> Agree, however no one seems to care to follow the Constitution and Bylaws. I composed an email making that very point and copy/pasted the excerpts from the C&B to my state director (who said he did not raise his paddle in support of C-8 and has expressed his opposition to the C-8 changes). To my dismay, he didn't seem overly concerned that shooting a non-official trial round at Sectionals is explicitly prohibited unless Article IV B.4 AND Article4, E.1 were also ammended, OR Article 6 was changed to make the C-8 proposed changes an "official round". I don't get it, it's so clearly not permissible to do it, yet no one seems to care that they are doing it anyway.


Maybe you should call your councilman and ask him what's up with this????


----------



## [email protected]

My personal opinion from an archer that shot the old targets where everone started shooting 560s to the new target where virtually no one can shoot a perfect score.
Every archer wants to shoot a good score. Its like making a hole in golf half the size it is now and almost no one would make par, imagine the outrage from the average golfer.
The time to shoot an old round was 2-3 hrs and now its 5+hrs. 
The indoor round is still popular and spot is still same size,just count x to break ties.
Increase spot size alittle count x to break any ties and shooting time will go down and average archers score goes up.

Just a thought


----------



## nestly

Unclegus said:


> Maybe you should call your councilman and ask him what's up with this????


 You're right, and I will. In talking to my state director, it was my impression that he and the sectional councilman are of like mind on the C-8 issues, but now that you mention it, I should redress all the issues with him as well to be sure I know his opinion, and he knows mine. I met him for the first time at Outdoor Sectionals this year before all this went down.


----------



## wa-prez

archer_nm said:


> There is nothing in the Agenda Item that says this is now an official round and Dave is wrong as far as it is written, problem is that the picture of the agenda sheet does not show the entire page.


That image in the first post does show the whole page - it matches the copy I have.


----------



## archer_nm

That is why there should have been a ROLL CALL Vote so it would show up and you can see how ea. Director Voted.


----------



## gumboman

This is an interesting thread. I shot NFAA back in the 70's. During that time there was a lot of dissatisfaction with rules changes and a certain level of disgruntlement with NFAA staff and decision makers regarding rules. Many shooters I knew during that time dropped out of competitive shooting due to changes in rules and poor decision making from NFAA directors. In reading a little history I see this has been true throughout the lifetime of NFAA. Now more than 40 years later it appears the problems remain. In my state of Alabama where field archery was once strong with many participants, there are now zero NFAA field archery ranges. I would love to get back into competitive field archery but it is not to be where I live. One has to wonder if NFAA will survive or go defunct.


----------



## huteson2us2

I was shooting NFAA Field long before 1977. We lost half of our regular field archers to 3D when the targets were changed without consulting the archers that shot the round. Then the senior class was moved to 50 and the Silver senior class was created without consulting anyone. Go back and see how many NFAA archers were upset with that decision. At 50, I was still competitive with the adult class. As far as voting for our directors, I have never been given a chance to vote for anything in the NFAA let alone directors. 

Now the entire round is to be changed. On our range in the desert, the first target is the 80 walk up on the field and hunter course and my 72 year old body says is a long walk to target one. The third target is the 45 walk up and the 6th target is the 35 fan. The range will have to be done over if the rule becomes permanent due to the distance of the 28 targets and the distance to walk when the 3 targets are not used. Our range is owned by the county and they believe that the field range is a waste already and would like to add more 3D targets instead of maintaining a field course. We had an archer that was training new archers the rules of the NFAA round but was told to stop by the County. What do you think will happen is the 24 target course becomes permanent? I can save a lot of money by shooting 3D rounds in my state instead of paying over 50 years of NFAA and State dues.

If less arrows shot is the goal, then why not continue to shoot the 28 targets and reduce the number of arrows to 2 per target or 1 to draw in the 3D archers. This way a round can be shot quickly and one can get back to something better like watching TV or playing video games. If this is done, the course can remain the same and no extra work will be needed. No range is going to have 28 targets and black out 3 of them for long. As it is most clubs have to be creative to fit the 28 targets in and will not leave room for 3 unused targets.


