# Emergency Meeting Called By NFAA



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

Straight from the horses mouth!!!!!


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Somebody needs to show up with a bow that will launch 8 inch sewer pipe with a big DIAMOND on it...the type of diamond that starts with the letter "E" and make a mockery of this nonsense.


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm....


Now can you answer the phone?????? Is the gag order lifted????


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Doc said:


> Somebody needs to show up with a bow that will launch 8 inch sewer pipe with a big DIAMOND on it...the type of diamond that starts with the letter "E" and make a mockery of this nonsense.


Click is just the man to do it!!!!!!!!!!

Go Click!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tuningfreak (Apr 6, 2004)

How much cash did Easton 'contribute' to the NFAA this year? 

I was told they made a sizeable 'donation'.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

Tuningfreak said:


> How much cash did Easton 'contribute' to the NFAA this year?
> 
> I was told they made a sizeable 'donation'.


If the numbers I have heard are correct then the NFAA/WAF could not function without it!!!!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

DarrinM said:


> Things that make you go hmmmmmmm....
> 
> 
> Now can you answer the phone?????? Is the gag order lifted????


let just say that all yall can make up your own conclusions......

big brother is watching....listening...and perhaps even jockeying right now to make sure you, me and everyone see's things their way.....


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

Sounds like somebodies wallet was getting threatend.

Rescinded... I cant wait to hear the reasoning behind this one...........


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Tuningfreak said:


> How much cash did Easton 'contribute' to the NFAA this year?
> 
> I was told they made a sizeable 'donation'.


i was told that has nothing to do with this rescinding of the rule voted into place:zip::zip::zip:


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

OneBowTie said:


> let just say that all yall can make up your own conclusions......
> 
> big brother is watching....listening...and perhaps even jockeying right now to make sure you, me and everyone see's things their way.....


Oh, I have no doubt about that!!!!

Let the spinnin' begin!!!!

Can you elaborate on how the vote was split on the initial decision to impliment the 9.3mm size rule???


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

It's interesting that the NFAA declared a commercial relationship with the arrow manufacturers. Is this even legal for their type of structured organization?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> Sounds like somebodies wallet was getting threatend.
> 
> Rescinded... I cant wait to hear the reasoning behind this one...........


the board acted recklessly in coming to the ruling....at least thats what i got out of it....

something about WE the board didnt consult the arrow companys who out there making premier arrows specifically for the NFAA shooters.....and that we the directors must not know what our members want...because they want bigger arrows....

anyway....i feel better now that such a reckless decision has been corrected....

remember people....no good deed goes unpunished:wink:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

This should be interesting... :wink:


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> the board acted recklessly in coming to the ruling....at least thats what i got out of it....
> 
> something about WE the board didnt consult the arrow companys who out there making premier arrows specifically for the NFAA shooters.....and that we the directors must not know what our members want...because they want bigger arrows....
> 
> ...


Give them all 1st place trophies and break out the huggers...I have heard tales of a Diamond in the making...the future of archery--->file quarterly and you get a 30 point spot.


----------



## Tuningfreak (Apr 6, 2004)

OneBowTie said:


> i was told that has nothing to do with this rescinding of the rule voted into place:zip::zip::zip:


They tryin ta sell ya some land in Florida too........:wink:

These reeks! I can smell it all the way to Western New York!


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Did I suggest we consult arrow manufacturers before jumping off the "deep end?" Yes I did. When making a decision that effects others we better "look." Do I feel that there should be a limit? Yes. All the organizations get together and meet with all the arrow manufacturers and come up with one. Hopefully nothing over 26s ,but would accept the 27s.
Again, I use less than 23s.


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> let just say that all yall can make up your own conclusions......
> 
> big brother is watching....listening...and perhaps even jockeying right now to make sure you, me and everyone see's things their way.....


A $100 crispie tagged to my target butt Friday would help the wound caused by this 



WV Has Been said:


> Sounds like somebodies wallet was getting threatend.
> 
> Rescinded... I cant wait to hear the reasoning behind this one...........


Yep how the directors get called BACK into session AFTER the meeting concluded will be fun to read about.....



OneBowTie said:


> i was told that has nothing to do with this rescinding of the rule voted into place:zip::zip::zip:


Right, right... Exactly



Hinkelmonster said:


> Can you elaborate on how the vote was split on the initial decision to impliment the 9.3mm size rule???


Yes OBT how was the votein the Official meeting??? A Landslide or a squeaker????? How aboutthe "special session"???????


You know I think the NFAA just O'malleyed us.. (Md Gov look up his crooked tales)


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Well I'll be ripped.

The diamond really does have a pair of crowned jewels.

Will the real NGB please step forward to adorn it's tainted crown?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hinkelmonster said:


> Oh, I have no doubt about that!!!!
> 
> Let the spinnin' begin!!!!
> 
> Can you elaborate on how the vote was split on the initial decision to impliment the 9.3mm size rule???



well i just happened to be on the committee which met to discuss and recommend a proposal to the board....and the committee came with the 9.3mm size arrow for several reasons....

apparently, we recklessly thought that the 9.3 size arrow was implemented with the blessing of ONE of our MAJOR sponsors......so we did use that to help determine the size.....(however, we were told that absolutely not did our sponsor or any connection to such sponsor have any part in that size arrow being the rest of the world standard)

next, we the committee thought it just made sense to STANDARDIZE......with the rest of the world and allow our archers that do happen to shoot both fita and nfaa shoots to have a single setup for indoors at the least....

also, we used the fact that a 9.3 mm arrow just might level the playing field much more then the disparity of arrow sizes out there right now.....

and of course....we used the fact that the directors were DIRECTED by their members to vote on this......

but hey.....what do we or you know


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

DarrinM said:


> A $100 crispie tagged to my target butt Friday would help the wound caused by this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DCM...you had best snap-to...diamonds are forever-->remember that and you'll be able to attend the shoots.


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

SonnyThomas said:


> Did I suggest we consult arrow manufacturers before jumping off the "deep end?" Yes I did. When making a decision that effects others we better "look." Do I feel that there should be a limit? Yes. All the organizations get together and meet with all the arrow manufacturers and come up with one. Hopefully nothing over 26s ,but would accept the 27s.
> Again, I use less than 23s.



Did FITA consult all these manufacturers when they implemented a size restriction umpteen years ago???????? 

Self governance..... A thing of the past I guess..... First the NAA next the NFAA....... Who will be hand picked to rule us by the mighty diamond????


----------



## homefries04 (Feb 13, 2006)

Good job diamond. This is the same reason alot of countries in the UN don't like the U.S. If they want to do something we don't like, we threaten to pull funds. Looks like the like type of politics going on here. I strangly feel like shooting my CarbonTechs again. Go figure. :wink:

Kevin


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

DarrinM said:


> A $100 crispie tagged to my target butt Friday would help the wound caused by this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


let the record reflect.....that the initial vote was a landslide to go with the 9.3mm arrow....i think at most, 6 people voted against this.....

it was never brought back to floor for any further discussion.....matter fact, it appeared that this was ONE of the passed agenda items that most felt good about.....well, that was up until about 630 pm this evening...then we found out how dumb we were


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Doc said:


> DCM...you had best snap-to...diamonds are forever-->remember that and you'll be able to attend the shoots.


Unless they start building driver heads and irons I am not worried...... gentlemen prefer golf!!!!!! Much better sport I must say..... Civilized!:wink::zip:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

DarrinM said:


> Did FITA consult all these manufacturers when they implemented a size restriction umpteen years ago????????
> 
> Self governance..... A thing of the past I guess..... First the NAA next the NFAA....... Who will be hand picked to rule us by the mighty diamond????


oh come on.....the pieces are already deeply entrenched and in place....


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

OneBowTie said:


> let the record reflect.....that the initial vote was a landslide to go with the 9.3mm arrow....i think at most, 6 people voted against this.....
> 
> it was never brought back to floor for any further discussion.....matter fact, it appeared that this was ONE of the passed agenda items that most felt good about.....well, that was up until about 630 pm this evening...then we found out how dumb we were


Who were THE 6?????

What could have been possibly said in that "2nd" meeting to change the minds of a ??? - 6 vote!!!!!


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Recordkeeper said:


> Well I'll be ripped.
> 
> The diamond really does have a pair of crowned jewels.
> 
> Will the real NGB please step forward to adorn it's tainted crown?


Would the Jim please ordane his hand picked NGB?????????



OneBowTie said:


> let the record reflect.....that the initial vote was a landslide to go with the 9.3mm arrow....i think at most, 6 people voted against this.....
> 
> it was never brought back to floor for any further discussion.....matter fact, it appeared that this was ONE of the passed agenda items that most felt good about.....well, that was up until about 630 pm this evening...then we found out how dumb we were


What do 50 directors know about shooting.... Silly director... Tricks are for kids...:zip::wink:


----------



## skynight (Nov 5, 2003)

I don't know a thing about this, but wouldn't Easton stand to make a bunch of $ if everyone had to throw out what they are currently using?


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

DarrinM said:


> Unless they start building driver heads and irons I am not worried...... gentlemen prefer golf!!!!!! Much better sport I must say..... Civilized!:wink::zip:


Wait till Pebble Beach turns into the next home of the ASA, then you'll be walking the line for Johnny CASH. Those driver heads won't do you any good...nothing like a 3 Jack in a McDonald's playland.


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Doc said:


> Wait till Pebble Beach turns into the next home of the ASA, then you'll be walking the line for Johnny CASH. Those driver heads won't do you any good...nothing like a 3 Jack in a McDonald's playland.


The day the ASA groupies can afford Pebble enmasse I WILL be back into archery full time!!!!!!!!

Until then Pebble is hallowed ground for GOLFERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And at $459.99 a round & booked I bet it stays that way


----------



## Tuningfreak (Apr 6, 2004)

*Bowtie on another thread.........*

I Can Tell All Y'all This



when i came to vegas....i had already made up my mind that this was my final trip as a NFAA rep.......i was getting the feeling that things just really didnt change fast enough for the betterment of archery.....i was getting to the opinion that on state levels things are appreciated and they are becoming too much ME ME ME ( i still have that feeling)

however....after attending each and every single one of these meetings....and they all lasted from either 8am-430pm or 9-5 other then todays...which ended sooner.....

these meetings were conducted with some new...some old blood....but it was definately conducted with a NEW ATTITUDE.....that of stepping up and listening too.....reasoning with...and in many cases...CHANGING things that would BETTER ARCHERY....NOT ME

sure, there were many sides that started in most discussions....however....in almost all cases....the prevailing side....appears to be made with the BEST INTEREST OF ARCHERY


I URGE ANYONE NOT A MEMBER, TO GET ON BOARD AND CONTINUE THE BETTERMENT OF ARCHERY.....

IF YOU HAVE BEEN THINKING OF DROPPING YOUR MEMBERSHIP.....I ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER....YOU, THEY, THEM, AND I ARE THE ONLY WAY WE ALL CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE......





Now, my question is....still feel the same way OBT?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hinkelmonster said:


> Who were THE 6?????
> 
> What could have been possibly said in that "2nd" meeting to change the minds of a ??? - 6 vote!!!!!



nebraska was one of them....and i think NJ was another.....i cant be certain...and another of the midwest states was a loud vote against.....other then that....like i said...with 48 voters voting....and only a handful against.....its starting to get easier to see just who the company men are out there:wink:


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Tuningfreak said:


> I Can Tell All Y'all This
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes do tell???????????:wink:


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

Tuningfreak said:


> I Can Tell All Y'all This
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What a couple hours makes, hunh????


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

I'm going on strike..NO big shoots for me this year.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

OneBowTie said:


> nebraska was one of them....and i think NJ was another.....i cant be certain...and another of the midwest states was a loud vote against.....other then that....like i said...with 48 voters voting....and only a handful against.....its starting to get easier to see just who the company men are out there:wink:


My question remains about what could have been said to swing that 42-6 vote around????


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Tuningfreak said:


> I Can Tell All Y'all This
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i was afraid someone would ask me this.....and ONE not to hold back....i do not feel the same way now....its like as a kid walking home from school and seeing your daddy with another women.....you just cant ever look at him the same anymore.....and all our daddys right now is sparkling


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Hinkelmonster said:


> My question remains about what could have been said to swing that 42-6 vote around????



Please see Golden Rule... And/or the Our way Highway map................ That should give you all you need to know.....:zip::embara:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hinkelmonster said:


> My question remains about what could have been said to swing that 42-6 vote around????


hard to explain....other then the fear of possibly the whole org not being a org any longer if certain companys are MAD

i personally say.....once you get on your knee's....you can never stand and walk again.....

and if you take a hard line stance the first time...there will not be a second time....

timing my friend....timing...with bricks and morter already in PROgress....hard to upset the daddy rabbit


----------



## Tuningfreak (Apr 6, 2004)

OneBowTie said:


> i was afraid someone would ask me this.....and ONE not to hold back....i do not feel the same way now....its like as a kid walking home from school and seeing your daddy with another women.....you just cant ever look at him the same anymore.....and all our daddys right now is sparkling


It's a damn shame, a slap in the face to all that voted!

My hope is that EVERYBODY remembers these shenanigans when terms are up!


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> i was afraid someone would ask me this.....and ONE not to hold back....i do not feel the same way now....its like as a kid walking home from school and seeing your daddy with another women.....you just cant ever look at him the same anymore.....and all our daddys right now is sparkling


our Daddy is a Pimp?????????????:tongue::wink:

Does that make us da hoes?


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> i was afraid someone would ask me this.....and ONE not to hold back....i do not feel the same way now....its like as a kid walking home from school and seeing your daddy with another women.....you just cant ever look at him the same anymore.....and all our daddys right now is sparkling


...wow, now thats PROfound:darkbeer:


----------



## Tuningfreak (Apr 6, 2004)

Maybe it's time to flood the 'Diamond' with e-mails concerning their manipulation.


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Tuningfreak said:


> Maybe it's time to flood the 'Diamond' with e-mails concerning their manipulation.


I believe they failed to disclose a e-mail..... At least that is what was posted earlier.....


----------



## cliarcher (Jan 25, 2006)

Tuningfreak said:


> Maybe it's time to flood the 'Diamond' with e-mails concerning their manipulation.


 there is no email address on there web sight!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## StilettoDriver (Jan 22, 2007)

*Emergency Meeting*

If an equipment mfg. can make the rule then WHY do we have an organization in the first place? Frankly, this is a bunch of B/S! So, what's going to happen next????? It's just my opinion but, I had rather be known for my ability as an archer to shoot a truly good score (or bad) on a level playing field. 
The so called BIG MONEY of the NFAA/NAA sponcers seem to feel that the organization can't make it without them.... maybe they should be reminded that they (the sponcers..."E") cannot make it without us the competitive shooters and bow hunters.

My vote is let the stand!


----------



## NEVADAPRO (Jul 5, 2007)

DarrinM said:


> The day the ASA groupies can afford Pebble enmasse I WILL be back into archery full time!!!!!!!!
> 
> Until then Pebble is hallowed ground for GOLFERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And at $459.99 a round & booked I bet it stays that way


Yea, and that's without a caddie!!! :wink: I guess we all know who is running our sport!! And we thought it was us!!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

DONDEERE said:


> ...wow, now thats PROfound:darkbeer:


you know me.....gotta call as i see it.....but dont worry, the daddy rabbit will have his way with the rest of the orgs.....your favorite was the first to fly the flag.....now the NFAA ......who's next....

the daddy rabbit has many carrots out there in the archery world.....many are in full stride chasing the carrot as we speak.....


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Doc said:


> Somebody needs to show up with a bow that will launch 8 inch sewer pipe with a big DIAMOND on it...the type of diamond that starts with the letter "E" and make a mockery of this nonsense.


Here's a good place to start. Think inch and 3 quarters ought to do it

http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/WingTubes.htm#in


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

NEVADAPRO said:


> Yea, and that's without a caddie!!! :wink: I guess we all know who is running our sport!! And we thought it was us!!


Only the slow really thought you had a voice.... Backroom politics suits some better than others


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> Well I'll be ripped.
> 
> The diamond really does have a pair of crowned jewels.
> 
> Will the real NGB please step forward to adorn it's tainted crown?


I believe those ceremonies generally require them to be on their knees for the presentation.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

This can't possibly really be real. It just can't.

I'm going to bed now...and pulling the covers over my head and retreating into my own little world where everything is wholesome and diamonds are forever.

And where governing bodies are governing bodies and not the puppets of powerful sponsors. Not to mention the fact that I am not going to continue to question why JOAD clubs were silenced in the recent election of the NAA's board of directors...as that has now become clear as well.

Somebody call me at 7am tomorrow please...and wake me up from this most horrible nightmare.

I can't comprehend this right now....


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

Recordkeeper said:


> This can't possibly really be real. It just can't.
> 
> I'm going to bed now...and pulling the covers over my head and retreating into my own little world where everything is wholesome and diamonds are forever.
> 
> ...


I guess I'd better retire to the headquarters as well young chap!


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> you know me.....gotta call as i see it.....but dont worry, the daddy rabbit will have his way with the rest of the orgs.....*your favorite was the first to fly the flag*.....now the NFAA ......who's next....


...for the remainder of this yeere, yes...next season is another story yet to be written for my favorite org...

...it appears as though the NFAA's has already been written and rewritten as of earlier this evening...

...just like anything related to this sport...whoever shows up with MORE MONEY the following yeere can replace the previous sponsor...

...we'll see who that might be in 2008:wink:


----------



## Bruce Johnson (Aug 5, 2005)

What puzzles me is that when FITA brought in the 9.3mm rule, I believe Jim Easton was still the president of FITA.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

DONDEERE said:


> ...for the remainder of this yeere, yes...next season is another story yet to be written for my favorite org...
> 
> ...it appears as though the NFAA's has already been written and rewritten as of earlier this evening...
> 
> ...



my friend.....i know for a fact that you are smarter then most....i know smarter then me......so i dont have to tell you....while your intentions are pure and good.....as long as the daddy rabbit is dangling carrots.....your favorite org....my favorite org....and the rest of the favorite orgs are either chasing the carrots....or perhaps a the correct term we should be using ....

bobbing for APPLES.....now make no mistake about it.....theere is NO more $$$ out there or available then the current puppet master:wink:

your org will go with whatever size they are told to go with.....you can say you heard it heere first......

and for the record.....next year the NFAA can make another rule in regards to arrow size.....just as you state the ASA can and perhaps will.....i can only hope that decisons will be made based on what the membership wants....


----------



## Selil (Sep 5, 2005)

I guess honor, honesty, and courage aren't part of archery anymore. I honestly thought the rule was a great idea. More importantly I thought there was courage in making a decision that was good for the sport and would standardize the equipment. My mistake for being to idealistic. My mistake. I'm not sure I'm going to Loisville now... Not sure I want to be associated with any of these so called governing organizations. My mistake for thinking people acted primarily on good intentions. I'll have to ponder this development and what the antics of the manufacturer mean for archery.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> I believe those ceremonies generally require them to be on their knees for the presentation.


How appropriate.

This is beyond "Post of the Day Award" status. In fact, it may be the best post in the entire history of AT.

Sad as it is.....


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

Boycott Easton products !

As individual archers we are small and insignificant, but if we all stand together as one and refuse to ever buy another easton product ever again, THAT WILL MAKE A DENT, that they will notice !

Easton may have all the power with the orgs, but no bas-ard is going to tell me what arrows to buy, and what's easton going to do with a boat load of arrows that no-one wants and they can't shift ???

We need to all stand united on this and let them know that no matter what easton says, we will make our own choices, and WILL NOT be dictated to by easton EVER !  

Bend over easton, we've got a surprise for you !

Woody


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Selil said:


> I guess honor, honesty, and courage aren't part of archery anymore. I honestly thought the rule was a great idea. More importantly I thought there was courage in making a decision that was good for the sport and would standardize the equipment. My mistake for being to idealistic. My mistake. I'm not sure I'm going to Loisville now... Not sure I want to be associated with any of these so called governing organizations. My mistake for thinking people acted primarily on good intentions. I'll have to ponder this development and what the antics of the manufacturer mean for archery.


2/19/08

Let the archery history books note this very date.

The day that integrity passed silently into the cold night air....

:rip:


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> my friend.....i know for a fact that you are smarter then most....i know smarter then me......so i dont have to tell you....while your intentions are pure and good.....as long as the daddy rabbit is dangling carrots.....your favorite org....my favorite org....and the rest of the favorite orgs are either chasing the carrots....or perhaps a the correct term we should be using ....
> 
> bobbing for APPLES.....now make no mistake about it.....theere is NO more $$$ out there or available then the current puppet master:wink:
> 
> ...


...JUAN, while your response is accurate and one with which I do for the most part agree...I would only add this one caveat as it relates to the "bold" words I highlighted...if any organization hopes to be heere another yeere or two...this is precisly what MUST happen...

...as long as the membership has reasonable demands of the organizations of course...and provided the membership actually has some sort of vote within the organization...as we have painfully witnessed...this DID NOT happen this evening...

...now let's leave all this so you can get a few hours on the blackjack table before you are called to another special session in the morning!!...somehow I feel you are gonna "get lucky" tonight:darkbeer:

...good discussion...night buddy:wink:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

I guess it doesn't do any good to believe as a member, you have a voice in the NFAA org.

Who does the NFAA represent??? We need a real org, like the USGA.

If all this is true, I am thoroughly digusted.

Hey NFAA, give all the money back!! Cowed into submission by a private company. The NFAA has lost all credibility. 

IF this news is true, then they are now impotent, a joke, another Pinocchio. What's it going to take to turn this puppet into something real?????

I think it is time for a revolution.

I really hope this isn't true. Members won't stand for this at all.


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

Recordkeeper said:


> 2/19/08
> 
> Let the archery history books note this very date.
> 
> ...


...heere, heere...man, will I ever drink to that!!!:darkbeer:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

DONDEERE said:


> ...JUAN, while your response is accurate and one with which I do for the most part agree...I would only add this one caveat as it relates to the "bold" words I highlighted...if any organization hopes to be heere another yeere or two...this is precisly what MUST happen...
> 
> ...as long as the membership has reasonable demands of the organizations of course...and provided the membership actually has some sort of vote within the organization...as we have painfully witnessed...this DID NOT happen this evening...
> 
> ...


THANKS....as you know me well enough.....i feel that this whole trip is now ruined....i dont feel good about anything after feeling so good about everything not so many hours ago....

i guess ONE still hopes that membership run orgs will do as the membership wishes....

as much as id love to hit the blackjack tables...im going to have to stay clear.....as its not wise to gamble unless you have a clear head....

time to kick back....put on a pay per view.....

perhaps tomorrow wont bring a scratch and dent sale on aluminums.....


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> THANKS....as you know me well enough.....i feel that this whole trip is now ruined....i dont feel good about anything after feeling so good about everything not so many hours ago....
> 
> i guess ONE still hopes that membership run orgs will do as the membership wishes....
> 
> ...


...I can only imagine how you feel buddy...I'm devestated by the whole ordeal and don't really have the vestment in it all that you and other gallent souls do...

...we all saw from the outside looking in that THIS YEERE WAS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT...there was a WAVE of satisfaction amongst archers everywhere, even before this week...

...I can't help but quote a person who I dispise, but who's words make perfect sense at this moment in time..."I FEEL YOUR PAIN"...

...make the best of the time you have out there this week...if you run into the "extended Family" out there, be sure to say "hey" from me...

...when it's all said and done...it ain't nothin but a thang:wink:

...enjoy the pay per view:darkbeer:


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

Do we actually have any direct quotes from that meeting what was said by what arrow company?
I cant believe Easton would be the only company against the smaller size restriction, 

Do we actually know for a fact that Easton or whoever blackmailed the NFAA, or flexed the muscle?? or are we speculating?