I have helped to rebuild the 5 ranges at Darrington many times over the years. By themselves, the club does not have the man power to rebuild the ranges if needed. I was involve with Marv Kasting with Bill Brereton when Darrington built their first ranges for the 1982 Nationals. The range is a difficult one to build because of the rough terrain and I know the clubs of Washington will be glad to help, but it will be difficult to change the targets to fit the terrain. Darrington is suppose to have the Nationals for the 75th anniversary of the NFAA in 2020. This rule change might be a good thing for Yangton. For you (just X out 3 targets guys) not going to work for very long and still look professional if the rule becomes official and I believe it will.


----------



## wa-prez

huteson2us2 said:


> Now the entire round is to be changed. On our range in the desert, the first target is the 80 walk up on the field and hunter course and my 72 year old body says is a long walk to target one. The third target is the 45 walk up and the 6th target is the 35 fan. The range will have to be done over if the rule becomes permanent due to the distance of the 28 targets and the distance to walk when the 3 targets are not used.
> 
> No range is going to have 28 targets and black out 3 of them for long. As it is most clubs have to be creative to fit the 28 targets in and will not leave room for 3 unused targets.
> 
> For you (just X out 3 targets guys)


Just to clear up a point, only TWO targets are to be eliminated from each 14-target unit. On the Field round, the 80-yard and 45-yard walk-ups will be eliminated, making a 12-target unit instead of 14. 35 yards will still be shot, but it will be a single-position shot instead of a fan.

My experience is that few ranges (particularly in wooded areas) spread the fan out wide enough to make it meaningful anyway - angles and lighting are virtually identical from all four of the stakes.

My preference / opinion - if the new round is to be approved at all - would be to make it an optional alternative for clubs which don't have enough space to fit all 14 / 28 targets or can't find a good safe space to fit an 80-yard shot. The current round SHOULD be maintained as the official competitive round for Sectional and National competition, and allow the States to specify one or the other as their championship round.


----------



## wa-prez

For those in the know ….

Has anyone seen the minutes of the 2019 NFAA Board of Directors Meeting yet, or know when it will be published?


----------



## RickT

Have been checking NFAA website, nothing yet.


----------



## wa-prez

I created a survey to collect opinions of archers and club representatives about the "Field Lite" proposal.

In case someone jumped in fast, the first link I posted a couple minutes ago was the wrong one, was for people to EDIT the survey, not fill it in.

Here is a link to the survey: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...eqt-wJOrlnplxzkKoDHXDEDlcIXsBXmpFHM4ShDKB4N7A

I hope that will work.

I originally made the survey for my own state, but also added an option for NFAA members who are resident of other states.


----------



## Lazarus

wa-prez said:


> I created a survey to collect opinions of archers and club representatives about the "Field Lite" proposal.
> 
> In case someone jumped in fast, the first link I posted a couple minutes ago was the wrong one, was for people to EDIT the survey, not fill it in.
> 
> Here is a link to the survey: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...eqt-wJOrlnplxzkKoDHXDEDlcIXsBXmpFHM4ShDKB4N7A
> 
> I hope that will work.
> 
> I originally made the survey for my own state, but also added an option for NFAA members who are resident of other states.


Good work. Be interesting to see the results.

Regardless, public opinion is really irrelevant. The vote at the meeting is invalid. The Directors voted to do something (use an unofficial NFAA round at sectionals) that is clearly against the NFAA Constitution and bylaws.


----------



## TNMAN

Lazarus said:


> Good work. Be interesting to see the results.
> 
> Regardless, public opinion is really irrelevant. The vote at the meeting is invalid. The Directors voted to do something (use an unofficial NFAA round at sectionals) that is clearly against the NFAA Constitution and bylaws.


Sort of. The rules say that one of the requirements for a sanctioned shoot is that an official round be used. If State or Sectional shoots use an unofficial round, the shoot cannot be sanctioned. Multiple problems come with that.


----------



## nestly

wa-prez said:


> I created a survey to collect opinions of archers and club representatives about the "Field Lite" proposal.