Could Easton have sold the NFAA on why it is better for all company's sponsoring the NFAA and tournament archery? that this arrow limit is a bad idea not only for the participants that have spent hard earned money on equipment to now not be able to use it only to have to buy more?

Honestly I think Easton CX and GT all should be able to state their case pro or con on this issue since it does affect them.

Is Easton and the other arrow company's the bad guy in this case?

Or do the Powers that be at the NFAA have rubber spines, and made a poor decision with out looking at the big picture and flip flopped?


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

This wasn't done by one or two. It took a bunch of Directors.
What was said to make them change their vote?


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> THANKS....as you know me well enough.....i feel that this whole trip is now ruined....i dont feel good about anything after feeling so good about everything not so many hours ago....
> 
> i guess ONE still hopes that membership run orgs will do as the membership wishes....
> 
> ...


Pay per view ???? why pay for something you can do yourself, Russell Crowe style, just pick up the phone and start laying people out, you will feel much better after the first dozen or two heads are cracked, especially if they happen to have anything to do with easton !!! :wink: :wink: :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

I think we all owe OBT a huge thank you for his careful if not OBT style documentation of this entire incident.

My hat's off to you, bowtie...thank you sir.

If there's any fallout, I'll be there tomorrow to pick ya back up my brother...


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

While I can't say I was terribly happy with the 9.3mm size restriction (mainly because I dislike having things that have been legal for years to suddenly be illegal as it is hard for many of us to afford to retool to a new arrow - I actually agree with the 9.3mm from a technical standpoint) this was handled *really* badly. 

As has been said - why have a standards body if all they are going to do is ask manufacturers what they want? Just put Easton, Matthews, Hoyt, and a few other manufacturers together and let them decide - just drop the pretenses and go from there (of course, I can't say if the other manufacturers would do the same thing or not, I just listed them as some of the major manufacturers).

Plus - what teeth does Easton have with the threat of dropping funding (even if they didn't actually do that obviously many thought they would)? Really, even if they are the main funding line for the NFAA they stand to loose WAY more from doing that than they would gain by a larger legal arrow size. That's why they give the NFAA money - they get more back from doing that than by keeping the money.

I can generally understand why Easton doesn't like the ruling - they obviously made the 2712 just for NFAA venues (the only other places the arrow is legal it is too heavy and no one uses it) and I'm sure it cost quite a bit to develop, test, and make the tooling to produce it and they aren't the ones that made an arrow to force the issue. However, even someone that pays as little attention to the whole thing as I did knew this was on the agenda. They needed to state their case before hand to the directors (or can they attend and address the directors during the meeting?). This way just speaks badly for the whole process and makes a mockery of a supposedly independent standards body - it would be one thing if there was a universal outcry but it seems as if more liked it than not with a huge portion being mostly indifferent (the last where I stand).

Since we have no arrow limitation Gold Tip ought to start producing those 5/8 arrows for any person at the Indoor Nationals (and allow them to be purchased in general, but right now make sure as many people as possible are shooting them. I suppose too late for Vegas) - I would now *love* to see the mayhem caused by that  Had they set it at a 26 or 27 at first or stuck to their guns this would never have occurred.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Recordkeeper said:


> I think we all owe OBT a huge thank you for his careful if not OBT style documentation of this entire incident.
> 
> My hat's off to you, bowtie...thank you sir.
> 
> If there's any fallout, I'll be there tomorrow to pick ya back up my brother...


Yes, thank you Mr. OBT.

I got your back as well.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> I think we all owe OBT a huge thank you for his careful if not OBT style documentation of this entire incident.
> 
> My hat's off to you, bowtie...thank you sir.
> 
> If there's any fallout, I'll be there tomorrow to pick ya back up my brother...


Ditto to that RK. :thumbs_up


Fashionable Kevlar with Ballistic plates and a permanently extended middle finger may be the dress code for the day.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

strcpy said:


> While I can't say I was terribly happy with the 9.3mm size restriction (mainly because I dislike having things that have been legal for years to suddenly be illegal as it is hard for many of us to afford to retool to a new arrow - I actually agree with the 9.3mm from a technical standpoint) this was handled *really* badly.
> 
> As has been said - why have a standards body if all they are going to do is ask manufacturers what they want? Just put Easton, Matthews, Hoyt, and a few other manufacturers together and let them decide - just drop the pretenses and go from there (of course, I can't say if the other manufacturers would do the same thing or not, I just listed them as some of the major manufacturers).
> 
> ...


Good post.

John Kerry is back....The NFAA voted to support their state and local clubs...before they voted against them....:lol:

The damage those huge arrows do to the target butts is enormous....this decision will cost the small clubs that support the NFAA a lot of $$$


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> John Kerry is back....The NFAA voted to support their state and local clubs...before they voted against them....


You're a little slow. I already took that and ran with it just mere minutes ago. My mind is pretty agile.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

The Swami said:


> You're a little slow. I already took that and ran with it just mere minutes ago. My mind is pretty agile.


:tongue:

Well...I'm in the Eastern time zone ya know...it's pretty darn late here....well past RK's bedtime.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

I guess GT is getting the last laugh eh?


----------



## ursonvs (Sep 19, 2003)

the emergency was....

EASTON found out about the ruling and suggested they better recall the vote or lose $500,000 in funding that Easton gives to the NFAA.

lets not beat around the bush people, call it like it is.


this is from a reliable source, not giving names.

call me a hater or not, mods can delete this post if they see fit.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

ursonvs said:


> the emergency was....
> 
> EASTON found out about the ruling and suggested they better recall the vote or lose $500,000 in funding that Easton gives to the NFAA.
> 
> ...


For some reason, I find myself humming the theme from Dallas.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> Plus - what teeth does Easton have with the threat of dropping funding (even if they didn't actually do that obviously many thought they would)? Really, even if they are the main funding line for the NFAA they stand to loose WAY more from doing that than they would gain by a larger legal arrow size. That's why they give the NFAA money - they get more back from doing that than by keeping the money.


I wonder what kind of advertising they bought now? It looks all bad from here. That is what sponsering is for, advertising.

Who's running their ad campaign?????

The competitors can really take advantage of this. I know what I would do if I was managing GT's or Carbon Expresses' accounts.


----------



## 1400 shooter (Oct 31, 2006)

I currently shoot Easton shafts for indoor FITA...But for outdoor shoot Cartel Triples...I can see Carbon Express sales going through the roof if the reason for the change of vote is really as it seems...Next year i might have to come over there with my custom built tank busters 3/4" and clean up at Vegas...lol...


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

*Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

I went home yesterday cold and froze to the bone, you see I work outside, not everyday during the winter anyway. Putting in drainage on the 6th hole in the fairway was a treat, with the wind chill at -12 we were out in all day. 


Now with that said I get back inside and see the laws that passed, Holy crap now i got to get new arrows, everyone is adopting the 9.3 arrow rule how cool. So i left work feeling alittle warmer.

Then I see this this morning what a load of crap, the cold feeeling came back. now i sit here just mad for reasons I wont go into becasue of fear of being banned.


----------



## njharnde (Mar 27, 2006)

*?*

It seem s that they would have atleast made the more popular arrows allowed. cxl, xcutter, linejamers.......? But i do feel a limit is a good idea?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

So, I may have missed something...

BUT>..Whatever happened to the COMMON SENSE RULING that SHOULD have been made..

WHY, and I want to know WHY the "board" didn't seize the opportuinity...to go ahead and rescind the 9.mm size restriction and FOLLOW THE LEAD OF:

IBO, ASA, and LANCASTERS....and put in a MAX SIZE RESTRICTION OFR 0.425, thus making the MAX SIZE allowable for competition of the 2712?

How did this chance pass you all by?

You opened up a can of worms, went back on a supposed agreement with the IBO and ASA, at the ATA show and let the DIAMOND lead you around by the nose.

This really SUCKS! Now, you will have to deal with BROOMSTICK ARROWS for all time....

And all you had to do was use the opportunity presented and max it with the current largest size out there at 2712 effective 1 June, 2008!!


This is just plain nonsense to completely abandon any size restriction totally and open it up to broom handles, and apparently at the will and pushing of an arrow manufacturer that might have the "corner on the market" or something?

I have it on record I preferred the 9.3 mm, but could live with 2712 as the max size...but THIS IS PLAIN RIDICULOUS.

Now, you are going to have individual shops AVOIDING the sanctioning of events thru the NFAA and putting in their own SIZE RESTRICTIONS and saying to heck with sanctioning thru NFAA....SOME clubs might go with no size restrctions and "buy the baliwix"...but I see NFAA sanctioned INDOOR EVENTS...and maybe even some State and Sectional tournaments having a hard time finding a range to host them...or the "club share" of the intake going WAY UP to PAY FOR THE DAMAGES done by broomsticks.

Sure, only a MINORITY of shooters will be able to USE THEM EFFECTIVELY...so that puts it again to the LONG DRAW, HIGH POUNDAGE, gorilla armed shooters getting the ADVANTAGES and the middle guys paying the price for it.

BUYING SCORES has now soared to a new height!

I'm totally disgusted about the "board" NOT restricting at the 2712 diameter and putting a cap on this monster.

field14:wink::embara::darkbeer:


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2008)

*I think I told ya'*

I wonder if the CEO's of the Arrow manufactors will....."lobby" ($$$$$$$$) the WAF to continue to allow the use of the big arrows....

Think of the money that EASTON, Goldtip, and Carbon Express have invested in R&D, manufactoring, and marketing......what about the existing iventories... I have a feeling that the WAF my continue the use of LARGE AND INCHARGE ARROWS....



I am not surprised one bit.....$$$$$$ talks and B.S. walks....

At least someone tried.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Bob_Looney said:


> This wasn't done by one or two. It took a bunch of Directors.
> What was said to make them change their vote?



_$$$$$ & the FEAR of losing it..._


----------



## KH400 (Jan 17, 2008)

Wow...to think that last night I decided I need to join the NFAA (I've only been shooting a few years), and then this. What a corrupt crock. Easton appears to hold the purse-strings, and they are willing to use that to control the rules, no matter what the "governing body" decides. NFAA makes a decision for the good of the sport...Easton tells them to change that to the good of Easton. I guess that is Easton's right as a sponsor.

Bottom line is, unless the NFAA makes the hard decision and tells Easton that this is the way we choose to go for the good of the sport, then the NFAA isn't really a governing body. I'm not sending my dues in to join a subsidiary of Easton. I realize that telling Easton no could mean the end of the NFAA as it is now, and I understand why directors would change the ruling to prevent that. But it stinks that Easton would place them in that position. As things stand now, I will never buy an Easton product again.

I won't bother with the NFAA either, and when our club votes on whether or not to be a part of it next time, I'll vote no.


----------



## sj_lutz (Feb 25, 2005)

Speaking from the prospective of someone who doesn't shoot competively, or as a member of any of the associations, this is a shame. 

I'd guess that the majority of folks out here do at least in passing follow what's going on at the top level of compitition, I know I do anyway. This "drug deal" is pretty much the same as the PBA allowing beach ball sized bowling balls, at least from where I sit. Assuming that whomever wins an NFAA shoot is using the telephone poles, that's a bigger reason for an * than Barry and his juicing. 

For me anyway, this is one more rung in the rules ladder that will keep me from participating in a "sanctioned" shoot.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

MasterYoda said:


> I wonder if the CEO's of the Arrow manufactors will....."lobby" ($$$$$$$$) the WAF to continue to allow the use of the big arrows....
> 
> Think of the money that EASTON, Goldtip, and Carbon Express have invested in R&D, manufactoring, and marketing......what about the existing iventories... I have a feeling that the WAF my continue the use of LARGE AND INCHARGE ARROWS....
> 
> ...


No-one said they can't be used for hunting or in your backyard or elsewhere, just not in competition !

Personally i think they should be reduced even further than the 23's, i think you should only be allowed to shoot arrows that are just large enough to be safe for your draw length and draw weight, but that's just me from the sound of it ! :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> just when you thought it was safe to enjoy the remainder of the week before the competition is scheduled to begin......
> 
> the President called for a EMERGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING....
> 
> ...


Seems like this whole thing is a joke. Last month our regional rep asked our opinion on limiting arrow size to 2613 and most of us agreed that would be a good idea. Then they forget our input go one step farther... 

What they should consider when looking at any rule change is the investment that the folks have already made in equipment purchases and how their decision would impact them.

While I agree they will have to set a limit (to prevent 2" diameter shafts) the limit should be set to existing availability and not consider making obsolete already paid for investments.

And then there are the shooters that have said hurray to this limitation that don't shoot large shafts... Like I said before, lets only change the rules that impact the other guy...


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

I can't wait to hear the official party line spin on this one... :mg:


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

An earlier post made the point that maybe more companies than Easton brought this issue to the board. 

NFAA, IBO, ASA are not NASCAR. They can't dictate to the manufacturers and teams (pros) because they cannot exist without the $$ that the companies bring to the party. These organizations cannot attract enough outside sponsorship, e.g., Coke, Verizon, Bud Light, to enable them to tell the archery manufacturers to take a hike.

Target archery can't compete with hunting archery in terms of $$ spent. The point being, the manufacturers can exist without target archery in all its venues because a lot more of their sales are derived from sales of hunting equipment over target equipment. If target archery could find a way to attract 90% of those hunting archers into shooting target too, then they might begin to have some muscle.

Until then, NFAA, IBO,and ASA are going to need the manufacturers alot more than those manufacturers are going to need the organizations.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

JAVI said:


> I can't wait to hear the official party line spin on this one... :mg:


It's the "super delegate" factor...


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

I might go a little off topic here, but I promise, it's all relevant.

This year I haven't been into the full swing of things with the indoor scene. Sure, I'm heading to a local club once a week to keep somewhat in practice, but that "excitement" just isn't there this year. The main reason for the lack of excitement is due to the fact that I'm not heading to any of the major tournaments this year. Shooting once or twice a week in at the local club doesn't provide me with the motivation needed to keep interested. Without the need to prepare for a major tournament (Louisville, Pittsburgh, ect.), it's tough to justify the hours of practice and effort. 

Why have I decided to not compete this year? Well, in a nutshell, I'm fed up with the NFAA. Here's a few "issues" for me:

- Poor decision making with regards to tournament formats. (Scoring, scheduling, etc. Note to NFAA - ask Lancaster Archery for some pointers)

- Poor decision making with regards to tournament locations (Even though expensive to host, the Pittsburgh long-distance shoot was the most fun. Now we have ANOTHER 20 yard indoor shoot).

- Tremendous mis-use of membership dues to support the yearly "Vegas Vacation"....especially when the meetings are useless anyway. Just call Easton in advance and ask them what pass....it'll save the +/- $100,000 used to pay for the trip.

- Lack of action on several issues, especially the arrow size and the ridiculous amount of classes.

I'm just tired of it all. Maybe I just need a break for a little while, I don't know. My NFAA dues are up next month. I very highly doubt that I'm renewing them. Until they get there act together, why even bother?

OBT - you're a true ambassodor for this sport......I hope that with time you can pull more weight and get this mess straightened out.


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

Thank you OBT (and all the other directors) for being our (NCFAA and AT) voice...we'll be there Thursday to lend whatever support we can...

To all folks headed to Vegas...I've never been before, but I am assuming Easton has a booth at the trade show...be sure to stop by and voice your displeasure, as I know I will...

To Easton...I hope you are reading this...you have always been a huge part of our sport, and you make a great arrow. Becuse of this I have always been happy to purchase your arrows...Its a real shame I will be switching to CX, McKinney or something else...if this is true, you won't get another dime out of me (or I'm sure a lot of others)...


----------



## GATOR-EYE (Jun 30, 2006)

This is my first year as a NFAA member. 

I think arrow size limits are a great idea, a good shot would be a good shot no matter what the size of your shaft. 

It makes a person wonder how effective a Organization can be at promoting and expanding a sport when they can be bought off so easily.

Politics are politics no matter where you are.:zip:


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> Think of the money that EASTON, Goldtip, and Carbon Express have invested in R&D, manufactoring, and marketing......what about the existing iventories... I have a feeling that the WAF my continue the use of LARGE AND INCHARGE ARROWS....


incorrect assumption.
The Diamond would recoup their 2713 tooling costs, if the 23 series limit were unilaterally inforced, by the sale of said 23 series arrows to all the competitors who must now replace their 26s to become "legal".



> I have it on record I preferred the 9.3 mm, but could live with 2712 as the max size...but THIS IS PLAIN RIDICULOUS.


The problem (and the point you're missing) is who gets to decide the limit. You say you could live with 2712s. Well, those are the shafts that caused this whole stink in the first place. Many archers have been thinking that the 26s are rediculous. FITA imposes a 23 series limit. An argument could be reasonably made that exceptional archers should be able to score "X"s all day with X10s (12-13 series) and anything larger is just compensation for poor skill levels.
Thicker arrows make it easier for the "common man" to score closer to the "big boys", but they tear the hell out of range equipment.
Where to draw the line? Who gets to decide?

My thought would be that a REPRESENTATIVE board of the controlling organization, meeting on behalf of it's paying membership, should vote to set equipment parameters and limits for its shooting classes, based on a set of standards, factoring archer costs, range costs and competitive integrity.
THEN and only then, should equipment manufacturers be notified of the rules.
The manufacturers can then either decide to try to supply the membership with the gear, or not. Their choice, should THEY choose to compete for our dollars.
NOT the other way around.
See, when an org like the NFAA accepts the first DIME from a manufacturer, they set up a HORRIBLE conflict of interest and give up even the pretense of organizational integrity.

Welcome to the *E*FAA, fellas.

The only way out of this predicament is for ALL EFAA member archers to quietly ONLY buy 2314 and UNDER sized arrows.
If only a handful of scabs jump the pickett line and aren't shunned by the rest of the membership, then that membership has no more integrity than its board and should be ashamed and shut the bleep up.
If NOBODY buys any 2713, or 2613s or anything above 23s, the message will ring out "Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, we are free at last."

I have a dream,
Hammerhead.


----------



## GATOR-EYE (Jun 30, 2006)

carlosii said:


> An earlier post made the point that maybe more companies than Easton brought this issue to the board.
> 
> NFAA, IBO, ASA are not NASCAR. They can't dictate to the manufacturers and teams (pros) because they cannot exist without the $$ that the companies bring to the party. These organizations cannot attract enough outside sponsorship, e.g., Coke, Verizon, Bud Light, to enable them to tell the archery manufacturers to take a hike.
> 
> ...



I beg to differ.......I will still shoot a target whether Easton puts a banner above my head or not. 

I ve never heard of NASCAR changing the rules to make Sprint happy.

If you have a shoot and people show up so will the manufactures. 

Shame on Easton for strong arming the rules to fit there bottom line and shame on the NFAA for bending down to them.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

hammerheadpc said:


> ellas.
> 
> The only way out of this predicament is for ALL EFAA member archers to quietly ONLY buy 2314 and UNDER sized arrows.
> If only a handful of scabs jump the pickett line and aren't shunned by the rest of the membership, then that membership has no more integrity than its board and should be ashamed and shut the bleep up.
> ...


Actually hte best wya out of it is for everyone still shooting anything Easton to sell or trash them and purchase CE, GT or other brand.

Don't prove to them they were wrong, kick 'em in the nuts!!!!


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

Hinkelmonster said:


> Actually hte best wya out of it is for everyone still shooting anything Easton to sell or trash them and purchase CE, GT or other brand.
> 
> Don't prove to them they were wrong, kick 'em in the nuts!!!!


I agree.....

How's it going down there Hinkleman?


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

Hinkelmonster said:


> Actually hte best wya out of it is for everyone still shooting anything Easton to sell or trash them and purchase CE, GT or other brand.
> 
> Don't prove to them they were wrong, kick 'em in the nuts!!!!


I'm with Hinkydink...I've got a couple dozen Accs going to be trashed or sold real shortly...


----------



## fmoss3 (Apr 20, 2003)

wouldn't it be easier to change the scoreing to inside out.... then the knitting needles would come .
Frank
5 hours and 23 minutes til flight time to Vegas


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

fmoss3 said:


> wouldn't it be easier to change the scoreing to inside out.... then the knitting needles would come .
> Frank
> 5 hours and 23 minutes til flight time to Vegas


The best idea yet.....it kills two birds with one stone....

a) It truely will separate the men from the boys (scores will follow)

b) solves the PVC pipe arrow problem


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Some time back the NFAA changed the target face for field archery and brought the scores down... this decision also brought the membership down. That game has “never” recovered from that decision.

Now there is this idea that going to a smaller shaft is "good for archery". It will lower the scores... perhaps you all should take a history lesson. 

And for those of you that think there are a lot of folks just dieing to trash everything they have over 2315's to reinvest in replacement shafts... think again.


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

Boy, that ruling is going to hoyt a lot of feelings.


----------



## GATOR-EYE (Jun 30, 2006)

I don't know if boycotting Easton is the right answer....

Seems to me Easton is just using good busness sense and protecting there investment. 

Lets fix the problem not the symptoms.


----------



## pintojk (Jan 31, 2003)

*must be early Sage .....*



sagecreek said:


> Boy, that ruling is going to hoyt a lot of feelings.


you know you can do better than that :embara:


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

EPLC said:


> Some time back the NFAA changed the target face for field archery and brought the scores down... this decision also brought the membership down. That game has “never” recovered from that decision.
> 
> Now there is this idea that going to a smaller shaft is "good for archery". It will lower the scores... perhaps you all should take a history lesson.
> 
> And for those of you that think there are a lot of folks just dieing to trash everything they have over 2315's to reinvest in replacement shafts... think again.


I understand why you feel the way you do, but check out these numbers. 85% of voters are in favor of the 9.3mm limit. 

You can't just say that because score might suffer people won't like it. Maybe back when they changed the field target once again the just plain didn't listen to the people!!!!!!

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=640726


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

GATOR-EYE said:


> I don't know if boycotting Easton is the right answer....
> 
> Seems to me Easton is just using good busness sense and protecting there investment.
> 
> Lets fix the problem not the symptoms.


You couldn't be wronger(is that a word?????????????0

Read this board for the past 8 hours. Easton has damn near turned the membership against the org? 

How is that good business sense!!!!!


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

GATOR-EYE said:


> I ve never heard of NASCAR changing the rules to make Sprint happy.


You don't follow NASCAR much do you?

You've heard about this whole top 35 teams are all pre-qualified every week thing?

You know, that little rule to protect the SPONSORS??????


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

Well all I have to say on this issue is if you want to shoot 27's shoot them, no one told you that you had to shoot ace's. I mean come on who cares about arrow size if they are avalible to the public to buy then everyone has the same oppurtunity to be shooting them. Besides if the guy is good he is going to hit the X anyway, hell it will be his fault when it comes down to the shootoff and he can get inside outs with his logs.


----------



## mudpup (Nov 9, 2005)

GATOR-EYE said:


> I beg to differ.......I will still shoot a target whether Easton puts a banner above my head or not.
> 
> I ve never heard of NASCAR changing the rules to make Sprint happy.
> If you have a shoot and people show up so will the manufactures.
> ...



There are huundreds of companies waiting in the wings to donate millions of dollars to Nascar.
The same can't be said for an Archery orginization.
Come on Bowtie, break out the telephone poles.
I'm sure your bow wench could get them to tune.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

With the exception of the national indoor and outdoor and your respective state and sectional championships there is no reason to be a NFAA/EFAA member... Think about it... 

Any top money shoot except the above is open to the public and to shoot in the money classes you don't need a EFAA/NFAA membership card or a NFAA/EFAA pro card... Think about it...