Done. 
Member: NFAA / USAA / PSAA


----------



## nestly

wa-prez said:


> For those in the know ….
> 
> Has anyone seen the minutes of the 2019 NFAA Board of Directors Meeting yet, or know when it will be published?


Screencaps of the minutes are posted on Target Archery Unlimited FB. Indications are the text/PDF version should follow shortly.


----------



## wa-prez

Well, the Minutes have been sent to the Directors …

The Council proposal C-8 came out a little different in the Minutes than the version that was in the Agenda Item.

They improved a couple things (eliminated the 70-yard and the 44-yard shots from the Hunter round instead of 70 and 64, plus eliminated one Group3 and one Group 4 target from the Animal round (instead of taking out two of the three Group 1 animals).

BUT they specified some really strange distances for the Cubs - requiring Cubs to shoot 30 yards at a 35cm face when the adults are also shooting 30 yards. On the regulation Field round Cubs shoot 10 yards at that distance.

Here's the version of that item that is in the Minutes. The targets and distances were presented as a table, I can't seem to make it come through OK:

C-8. Minnesota moved to adopt as amended. Seconded by Michigan. Motion is adopted.
No changes or additions to the By-Laws.
The motion was to use the proposed format as a Trial for all 2020 Outdoor Field Sectionals.
The following changes are proposed.

Field	Hunter	Animal	Cub	Field Target	Hunter Target	Animal Target	Youth Field Youth Hunter
1	35 ft 11 20-10	35 ft 20 cm 20 cm 4 
2	15 15 20-10	15 35 cm 35 cm 4 
3	20 19 20-10	20 35 cm 35 cm 4 
4	25 23 35-25	25 35 cm 35 cm 3 
5	30 28 35-25	30 35 cm 35 cm 3 
6	35 32 35-25	15 50 cm 35 cm 3 
7	40 40 45-35	18 50 cm 50 cm 2 
8	45 36 45-35	20 50 cm 50 cm 2 
9	50 48 45-35	20 50 cm 50 cm 2 
10	55 53 60-50	20 65 cm 50 cm 1 40 41
11	60 58 60-50	25 65 cm 65 cm 1 45 45
12	65 64 60-50	30 65 cm 65 cm 1 50 50


•	3 arrows shot at each distance.
•	Arrows may be shot at any target face on the butt.
•	Archers will shoot 12 targets shooting first and 12 targets shooting second.
•	Cubs shoot at their own stake other than on the Hunter & Animal Round – they either shoot their own stake or the Hunter-Animal Stake – which ever is the least distance.


----------



## wa-prez

Let's try that C-8 as a JPEG


----------



## pokynojoe

The bullet point the states: "Arrows may be shot at any target face on the butt" seems to conflict with the standard shooting order of say a four archer target group. I.E. bottom/top; left/right. Or am I reading too much into this?


----------



## pahuntr

Looks like this table exposes the previous statement that "the changes will simply eliminate 2 targets per half and not require existing courses to expend additional funds" to be incorrect. Unless of course NFAA, and the Minnesota and Michigan representatives, are going to provide new target markers for all of the existing ranges and will be volunteering their time to install new shooting stakes! Of course one can see the forethought that went into this change by simply noting that it is proposed that cubs shoot 30 yards at a 35 cm field face but 30 yards or less at both 50 and 65 cm faces!


----------



## wa-prez

pahuntr said:


> L Of course one can see the forethought that went into this change by simply noting that it is proposed that cubs shoot 30 yards at a 35 cm field face but 30 yards or less at both 50 and 65 cm faces!


Yes, this table is DIFFERENT from what one would have understood from the Agenda Item as it was presented.

I think the Cub distances in this table are a BIG mistake. Although there are some hot shooting cubs, a lot of them have enough trouble with the 65cm face at 30 yards, expecting them to hit a 34cm face (when presented with four on the butt) is a little tough. I hope it was an inadvertent mistake which will be corrected in another iteration of the proposal.