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

EPLC said:


> Some time back the NFAA changed the target face for field archery and brought the scores down... this decision also brought the membership down. That game has “never” recovered from that decision.
> 
> Now there is this idea that going to a smaller shaft is "good for archery". It will lower the scores... perhaps you all should take a history lesson.
> 
> And for those of you that think there are a lot of folks just dieing to trash everything they have over 2315's to reinvest in replacement shafts... think again.


Think of it this way though.....

It may be tougher to shoot the perfect 60x rounds, however, you most likely won't have to shoot perfect scores (for amateurs anyway) to win Louisville anymore. Knowing that a less than perfect score could still win the tournament it also appealing to most people.

I also think you'd be fairly surprised to see how many perfect scores are shot within the pro ranks too. I would venture a guess that if a 23XX limit would be set, at least 30% of the pros that make the shootoff would not be there anymore.


----------



## 1400 shooter (Oct 31, 2006)

I think the arrow size issue is not relly the point here, it is the fact that someone like Easton is basically running the org and making the rules to profit themselves...


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

Its going to be the better shooter that wins not who has the bigger arrows.


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

JAVI said:


> With the exception of the national indoor and outdoor and your respective state and sectional championships there is no reason to be a NFAA/EFAA member... Think about it...
> 
> Any top money shoot except the above is open to the public and to shoot in the money classes you don't need a EFAA/NFAA membership card or a NFAA/EFAA pro card... Think about it...


Believe me, I've thought about it.

I was also gearing up for a couple of dozen new Navigators. Gold Tip or Cartel are looking pretty good right now.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

The majority of serious indoor shooters are already the owners of 9.3mm arrows... because they are shooting the NAA/FITA events....


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

pintojk said:


> you know you can do better than that :embara:



I got nothing.


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

I shoot both NAA and NFAA


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

pyandbc said:


> Its going to be the better shooter that wins not who has the bigger arrows.


That's the way it's always been !!!!


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

JAVI said:


> With the exception of the national indoor and outdoor and your respective state and sectional championships there is no reason to be a NFAA/EFAA member... Think about it...
> 
> Any top money shoot except the above is open to the public and to shoot in the money classes you don't need a EFAA/NFAA membership card or a NFAA/EFAA pro card... Think about it...


Yep.....I agree.

With that in mind, if an amateur decides to go to Louisville, he likely be spending at least $500-$700 "for the experience" that he'll never recover from winnings.

That "experience feeling" only lasts a few times....then it gets worn out.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

EPLC said:


> Some time back the NFAA changed the target face for field archery and brought the scores down... this decision also brought the membership down. That game has “never” recovered from that decision.
> 
> Now there is this idea that going to a smaller shaft is "good for archery". It will lower the scores... perhaps you all should take a history lesson.
> 
> And for those of you that think there are a lot of folks just dieing to trash everything they have over 2315's to reinvest in replacement shafts... think again.


It's really easy to have that one arrow that just slightly catches the line and you say.... boy I'm glad that was a 2712..... But I got to ask, just maybe if it were a 23 series arrow might it not have been a pinwheel...


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Well people what did you expect???

Easton and others have been a great partner to the NFAA for how many years now ?? Plus recently they just became a WHOLE bunch better with what is apparently a very generous partnership with moving and constructing the new NFAA Headquarters … no wonder the original 6 were around the Midwest area.. Yankton being the Midwest and all:wink:

For years everybody is more then glad to go to tournaments and shoot for money that the sponsors put up. In return you are supposed to help your sponsor by supporting their product…… When you unilaterally butcher the marketing of a large share of you sponsors product line they tend to kick back…. Some 23 series… 24..25..26..27 … Sales end in 5 months…. What would YOU do if you poured that kind of money into a partnership and that partnership worked against the very revenue that THEY were providing to YOU………. Come on "ONE" you know how this all works :wink:


The group would have been much better to out a moratorium on anything BIGGER then 27 series until such time details could be worked out …

Also let's not forget that all was well Until a certain company and it's employees had decided to prove a point and develop a super shaft.. One that would never be available to the general public to force a hand to limiting shaft sizes which is what THAT company wanted to see happen… Goltip has tried to stong arm what they wanted with the Orgs and Easton has done the same ….. Who's the bigger partner??:secret::secret:


You accept free money and the terms that come with it or you don't…… Same as the politicians .. Take your special interest money and do their bidding

I'll continue to support Easton…. Good products ..Good company and if I have to shoot a cople of millimeter bigger shaft to keep the money flowing … Logs it is :darkbeer:

Although for the record ….. I do support a 23 sereis shaft….. If it can ever be worked out to keep our partners happy :wink:


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

ex-NFO said:


> Believe me, I've thought about it.
> 
> I was also gearing up for a couple of dozen new Navigators. Gold Tip or Cartel are looking pretty good right now.


Not true, Jesse, Chance, Hoppy, Christenberry, Anderson, Brooks and most of the top indoor PROs do not shoot NAA/FITA


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

Wow what a way to come into a new sport. The more I read, the more I'm inclined to shoot in my back yard with a few friends and leave it at that. Or maybe a few local "non-sanctioned" league shoots. NO WAY will I even consider paying dues to an organization with no back bone.

I am President on an international group of computer programmers directed towards a language developed within IBM. As much as we respect IBM and their representative's "suggestions" our main product (donated to us by IBM) is controlled by our *membership*! 

Guess the next thing I need to do is modify my OnTarget2! software to "default" to a different arrow brand.


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

This was my point if they are avalible to the public who cares what size it is. If they are not avalible to the public then they should not be allowed in a shoot. But look at what happen to the company who built that arrow he didnt win the shoot.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Hinkelmonster said:


> Not true, Jesse, Chance, Hoppy, Christenberry, Anderson, Brooks and most of the top indoor PROs do not shoot NAA/FITA


Their choice... but as I said many do... and some of the worlds best don't shoot NFAA/EFAA:wink:


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

I still say that a change in the scoring method would solve ALOT of problems. Score inside outs on the 10 rings. If you want to sacrifice inside outs for a higher score, so be it. However, if you want to have a chance at winning, you need to sacrifice the allowable margin of error (bigger arrows) to gain the advantage of the inside out score. It's a trade off.


----------



## proXarchery (Apr 9, 2004)

look the people dont really care because rules are rules if you want to play . its not like each person has 10 dozen arrows that he cant use laying around buy some more and thats that. Money corupts a big percentile at some point. 
If you can shoot a 27 in the middle you can shoot a 23 in the middle.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I support the NFAA for listening to it's members .. I also support the wisdom in reversing the ruling when they discovered a problem with what is arguably the biggest sponsor we have right now 


Like I said before … Why would the org work towards reducing sales of the very product they are receiving sponsorship money from??... Easton builds it …we buy it … they give money back to us ???... Why would Easton NOT have a right to express an opinion in this matter??

Another case for I/O scoring ….. Drives people to purchase the highest end shaft that ANY of the manufacturers sell…. Maybe not good for Joe's pocket books but good for business.. Would Easton have a problem if the demand of ACC's , Navigators, ACE's went up?? :wink:


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

No a change in the scoring method would not solve anything it would just screw things up more.


----------



## Limey (May 6, 2005)

Well guys I have just had a meeting with myself and apparantly I have been buying the wrong arrows.

I thought I was buying from a quality, reputable company that had the best interest of archery at its heart.

Guess I was wrong.

So when I bust the ones I already have and sadly I have a lot and I mean dozens... no more Eastons for me. I fell out with Hoyt years ago so no chance spending my money on thier bows.

One less customer here congratulations on the worst PR exercise since someone said the Titanic was unsinkable.

I hope it was worth your 20 pieces of silver Jim or is that Judas


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

centerx said:


> I support the NFAA for listening to it's members .. I also support the wisdom in reversing the ruling when they discovered a problem with what is arguably the biggest sponsor we have right now
> 
> 
> Like I said before … Why would the org work towards reducing sales of the very product they are receiving sponsorship money from??... Easton builds it …we buy it … they give money back to us ???... Why would Easton NOT have a right to express an opinion in this matter??
> ...


Guys buying the high-end shafts (small, stiff) would also likely be sponsered.....

Regular joe's would be content with catching the ten ring, thus allowing them to use the cheaper, bigger, arrows.


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

JAVI said:


> With the exception of the national indoor and outdoor and your respective state and sectional championships there is no reason to be a NFAA/EFAA member... Think about it...
> 
> Any top money shoot except the above is open to the public and to shoot in the money classes you don't need a EFAA/NFAA membership card or a NFAA/WAF pro card... Think about it...


:set1_applaud: :set1_applaud: :set1_applaud: :set1_applaud:

Unfortunately, my dues are paid for this year. I won't be at Hartford the only NFAA/WAF shoot I had planned to attend this year. They don't need my donation, they have Easton's.

Thanks for the update OBT. Question: Where in the Rules and Bylaws do the NFAA executives gain the right and power to call an "EMERGENCY" Board of Directors meeting for such a trivial agenda after the Meeting was officially adjourned? Or any agenda for that matter. Please quote chapter and verse. Who were the 15 signitories?

I see no such power in my reading. If this is true then the second vote is invalid and the size restriction remains intact and infact. 

Screw Easton. They have seen the last of my money. If the management of Easton did not anticipate the negative reaction to building larger logs, that is their problem not the NFAA membership's. 

To all the gutless wonders on the Board of Directors, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Your membership spoke, you had a legal vote, and then you caved like a bunch of patent cowards. RESIGN NOW!!!


----------



## keithbrown (Jan 16, 2007)

i think the nfaa has made a mistake here in two ways. i would like to see a size restriction. first, i think it should be the largest commercially made shaft that is available to the public at the time of the decision to keep our manufacturers happy. this would allow the other manufacturers to make a 27 size shaft to compete in the marketplace with easton so easton wouldn't have the advantage with having the biggest shaft:wink: secondly,to restrict every arrow size above 2315 is kinda crazy with all the manufacturers making the bigger sizes specifically for indoor. it is kind of a slap in the face of the manufacturers to say that all of the r & d, time, and money that has gone into these new sizes was all for nothing. i also feel like if you have an organization like this the members should be the ones voting, not just the directors (i didn't get anything on this issue that asked me my opinion)i don't necessarily agree with the directors on every issue, therefore i don't really want them voting for me. if they would have all agreed to restrict the size to 9.3mm, i would follow the rules as always. to put no size restriction at all is insane we'll be seeing all kinds of crazy stuff next year (possibly this year) if they don't do something. i think they should lets us have some input on how it should go. i know everyone won't agree with me on this, but it is my honest opinion. 



keith


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

All I can say is WOW Im done talking. You cant bash a company for making things that we have asked for but now that its being takin to the extreme you dont want it anymore.


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

centerx said:


> You accept free money and the terms that come with it or you don't…… Same as the politicians .. Take your special interest money and do their bidding


It's not free money. It's money to help ensure that your product gets advertised so you can keep and expand market share.


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

I tell you what if you are going to boycot Easton you can just PM me and I will give you my address to send me your arrows that you are not going to shoot anymore.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

pyandbc said:


> Well all I have to say on this issue is if you want to shoot 27's shoot them, no one told you that you had to shoot ace's. I mean come on who cares about arrow size if they are avalible to the public to buy then everyone has the same oppurtunity to be shooting them. Besides if the guy is good he is going to hit the X anyway, hell it will be his fault when it comes down to the shootoff and he can get inside outs with his logs.


By the same token we could all say well who cares about the target size, lets all just use the 122cm fita face for indoor too, then i can hit tens all day long !

And while we're at it who cares about the 20 yard distance your supposed to shoot from, lets just shoot from 10 yards instead, then we can hit even more inside out X's to make ourselves feel like top shooters !

There need to be a line drawn somewhere, and it's not any of eastons business where the orgs decide to draw that line, well it shouldn't be anyway !

Woody


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

Keith;

In all due respect, you are voting on this. All you have to do is speak with your state's director and let him know how you feel, which I am sure you did... In other states that may be difficult to impossible, but it sure isn't here in NC...I printed out the agenda items and talked to OBT about how I felt about each of them (at least the ones that I cared about anyway). I even let him know how I felt about this issue expecting that it would come up. 