But I really hope the proposal dies a quick and merciful end.


----------



## pahuntr

wa-prez said:


> Yes, this table is DIFFERENT from what one would have understood from the Agenda Item as it was presented.
> 
> I hope it was an inadvertent mistake which will be corrected in another iteration of the proposal.
> 
> But I really hope the proposal dies a quick and merciful end.


Maybe the next "iteration of the proposal" that was passed should be to eliminate all changes from the existing round!


----------



## nestly

pokynojoe said:


> The bullet point the states: "Arrows may be shot at any target face on the butt" seems to conflict with the standard shooting order of say a four archer target group. I.E. bottom/top; left/right. Or am I reading too much into this?


You're reading it right, the intent is to eliminate hurt feelings (zeros) because someone can't keep track of which target is asigned to them. It's gonna be awesome when I'm aiming at a peep and an arrow from an archer on one side of me flashes across my line-of-sight and either hits the dot I'm aiming at, or a dot on the complete other side.  

Stupid. If someone can't figure out what target they're supposed to shoot, they deserve a zero, especially when there are 2-3 other people in the group that will gladly help them if they just ask.


----------



## Bikeman CU

My understanding is the NFAA Board of Directors meeting is every two years. They met in 2019, next meeting is 2021. If the new rounds are for 2020 Sectionals only, what round will be used for 2021 Sectionals ? Will we shoot the 560 Field / Hunter rounds ?


----------



## Unclegus

Bikeman CU said:


> My understanding is the NFAA Board of Directors meeting is every two years. They met in 2019, next meeting is 2021. If the new rounds are for 2020 Sectionals only, what round will be used for 2021 Sectionals ? Will we shoot the 560 Field / Hunter rounds ?


The vote on this new round will be a mail in vote by the directors in September of 2020 and it will be deemed the new official round if it passes.


----------



## RickT

The 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes are posted on the NFAA website. Open Menu (upper right on home page) and click on News.


----------



## Arcus

I just read the minutes and also the actions taken on the agenda items (click on the link provided in the minutes). I have a couple of questions regarding the newly-established barebow recurve category.

- Do the minutes supersede the the agenda items actions? For example, the minutes specify that this category is for only adult and senior. However, the new age chart listed in the action for the agenda item includes SS and MS.

- In the agenda item action for BBR, it specifies that it will be tried for two voting terms. Does that mean four years?


----------



## archer_nm

The minutes are not the entire meeting, they are only the highlights/main items discussed and not verbatim


----------



## wa-prez

I received my copy of the new NFAA Constitution and By-Laws in the mail today.

Haven't looked, but I expect it is also available online to download too.

I like having the .pdf version on my computer because it is so easy to search.


----------



## 2413gary

Field round is not going anywhere. It takes a 2/3 majority to change. There was only about a10% approval on the floor at the meeting.


----------



## rsw

As usual, there are a number of opposing opinions on the field round. It seems to be largely a senior shooter exercise today in most areas of the US. Aside from the rise of 3D, other factors have created the decline of interest in field archery: many kid activities today that didn't exist when field archery arose to its highest popularity in the 1970s; the cost/availability of large plots of land for field clubs to support the rare field ranges that have survived the 3D invasion; the massive amount of labor required to maintain field ranges is even more debilitating. These factors combine with the current long time it takes to shoot a full field round and the complicated rules serve to deter new archers so our ranks continue to decline as the old field archers leave the game with few newcomers to fill the lost members.

I am an old archer from the 50s and I know and love the tradition of the original round, but I have also recommended this change to the NFAA and support it as perhaps a way for more archers to shoot and enjoy a quicker and simpler round. Interestingly, Colorado used to have a state International Round (using field and hunter faces) each year (in the 60s and 70s) and it had the highest attendance of any of our well-attended state events. That is one reason I suggested this evolution. It is much quicker, easier, less complicated, less land/money/labor intensive yet retains some aura of the original field round. I fear that without some changes, field archery will founder and die in the not too distant future


----------



## forthill

As field archery is my favorite form of archery, I have been giving some thought lately to the issues or perhaps perceived issues with field shooting. The round does not need to change in my opinion, I think the national tournament needs a home. If we think about the rest of the types of archery, the national or championship level tournament is in a fixed location or limited to a small geographic area. For example, safari style shooting is extremely popular on the west coast and Reading is there to support the local commitment with the culminating tournament. The same is true with indoor and the national tournament. I believe the NFAA when looking for a place to move while Louisville was being remolded wanted to stay in the region because of the following developed. The ASA limits it's tournaments to the southeast and 3-D shooting is thriving in that geographic area. IBO does the same a little further north. I believe you build a following where the area shooters can depend on the major event year in and year out, their commitment will grow and form the backbone. This will allow others from around the country to participate if wanted but there will be an area of support to always carry the style of shooting. I believe the hotbed of field is the east coast. Mechanicsburg always draws the biggest crowds and New York did the same when the national tournament was located in Watkins Glen. It also allows a club to be able to better serve the tournament by building and growing as needed. The dependable income over years provides stability and resources for the hosting area. Perhaps it is time to think about fixing the tournament in a location and allowing a committed following to build opposed to trying to rebuild every three years as it is done now. Some Food for Thought!


----------



## wa-prez

forthill said:


> As field archery is my favorite form of archery, I have been giving some thought lately to the issues or perhaps perceived issues with field shooting. The round does not need to change in my opinion, I think the national tournament needs a home. Perhaps it is time to think about fixing the tournament in a location and allowing a committed following to build opposed to trying to rebuild every three years as it is done now. Some Food for Thought!


This is a little off the original topic, but I have some STRONG feelings on the idea of a single long-term site for the NFAA Outdoor National.

The Nationals is setup to rotate in three zones - East, Central and West. 

I have been shooting field for 40 years, and have attended a LOT of National Championship tournaments, including Watkins Glen, Blue Springs, Detroit Lakes, Wausau, Darrington, Mechanicsburg, and Yankton.

Some I liked better than others, but I think the rotation is very important for a few reasons.

One is that a lot of people will never attend Nationals (or won't go for the first time) unless it is within a day's drive. It is a tough hurdle to get on an airplane and fly to an event you have never experienced.

On the other side of that, even with Darrington within 200 miles of my home, and as much as I love that location, I might not attend every year if it was always there, because I like to visit new places and see new things.

The three sites in the current location (Darrington, Yankton, and Mechanicsburg) have quite different characteristics and attributes (good and bad) and I think that is also very important. 

Yankton is a VERY flat and VERY open course, in a community with a few different hotel choices, plus the KOA campground AND the NFAA Headquarters / Museum. Good for people who can't climb hills, but tough if high temperatures / humidity knock you out. It is centrally located, so only three days driving time from the west coast, but quite a ways from the nearest airports.

Mechanicsburg is a mild terrain course, with mostly hardwood forests and widely mown lanes and trails. Easy to shoot, and mostly mild weather (although two years that I know of have been interrupted by thunderstorms). LOTS of hotels, restaurants, some shopping, tourism (civil war history, Hershey factory, Lancaster Archery). Close to airport. 

Darrington is in mountain terrain, with some steep courses, lots of up and down and across hills. Heavily wooded. Mild temperatures. Plus is lots of camping at the range and on the adjacent school grounds, and campgrounds near town. Downside is few and distant hotels, and distance from SEATAC airport although there is new northern airport option. GREAT for families because camping can really keep cost down. Fun things to do like raft trip, petting zoo (kangaroos), berry farm.

And I think if another Club or State Association in each region bid for a spot in the rotation, they would be welcome too.


----------



## nestly

The problem with a "home" location for Outdoor Nationals is Yankton is almost certainly going to get it, but of the 3 current options Yankton is the location the shooters are least likely to attend. I'd personally rather see MBurg and Darrington alternate or add a 3rd location that's more attractive to the members than Yankton

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk


----------



## bobcat102

The thing is I understand where your coming from on the point fo shooting different locations, but lets say we moved vegas to the east coast every 3 years it goes back and forth I don't think you see the same numbers on the east coast as you would in vegas. And I know the Vegas shoot is the Vegas shoot, its built a reputation there, thats the idea we need to move forward with in the Outdoor Nationals. we need to make it gain a reputation at one location.