The system isn't really all that different from how we pick a president here in the US. It isn't our vote that counts, but those of the electoral college...the electoral college is responsible to vote the way the people do as is your state director. It isn't a perfect system, but with the involvement level of most of the NFAA membership (At least in this state), most wouldn't even know a vote was being held. We typically have about 6 people at the annual meeting, president, vice presidents, NFAA director...


----------



## flintcreek6412 (Jun 27, 2006)

carlosii said:


> An earlier post made the point that maybe more companies than Easton brought this issue to the board.
> 
> NFAA, IBO, ASA are not NASCAR. They can't dictate to the manufacturers and teams (pros) because they cannot exist without the $$ that the companies bring to the party. These organizations cannot attract enough outside sponsorship, e.g., Coke, Verizon, Bud Light, to enable them to tell the archery manufacturers to take a hike.
> 
> ...


I've got to agree with this post. Target archey is not the bread and butter of any archery related company. I think his point is that if the organizations that bicker continually about rules would ever get together and stop confusing the average archer the hunter participation could jump exponentially and then maybe as an organization you would have leverage against the giant sponsors. Until then, you are at their mercy.

If you think that this move by Easton is going to get hunters to stop using Axis arrows you're dead wrong. Do I like what happened? No, I still think the fat arrows are cheating and 23/64 should be fine for any self respecting archer, but what do I know.

If I can now just get Blazer, Hoyt/Bowtech and HHA sights to become big money sponsors I could use my blazers and one pin adjustables in hunter class of some orgs and shoot over 280fps in others.

Until then, I'll just sit on the sidelines and shoot at clubs that allow them, thus no support for a single organization.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Easton makes the most comprehensive groups of shaft then anybody … They sponsor a lot of Orgs to make archery better for US .. They sponsor AMERICANS at the US Olympics… They keep jobs in AMERICA

And then they speak up and say… "Hey…..we have been catering to the arrows needs of the participants of your org for YEARS and giving you money for YEARS.. .Can we maybe have a discussion before you bite the hand that feeds you "

And WE want to protest their request……………. Odd way of shooters to react don't you think?? We wanted it... THEY built it and They gave some $$$$ back to US… That's how it works … we got EXACTLY what we asked for….. Now we are ASKING for something else… I think you may want to work with EASTON now that we WANT something else just the same ways we GLADLY worked with them on the other things we WANTED … Like New product .. New buildings. More $$$ to shoot for 

It's pathetic that anybody would want put this in a bad light… It's not Good/Bad… It's a partnership and it's business… Don't like Eastons business … Don't ask for the handouts


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

Woody69 would that help you shoot better if it was at 10 yards?


----------



## Limey (May 6, 2005)

pyandbc said:


> I tell you what if you are going to boycot Easton you can just PM me and I will give you my address to send me your arrows that you are not going to shoot anymore.



I'll happily send you all my broken, bent and split ones.

I like you too much to send you the straight ones, I would not want you to feel guilty:darkbeer:


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

It's not really about boycotting Easton......it's about the NFAA going against what the majority of it's members wanted.

Let's say the NFAA had some guts and stuck with the initial decision. Then what? Easton pulls the sponser $. You don't think that the other companies would pony up and jump right in? Besides, I really doubt that Easton would want to leave the door open for someone else to gain the marketshare.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Well crap....now I don't know what to do.

I was getting ready to order my outdoor arrows....not getting Navigators now.


Hinky Dinky...what is the # for Carbon Express again....looks like I maybe shooting Nanos after all this year.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

flintcreek6412 said:


> I've got to agree with this post. Target archey is not the bread and butter of any archery related company. I think his point is that if the organizations that bicker continually about rules would ever get together and stop confusing the average archer the hunter participation could jump exponentially and then maybe as an organization you would have leverage against the giant sponsors. Until then, you are at their mercy.
> 
> If you think that this move by Easton is going to get hunters to stop using Axis arrows you're dead wrong. Do I like what happened? No, I still think the fat arrows are cheating and 23/64 should be fine for any self respecting archer, but what do I know.
> 
> ...


SCABS !!!   

Woody


----------



## pyandbc (Dec 18, 2003)

Man the PM's are not pouring in like I thought. Come on guys if you hate Easton so much give me your arrows and I will use them.


----------



## possum trapper (Nov 24, 2005)

Boy,everyone is making Easton to be the bad guy.I dont know if that is fair yet


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

possum trapper said:


> Boy,everyone is making Easton to be the bad guy.I dont know if that is fair yet


I agree....I think the efforts should be directed at the NFAA.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2008)

I'd be willing to bet some VERY LARGE ARROWS will be shot at vegas this year.....


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

Brown Hornet said:


> Hinky Dinky...what is the # for Carbon Express again....looks like I maybe shooting Nanos after all this year.


I forgot about Nanos. Hmmmm.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

pyandbc said:


> Woody69 would that help you shoot better if it was at 10 yards?


I'm sure it would, just the same as it would help you and every other archer on the planet, but that's not what i want, i want the arrows as skinny as safely possible, in case you didn't notice, i'm a FITA shooter, and i currently use GT ULP 400's for everything, indoor, outdoor field, clout, flight, you name it, i use the one set of arrows for everything, and if i could afford them i would be shooting Nano's which are even skinnier !

Down with the fat shafts ! 

Woody


----------



## Pinwheel 12 (Jun 11, 2002)

I think it's ludicrous for Easton to pull strongarm tactics such as this, simply no need for it. I mean really how much money is enough? What difference does it make to Easton whether they sell 23's or 27's? Really? What will we see next, 36's? 50's? 4"? Maybe a howitzer can be wheeled in so the entire target can be taken out, save time and shoot once instead of three times, I win........yay....sheesh...

The NFAA made a terrible mistake here by caving in to them too. Funding or no ya gotta have pride and dignity in your organization. $500,000 bones is nothing to sneeze at no, but with a little work and elbow grease that can be covered and the org can carry on and hold their head high instead of putting the skirt and kneepads on and in turn thus always being held under the corporate thumb from here on out.. 

I will not be a part of any archery organization that knuckles under to corporate manipulation and thus will not be renewing my NFAA membership. The Easton banner is also coming down in the shop today due to their apparent arrogant attitude and bullying of organizations within our sport. I for one will not support that type of BS in any way. JMHO.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*It's not really about boycotting Easton......it's about the NFAA going against what the majority of it's members wanted.

Let's say the NFAA had some guts and stuck with the initial decision. Then what? Easton pulls the sponsor $. You don't think that the other companies would pony up and jump right in?*

The NFAA officials are elected to do what is right for the NFAA… Absolutely the right thing to do was to vote in arrow restrictions as the membership wanted. The right thing to do was to also reverse that decision when it ran into problems with the orgs biggest sponsor.

Sure this year you may havign the membership cheering on the vote.. But next year when the doors to the new headquarters did not open.. When the purse money went down.. When shoots are struggling … Well rest assured the same membership will be booing the Council for sticking to the decision DESPITE the out comes they knew might come down the road….. Fickle group the MOB .. Darned if you do .. Darned if you don't 

No.. I don't think other companies would jump right in. Easton has a LOT more money backing them then any other company has the resources for .. And they share it …


----------



## JDES900X (May 22, 2002)

> To all,
> 
> Please disregard my last e-mail regarding arrow size restriction as ther has been a last minute change.
> 
> ...



I can't believe you guys are ready to crucify Easton. Yet the fact remains 24, 25 and 26 series shafts have been around for a very long time. I've shot clean games with 1914's, 2014's, 2114's, 2314, 2315,2413, 2419's, 2512's, 2613's, AND 2712's. I can tell you people- It Isn't the arrow size. It is the shooter who puts them there. A good shot is a good shot and a MISS IS STILL A MISS. A loser is still a loser. The new 2712's are really no big deal. The difference on either side of the shaft compared to the 26's is what like 1/128"??? Come on. This is a major cheap shot taken at a great American archery ICON. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that the NFAA decided to wait just a little longer before acting was a prudent one. I stand by the NFAA and I stand up for Easton. The rest of you, I don't know what you stand for. That's all I have to say about it.


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

What other "brands" does Easton market - I'm pretty sure Beman is their product as well???


----------



## flintcreek6412 (Jun 27, 2006)

Woody69 said:


> SCABS !!!
> 
> Woody


No scabs here....they don't get a chance to scab, they just bleed out and die on the spot from those great arrows:wink:


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

5spotbullseye said:


> It's not really about boycotting Easton......it's about the NFAA going against what the majority of it's members wanted.
> 
> Let's say the NFAA had some guts and stuck with the initial decision. Then what? Easton pulls the sponser $. You don't think that the other companies would pony up and jump right in? Besides, I really doubt that Easton would want to leave the door open for someone else to gain the marketshare.


I really don't think so...other companies don't currently dump money into our sport the way Easton does. I'm sure if they wanted to, NFAA/WAF would take it. Why would the other arrow companies start now?

I can understand the NFAA backing down, its not like there are a bunch of people fighting for sponsorships and advertising, or an unlimited bank account, or huge numbers of people working to keep it together...You have got to do what it takes to survive. What I don't like is a bully...granted one of our own making...but a bully just the same


----------



## outdoorattic (Feb 25, 2006)

Caving to the pressure just made them lose a ton of credibility. 

Fat shafts are for borderline shooters that need help to feel better than they really are.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*I can't believe you guys are ready to crucify Easton. Yet the fact remains 24, 25 and 26 series shafts have been around for a very long time. The new 2712's are really no big deal. The difference on either side of the shaft compared to the 26's is what like 1/128"??? Come on. This is a major cheap shot taken at a great American archery ICON. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that the NFAA decided to wait just a little longer before acting was a prudent one. I stand by the NFAA and I stand up for Easton. The rest of you, I don't know what you stand for.*

I guess they stand for Less money for the Average Joe to participate with .. Less American Jobs.. Less support for Olympians .. Less facilities


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

centerx said:


> Let's say the NFAA had some guts and stuck with the initial decision. Then what? Easton pulls the sponsor $.


If you think Easton would pull their sponsorship, then you've never done much negotiation.

What Easton would do is make lots of noise and extract as many other concessions as possible from the NFAA. The point of a sponsorship is to get your product in front of customers. If they pull their sponsorship, they lose a marketing tool and lose revenue because of it.

This smells like a knee-jerk overreaction by Easton to a surprise decision by the NFAA, which in turn will probably lead to as much lost revenue due to bad customer relations as they would have seen by just stopping the 26xx+ line.


----------



## Limey (May 6, 2005)

JDES900X said:


> I can't believe you guys are ready to crucify Easton. Yet the fact remains 24, 25 and 26 series shafts have been around for a very long time. The new 2712's are really no big deal. The difference on either side of the shaft compared to the 26's is what like 1/128"??? Come on. This is a major cheap shot taken at a great American archery ICON. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that the NFAA decided to wait just a little longer before acting was a prudent one. I stand by the NFAA and I stand up for Easton. The rest of you, I don't know what you stand for.


Jim

This reminds me of the Callaway ERC and USGA/ R&A issue of a few years ago in golf.

The issue is not all about what they did it how it was done that gets me.

I just don't like bullies never had and never will.

I have the same right not to buy Easton as you and everyone has the right to buy their products. Are there products top class??... yes they are but so are other companies and those are the companies who arrows from now on I will buy.