----------



## forthill

I certainly understand your feelings but I guess I could make the argument; why don't we do this with all of the national tournaments. Lets move the marked 3-d, indoor and well Vegas might be a stretch..might need a name change.. all to roving locations around the country allowing for the several hour drive to make all types of tournaments. I certainly believe this would be an ideal situation but just does not work under real life circumstances. We fly regularly to tournaments around the country and drive substantial distances to others. It is certainly not the most convenient, but I understand the commitment these areas have built around the particular tournament. Also as stated earlier, it allows for the backbone of support to be built and sustained over long periods. I also agree Yankton would not be the best location. Again as stated, the east coast has always provided the best crowds and it would make sense to look for a location, in the eastern region, that can provided the needed space as well as amenities to sustain and support the attendees. Mburg can certainly do this but am unsure if this is THE location. As for the three locations now being used, Yankton's ranges are bland and the tournament has been managed in a mediocre fashion the times I have attended. This has been discussed in other threads. In addition there is no easy way to fly in and the surrounding area is certainly limited. I have not been to Darrington but believe the isolated location makes it a challenging destination for sure. There is not an easy way to get there or adequate places to stay once you arrive. This has also been extensively discussed. Mburg does meet the requirements of travel and hotels and supporting infrastructure as well as runs an outstanding tournament so should be at least considered. However, if a long term contract is to be given I believe more clubs would be interested with the better chance of recovering their investment. It currently makes no sense to build ranges required for the field nationals to only use them at best once every three years with no guarantees. As to off topic, I apologize but I believe the wrong question is being considered when trying to increase interest in field archery. It is not the round in my opinion, it is the hype or lack there of for the yearly event.


----------



## nestly

forthill said:


> As to off topic, I apologize but I believe the wrong question is being considered when trying to increase interest in field archery. It is not the round in my opinion, it is the hype or lack there of for the yearly event.


Enjoyed your whole reply, but IMO the biggest "problem" with Field is summarized by what you said in your last sentence. It's not promoted at all on the local level, and not by the NFAA either. I live mere minutes from Mechanicsburg, and there's zero effort to inform the local residents that there's a national tournament occurring.... not a radio or TV promotion, no billboards, and not even a sign at the intersections in the informing locals that an important archery event is occurring. Basically there's zero effort to inform anyone that doesn't already know.


----------



## Mr. Ken

I shot field and indoor archery back in the mid 80's. I have been shooting rifle metal silhouette for the past 14 years. I just stopped shooting due to lower back problems and other issues and came back home to shooting archery. The number of shooters are declining in rifle metal silhouette also. The NRA say that it is the clubs responsibly to promote the shooting sports. I and others say the NRA should help promote the shooting sports but they won't. If a national championship has less than 50 shooters, the NRA will cancel and take away the championship title from the match. The club still held the same match after that with just a name change. Field archery is not alone. 

We do need to have the local support. Run ads in the local papers. Put fliers in the local sporting goods stores. Have the local TV stations do a telecast from the range and get the news reporter taking a couple of shots on camera. Set up the shots so they are very easy. Make it so the reporter has a lot of fun. It takes a lot of ground work and not everybody wants to do that. I bet a lot of local shooters are not even aware of the matches that are shot right in their own back yard (so to speak).


----------



## rsw

Probably the best factor for rotating geographical sites for the field championship today is to maintain the few archers that continue to shoot field archery. By maintaining a central location in Yankton is that there are adequate facilities there to host a major shoot. Prior to the advent of 3D and the arrival of mass youth sports activities, the National Field Championship was a much larger event than it is today and field archery was also a major local/regional activity with shoots nearly every weekend. Mid-US nationals in Aurora, IL had huge attendance numbers reaching over 1000 shooters one time I believe. The nationals were an annual family vacation event as well. The point is that if we eliminate mid- and west-US nationals, we will soon lose a large number of field archers altogether who can't afford to travel to distant sites each year. Personally, I would prefer Mechanicsburg as a single site, but for the good of field archery, Yankton would be the best for field archery if the Natioanls were to evolve into a single site event.