Easton attitiude was "Its may ball and I'm going home" :darkbeer:


----------



## keithbrown (Jan 16, 2007)

good post jim. i agree with you, 1/128 of an inch isn't much at all. apparently some people think it's a huge difference from a 2613 to a 2712. i am not sure if easton is being a bully here, they are just producing what a lot of people have wanted for the last few years and trying to keep their arrows in the game. the nfaa made a mistake in my opinion by not putting the size restriction to what is available right now. 


keith


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

JDES900X said:


> I can't believe you guys are ready to crucify Easton. Yet the fact remains 24, 25 and 26 series shafts have been around for a very long time. I've shot clean games with 1914's, 2014's, 2114's, 2314, 2315,2413, 2419's, 2512's, 2613's, AND 2712's. I can tell you people- It Isn't the arrow size. It is the shooter who puts them there. A good shot is a good shot and a MISS IS STILL A MISS. A loser is still a loser. The new 2712's are really no big deal. The difference on either side of the shaft compared to the 26's is what like 1/128"??? Come on. This is a major cheap shot taken at a great American archery ICON. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that the NFAA decided to wait just a little longer before acting was a prudent one. I stand by the NFAA and I stand up for Easton. The rest of you, I don't know what you stand for. That's all I have to say about it.


Jim, it is the principle of the thing. Would you like your government to do this? Let another country or a Corp to pick who gets to represent the people?

Do you buy your arrows? Who is YOUR arrow sponser? Maybe you one of the few pros that don't have one?

You are missing the point. Should they have gone to 23 size right away? No, but it was a slap in the face to the membership. It is the principle of the thing.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

The Swami said:


> Jim, it is the principle of the thing. Would you like your government to do this? Let another country or a Corp to pick who gets to represent the people?
> 
> Do you buy your arrows? Who is YOUR arrow sponser? Maybe you one of the few pros that don't have one?
> 
> You are missing the point. Should they have gone to 23 size right away? No, but it was a slap in the face to the membership. It is the principle of the thing.


Exactly.....


----------



## duckman1958 (Dec 7, 2007)

psargeant said:


> Thank you OBT (and all the other directors) for being our (NCFAA and AT) voice...we'll be there Thursday to lend whatever support we can...
> 
> To all folks headed to Vegas...I've never been before, but I am assuming Easton has a booth at the trade show...be sure to stop by and voice your displeasure, as I know I will...
> 
> To Easton...I hope you are reading this...you have always been a huge part of our sport, and you make a great arrow. Becuse of this I have always been happy to purchase your arrows...Its a real shame I will be switching to CX, McKinney or something else...if this is true, you won't get another dime out of me (or I'm sure a lot of others)...


This has relevance…stick with me…

I'm very new to this sport (just over a year) but have loved every minute of it since I first picked up a bow. I have always been heavily involved in athletics all of my life most recently competing and actively participating in competitive racquetball, at the local, state, national and international levels. However, due to injuries and just those unforgiving laws of nature (getting old!) it just got tougher and tougher to stay with it. Add to that the fact that things had become so political with the $-based decisions replacing the common sense ones and I was fed up and left with a real bad taste in my mouth. 

Rather than continue to support it I just said "Enough!". "You just can't walk away" my sponsors and friends said, but I did and never looked back. I soon found competitive archery, which replaced the challenge and competitive "fix" that I need. What a wonderful, pure sport, where the number of shooters and competitors in events are strong and getting stronger every day, and, where surely the dog wags the tail…not the other way around.

I'm not naïve, at least not totally…I've been around enough to understand that money talks, but WOW, money is really SCREAMING here! I guess we (NFAA members) are like the drug-crazed addict…we want and need that fix (money) from our "Supplier"…we NEED it! We'd like to break away and not depend on it, we know it's bad for us, but we NEED it! And until we can kick the habit (if we ever can and that's a big IF) we'll never control our own destiny. But as hard as we try we just can't do it and as a result "they" own us.

JMO, here folks and again, kick me if you want as I'm sure I'm too new around here to see things clearly, but I'm not buying another Easton product…and I will surely voice my opinion to them in person in Vegas and via email. I spend money, quite a bit of money (far too much!) on archery and they are not getting any of it. I'm just one guy, just a single drop of water in the ocean so losing my biz will not adversely affect their bottom line. But, it's something within my control and IT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER! 

Thanks to OBT for keeping us in the loop!


----------



## skyhiarcher (Mar 14, 2006)

its all DARTONS fault they must have patent rights on the arrows


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*If you think Easton would pull their sponsorship, then you've never done much negotiation.*

I don't know what I think… But I think that it was prudent to reverse the ruling until some actual negotiations COULD be had….. Unfortunately the way the NFAA is set up .. .that rule change would go into "Law" for a year and would have to be voted on again later ….. I'm all for negotiations … Unfortunate you could not have had any before this went into effect for a year… Now they have a year to negotiate to see what would work bor BOTH parties.. Instead of a "LAW" that could not be over returned for a whole year … 

I'm quite good at negotiating … I'm pretty sure they way NOT to do is is not to vote a share of you biggest sponsors product line non existent in 5 months and then tell them to stick it when you get a call later that night voicing an objection … However I think understanding Eastons position … reversing the ruling giving yourself a year to come to terms is VERY good negotiations 

I don't know … Maybe I'm just stupid that way?? Don't get me wrong .. I fully understand Easton is dictating terms… For what they do for Archery .. I can live with the current terms


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Hinkelmonster said:


> I understand why you feel the way you do, but check out these numbers. 85% of voters are in favor of the 9.3mm limit.
> 
> You can't just say that because score might suffer people won't like it. Maybe back when they changed the field target once again the just plain didn't listen to the people!!!!!!
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=640726


I'm sorry, but that question wasn't even asked by our director (Ken Moore). What was asked was would we be in favor of limiting shaft size to 2613... not 9.3m


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

What do I stand for?

I know one thing that I don't stand for......donating in excess of $1000 (membership, tournament costs, etc) every year to an organization that ignores it's members.

I don't think what Easton has done is credible, but I do feel that they contribute more to archery than just about anyone. The anger, once again, needs to be directed at the NFAA, not Easton.

If Easton would be stupid enough to completely pull their sponsorship, they wouldn't be the leading arrow manufacturer that they are today. They know they have leverage....unfortunately the NFAA caved.


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

keithbrown said:


> good post jim. i agree with you, 1/128 of an inch isn't much at all. apparently some people think it's a huge difference from a 2613 to a 2712. i am not sure if easton is being a bully here, they are just producing what a lot of people have wanted for the last few years and trying to keep their arrows in the game. the nfaa made a mistake in my opinion by not putting the size restriction to what is available right now.
> 
> 
> keith


In my opinion, the NFAA should have told Easton in November that they are going to pass the arrow restriction starting in 2009, and that they should sit down and discuss ways to make the transition for shooters as well as Easton as painless as possible. Stick to their guns but give Easton plenty of time to absorb the information, and do the business planning. It looks to me like the NFAA made Easton feel like they were backed into a corner, and now both Easton looks bad by bullying the NFAA, and the NFAA looks bad by caving.


----------



## Brewer (Aug 3, 2006)

*Maybe this is a negotiation*

Isn't this whole thing just setting the stage for another "emergency meeting" where the powers that be say "Gee, we'd really like a 23/64th limit, but how about if we go with 27 instead?" Just my .02, I like the idea of a restriction, don't care whether it's 23 or 27, but we don't need .5" shafts!


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

OneBowTie said:


> just when you thought it was safe to enjoy the remainder of the week before the competition is scheduled to begin......
> 
> the President called for a EMERGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING....
> 
> ...


I was SURPRISED yesterday when you said a size limit was voted through..........I had a PRO tell me last night "no way is a size limit going to happen", I said "it's done it's happened", and with a :wink: he said "it's not dark in Vegas yet!". It was a 3D Pro at that.....What's the best way to prepare crow?......... When will the NFAA acknowledge that they are "owned" by a few? This organization now has me _really_ scratching my head and wondering some not so pleasant thoughts about what is going in the organization.......

Exactly how can an item simply be rescinded once it's been passed? Does it take a simple quorum of "yes" men?

So as it stands:
1)The NFAA's largest and most popular shoot is NOT an NFAA shoot but is a WAF shoot.....
2) Headquarters was sold and a new location bought while membership was treated like mushrooms........
3)The headquarters is in the middle of nowhere, just south of BFE ........ 
4) It's primary game, field archery, has less participation than it's secondary game, indoor spots......... 
5)An arrow company tells them absolutely how it's going to be, even when it's been voted on and passed. That's called being "owned" by the way!........ 
6) Pro's can flaunt an NFAA rule violation directly in the face of NFAA leadership and they'll fold like a cheap lawn chair........

Just change the name and be done with it: *Easton National Field Archery*

I think it's beyond time for full disclosure of how much money has changed hands from the "arrow company" to the NFAA and who's hands are handling it. The NFAA leadership is behaving as though it's a privately held company.........


----------



## Lien2 (Aug 4, 2005)

I guess I don't blame Easton. If they are pouring a boat load of money into sponsoring NFAA and/or the WAF, they have the right to say how they feel. If that means threatening to pull their money if they don't like some of the decisions, the NFAA and WAF can find another sponsor if they wish.
Just my .02

Lien2


----------



## Panteramag (Jun 14, 2006)

So can I shoot my 2514 this weekend in Vegas or not?


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

For the life of me I can't figure out why Easton would have an issue with this. I mean, think about it for a second. This decision would cost some of their competitors major $$$$$$$$ in re-tooling to get their more popular indoor arrows legal. GT 30x and X cutters.......both over 9.3. Carbon Express Line Jammers....over 9.3. Even Victory's fat shafts are over 9.3. For Easton I only see it as a win win......sell a ton of 2315s and force your competitors to spend money on re-tooling......


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*Jim, it is the principle of the thing. Would you like your government to do this? Let another country or a Corp to pick who gets to represent the people?*

It happens already . Corps pour HUGE amounts of money into politicians campaigns trying to get them elected.. Then .. They own them 

One example is the NRA…. Better Boycott them… Let's not even go into the Foreign corporations that have USA operations that do the same :zip:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> I don't know … Maybe I'm just stupid that way?? Don't get me wrong .. I fully understand Easton is dictating terms… For what they do for Archery .. I can live with the current terms


I hope you don't feel that way about our government. 

Do you realize that people just won't get involved in the NFAA anymore if it doesn't matter???

Yes, the proposal was short sighted and should have been better planned, but instead of reversing, they could have amended the previous vote and done this in phases etc.

What are they gonna do when Easton says something else the conflicts with what the membership wants????


----------



## LeEarl (Jun 1, 2002)

Every sport out there has a 'glass ceiling' that gets hit. Nascar keeps all the cars the same speeds with restrictors, Pro teams have salary caps, even my 5 & 7 year old snowmobille racing org keeps the sled even to promote competition and keep the manufactures even on the track. Why would we not want the archery community to do this :noidea: The government breaks down Microsoft because they were not playing fair, do you think we need them to step in here and set that archery industries back in their seats??

Way out of hand now days... We need to let rules be made and move on. I sure wish my parents could have went into my school and tell my teaches that my B's were not good enough and I should get A's jsut because they are pointier on the top.........


----------



## cliarcher (Jan 25, 2006)

psargeant said:


> Thank you OBT (and all the other directors) for being our (NCFAA and AT) voice...we'll be there Thursday to lend whatever support we can...
> 
> To all folks headed to Vegas...I've never been before, but I am assuming Easton has a booth at the trade show...be sure to stop by and voice your displeasure, as I know I will...
> 
> To Easton...I hope you are reading this...you have always been a huge part of our sport, and you make a great arrow. Becuse of this I have always been happy to purchase your arrows...Its a real shame I will be switching to CX, McKinney or something else...if this is true, you won't get another dime out of me (or I'm sure a lot of others)...



To everyone that is going to vegas. Go one step farther put a garbage can in front of the easton booth and everbody with an easton take it over there and *snap it in half*!!!!!!!lets see how many cans you can fill up over the weekend!!!!!!!


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

centerx said:


> *Jim, it is the principle of the thing. Would you like your government to do this? Let another country or a Corp to pick who gets to represent the people?*
> 
> It happens already . Corps pour HUGE amounts of money into politicians campaigns trying to get them elected.. Then .. They own them
> 
> One example is the NRA…. Better Boycott them… Let's not even go into the Foreign corporations that have USA operations that do the same :zip:


Yes, I do realize it happens to a large extent in the government. As a result, look at voter participation. If we had a real candidate running for office, this could all change.