----------



## nestly

rsw said:


> Probably the best factor for rotating geographical sites for the field championship today is to maintain the few archers that continue to shoot field archery. By maintaining a central location in Yankton is that there are adequate facilities there to host a major shoot. Prior to the advent of 3D and the arrival of mass youth sports activities, the National Field Championship was a much larger event than it is today and field archery was also a major local/regional activity with shoots nearly every weekend. Mid-US nationals in Aurora, IL had huge attendance numbers reaching over 1000 shooters one time I believe. The nationals were an annual family vacation event as well. The point is that if we eliminate mid- and west-US nationals, we will soon lose a large number of field archers altogether who can't afford to travel to distant sites each year. Personally, I would prefer Mechanicsburg as a single site, but for the good of field archery, Yankton would be the best for field archery if the Natioanls were to evolve into a single site event.


Yankton is the least liked of the 3 venues and attendance is poor there despite its more centralized location. Mechanicsburg is probably the only venue where the majority of the shooters can drive. For those that are flying, it doesn't really matter if you're flying half way across the US, or the whole way, the time and cost commitment are not much different. Personally I had a really good finish at outdoor Nats in 2018 and I really wanted to go back and try to get more in 2019, but I just couldn't get excited about the Yankton courses. I also knew attendance and shooter quality would be less at Yankton and I didn't have a good feeling about going there to try to "steal" one that way.


----------



## forthill

Like I said earlier, I m not sure if Mechanicsburg is the best location but certainly should be in the mix for selection. If you are going to lock the location or choose a spot for any business endeavor audience geographic location and audience preference is or should be a major consideration. The east coast has always drawn the most shooters from Watkins Glenn to Mechanicsburg. I think the east would be the better location just to serve the base already built. I certainly would like to see if any other locations would enter the selection process if they were guaranteed a long term contract. I think some other location opportunities might present themselves. Although, we may want to show some loyalty to a club that has served us for many years. Not sure what the selection process would be and certainly location selection would be a future decision. I believe the understanding of the advantages of a single location and multi-locations would be the first goal of any planned change. All I do know is what we are doing now is not providing growth for the discipline.


----------



## bdimaggio

nestly said:


> If I have my info right, a proposal passed the vote that would change NFAA Field from 4 arrows at 28 targets (112 arrows total) to 3 arrows at 24 targets (72 arrows total). The Fans and the Walkups are the target stations that will be eliminated. Other changes permit the archer to shoot at any target on the bale. Apparently, this will be implemented at Sectionals next year, then considered again before making it a permanent change at Nationals.
> 
> Personally, I think it stinks. We already have a 72 arrow/24 target round. It's called FITA Field, and as much we complain about low numbers in NFAA Field, they're much worse in FITA Field here in the US from what I can tell, so I think the reps that voted to turn NFAA Field into FITA Field didn't really put enough thought into this and/ore spent too much time in the sun last weekend.


Quit complaining. If you don’t like the rules start you own league and see how far you get. Too many people out there trying to change things.


----------



## bdimaggio

huteson2us2 said:


> I hate the changes that the NFAA makes without consulting the members or getting their input. The field round is dead thanks to changes by the NFAA. We have a nice 28 field course at our range owned by the county. If they have to change the course around, they will just make the range go away. It doesn't pay to maintain as it is. One field tournament every two or three years. Now the county will dismantle it as that would be easier than making the changes. How about all the private ranges maintained by 2 or 3 members?


That is why I shoot 3D. Less headache.


----------



## nestly

bdimaggio said:


> Quit complaining. If you don’t like the rules start you own league and see how far you get. Too many people out there trying to change things.


I think you misread something somewhere. I'm not suggesting or supporting a change to the existing round or rules, quite the opposite.


----------