They are all bought and paid for before they run. Anybody that would have the ability to run for office won't because of how it is all set up to discourage them. Can you imagine the forces arrayed against someone that loves their country that wants to really do what they should do in office? Losing their life isn't even out of the question sadly enough.

Morals and integrity are becoming extinct in our society, slowly and surely.


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

*Good Morning Everyone..........

Now that EVERYTHING has been brought out into the SUNSHINE.....:wink:...it's time to stop throwing our arrows out the door and try and fix the problem....

We, the majority of the NFAA want to reduce the arrow size.
"E" and probably other companies do not want it reduced now due to their expense in R & D and what is sitting on the shelf to be sold.

I am offering a PHASE OUT option then....just the way the arrow sizes were PHASED IN.....

Starting 6-01-2008 the maximum is reduced to 26.....in 2009 reduced it to 25...in 2010...24 or go ahead and drop it to 23....by that time the arrow companies should be back on track .....

TRUST ME......I AM NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT HAS COME TO LIGHT, BUT I AM HAPPY IT FINALLY HAS.....NOW WE ALL KNOW WHO HAS THE POWER AND CAN ACT ACCORDINGLY....

BOWTIE.......are you listening???????*
.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

I been a vocal proponent of standardizing archery on a world wide basis for several years. I was pleasantly surprised when the word leaked that the NFAA directors had voted to match the arrow limitations for the NFAA to that of the world organizations. 

I have no real issue with Easton for throwing their money and the considerable weight that money bears into the fray, frankly I fully expected to see 2712 as the limit anyway... What I do have issues with is the apparent ease with which a national organization which is supposed to represent the wishes of its members waffled from that pressure. 

But then again... the members aren't building a legacy for Bruce...

What we really should see is the NFAA stop hiding behind a non-profit shield and become a business, forget the directors and councilpersons... Let Easton and Bruce run it, and if their tournaments and rules suit us we'll come play... if not they can play with each other...


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*
I hope you don't feel that way about our government.

Yes, I do realize it happens to a large extent in the government. As a result, look at voter participation. If we had a real candidate running for office, this could all change.

They are all bought and paid for before they run. Anybody that would have the ability to run for office won't because of how it is all set up to discourage them. Can you imagine the forces arrayed against someone that loves their country that wants to really do what they should do in office? Losing their life isn't even out of the question sadly enough.

Morals and integrity are becoming extinct in our society, slowly and surely*

No doubt… Much stinks on so many front's It's hard to get a arm around it all ….. Companies dictating terms to the NFAA is another example of were it stinks 

However.. There are many ways to fight for the Moral high ground…. I think I would work with people once I knew of a potential conflict. Ultimately if you cant' come to terms you can take what ever moral high road you wish 

It's the American way to support companies and special interested Companies that will promote your way of thinking through it's operations and through the policy makers it can put into office….. That's how it works on the Local , State and National level.. When those companies and groups no longer agree with your viewpoints you leave them…… I don't know how Easton is going to support archers viewpoints on this subject.. All I know is so FAR they have given us EXACTLY what we have asked for .. And now without warning we are asking for something COMPLETELY different… I'm going to see if the company that supports what we WANT continues to support what we WANT before I drag what has been an excellent partner through the mud

Your right Morals are not what they used to be .. I guess give me.. give me and when I change my mind without notice ... GIVE ME MORE is the new morality 


I'll take the dirty mud slinging low road I suppose and see what 2 great partners to MY special interest can come to terms on before I take the Boycott High and Mighyt road the rest seem to want to travel 

Just call me stupid I guess :wink:


----------



## 5spotbullseye (Oct 20, 2004)

JAVI said:


> What we really should see is the NFAA stop hiding behind a non-profit shield and become a business, forget the directors and councilpersons... Let Easton and Bruce run it, and if their tournaments and rules suit us we'll come play... if not they can play with each other...



Bingo.

Game, set, match.


----------



## elkski (Feb 4, 2005)

Ive been saying it for years that corruption in USA is just as bad as Mexico but underground... The dirt layer has been getting thinner and thinner.. We allow it to influence our poiliticians and they refuse to vote for meaningful reforms there IF this is true it will turn out to be the worst PR mistake by any modern Company. They might as well stop selling fat spot arrows as folks who use them will not be respected by the likes of me..

As I hear, Gold Tip was very happy with the 23/64" restriction voted yesterday!!! Maybe raw carbon costs more than AL??


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

JAVI said:


> I been a vocal proponent of standardizing archery on a world wide basis for several years. I was pleasantly surprised when the word leaked that the NFAA directors had voted to match the arrow limitations for the NFAA to that of the world organizations.
> 
> I have no real issue with Easton for throwing their money and the considerable weight that money bears into the fray, frankly I fully expected to see 2712 as the limit anyway... What I do have issues with is the apparent ease with which a national organization which is supposed to represent the wishes of its members waffled from that pressure.
> 
> ...


*
They already do........* Just reflect back on the sale and move of HQ last year!!
I don't hold Easton responsible, it was our weak kneed, soft bellied leadership "TAKING 5"
Where can we get the vote results? Probably can't.
It's time WE vote out some Directors!!


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

I was mistaken... Ken Moore is not our director and did not have a vote in this. He is the New England Councilman and WAF Board member. Still.. the question that was asked was about limiting shafts to 26's, not 9.3m and I have to assume this was passed on to the Director level.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*What we really should see is the NFAA stop hiding behind a non-profit shield and become a business, forget the directors and councilpersons... Let Easton and Bruce run it, and if their tournaments and rules suit us we'll come play... if not they can play with each other...*



If true... Easy to fix


Well you Know .. Since apparently the overwhelming majority agree with a shaft restriction this should be a non issue … We have a year .. Simply start a petition that the membership uses nothing bigger then a 23 series for the 2009 target season.. Take it to your shoots.. Take it to your state orgs.. Get everbody on board.. Of course the whole time we and those that sign will already be using 23 sereis shafts .. .Natually Goldtip sponsored shooters will be first in line. Tim said his company wanted restrictions.. Tim and others will lead the charge

The few weasels that show up at the shoots with there logs will soon be shamed into submission … The people have the power don't you know … Surely everybody will risk being slightly less competitive against the few weasels that show up with logs in order to prove a point and take back our Org

Time to put up or shut up as a group 88% of the directors voted in 88% of the archers wishes… Getting what we want is a non issue … As Nike says… "just do it" If we want size restrictions let's make some size restrictions 

I'm game … Whos' on board:darkbeer:

Time to Take the Moral High ground.. put up or shut up


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

I am, I just changed the size arrow I will be taking to Vegas. I was taking 2512s. Now I am taking 2314s.


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

centerx said:


> Well you Know .. Since apparently the overwhelming majority agree with a shaft restriction this should be a non issue … We have a year .. Simply start a petition that the membership uses nothing bigger then a 23 series for the 2009 target season.. Take it to your shoots.. Take it to your state orgs.. Get everbody on board.. Of course the whole time we and those that sign will already be using 23 sereis shafts .. .Natually Goldtip sponsored shooters will be first in line. Tim said his company wanted restrictions.. Tim and others will lead the charge


The other thing we can do is something field14 suggested, which is clubs who are concerned about bale damage start prohibiting larger shafts at their site. Anybody wanting to shoot big shafts at state and national shoots won't have a place to practice with those big shafts.


----------



## BDHUNTR (May 24, 2003)

GOT LUCKY said:


> *Good Morning Everyone..........
> 
> Now that EVERYTHING has been brought out into the SUNSHINE.....:wink:...it's time to stop throwing our arrows out the door and try and fix the problem....
> 
> ...


I think your suggestion is a good one and a fair compromise. 

Anyone listening?


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

_*I am, I just changed the size arrow I will be taking to Vegas. I was taking 2512s. Now I am taking 2314s.*_

No such luck for me.. Can't secure and tune a new shaft in less then 20 hours....

Louiville perhaps!!


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> It's the American way to support companies and special interested Companies that will promote your way of thinking through it's operations and through the policy makers it can put into office….. That's how it works on the Local , State and National level.. When those companies and groups no longer agree with your viewpoints you leave them…… I don't know how Easton is going to support archers viewpoints on this subject.. All I know is so FAR they have given us EXACTLY what we have asked for .. And now without warning we are asking for something COMPLETELY different… I'm going to see if the company that supports what we WANT continues to support what we WANT before I drag what has been an excellent partner through the mud


I agree with what you said here. Easton has done some good things as well as the NFAA.

What we are not doing is protecting the integrity of the game however. We have no real governing body for archery worldwide.

Just think if the USGA and the R&A weren't around to preserve the integrity of the sport of golf. We would have companies producing golf balls and golf clubs that would render the courses obsolete and destroy the game. If those rules weren't in place, yes there would be a demand from the consumer for these companies to make longer balls and clubs. They would make clubs that can make rough or sand no longer the hazard and penalty it should be. But the consumer doesn't always have the sport's best interests at heart. There has to be rules to protect the sport. Think about it.

We can't have arrow companies or any other companies determine the integrity of the sport. It doesn't work.

Archery needs a true governing body!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to protect this sport we all love.

Archery does not have a governing body and all of the orgs can do what ever they want or what ever the company that holds their purse strings wants. There is no org out there that is protecting the integrity of the sport of archery. Let technology go crazy and we will ruin archery. There needs to be standards and limits.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

centerx said:


> _*I am, I just changed the size arrow I will be taking to Vegas. I was taking 2512s. Now I am taking 2314s.*_
> 
> No such luck for me.. Can't secure and tune a new shaft in less then 20 hours....
> 
> Louiville perhaps!!


All I have to do is find a new 20 mark.  My bow is tuned to shoot 23s, 24s, 25s.  The only difference is the impact point verically.  I have all day Thursday to get that.  I shoot all of these arrows and had marks written down for them, but I have adjusted my peep height since then so I will have to find my marks for all 3 again.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

The Swami said:


> I agree with what you said here. Easton has done some good things as well as the NFAA.
> 
> What we are not doing is protecting the integrity of the game however. We have no real governing body for archery worldwide.
> 
> ...


Absolutely...


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

> ARTICLE II
> Purpose
> A. To unite field archery associations of states into one organized unit that will work uniformly and effectively in *providing for the development of the sport of archery in conformance with the will of a majority of the membership*.


Wonder what Mr. Cull has to say about that...:sad:


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

centerx said:


> Well you Know .. Since apparently the overwhelming majority agree with a shaft restriction this should be a non issue … We have a year .. *Simply start a petition* that the membership uses nothing bigger then a 23 series for the 2009 target season.. Take it to your shoots.. Take it to your state orgs.. Get everbody on board.. Of course the whole time we and those that sign will already be using 23 sereis shafts .. .Natually Goldtip sponsored shooters will be first in line. Tim said his company wanted restrictions.. Tim and others will lead the charge
> 
> The few weasels that show up at the shoots with there logs will soon be shamed into submission … The people have the power don't you know … Surely everybody will risk being slightly less competitive against the few weasels that show up with logs in order to prove a point and take back our Org
> 
> ...


It is apparent that this would be a huge waste of time trying to do anything O-fficial. You could get the petition, get the membership on board, get the directors to back this...but for what? To vote in an arrow restriction and then the King of Diamonds trumps it with one phonecall:noidea:. The ONLY way to do this is a universal gentlemen's agreement...if the majority adheres to the 23 limit, then this majority will increase at each shoot...show up with a Kawasaki at an unofficial Harley rally and you'll never do it again.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Bobmuley said:


> Wonder what Mr. Cull has to say about that...:sad:


Ask Jim Easton...:wink:


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

I don't know whats getting harder...finding a presidential hopeful or an archery organization that represents me.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*Just think if the USGA and the R&A weren't around to preserve the integrity of the sport of golf. We would have companies producing golf balls and golf clubs that would render the courses obsolete and destroy the game. If those rules weren't in place, yes there would be a demand from the consumer for these companies to make longer balls and clubs. They would make clubs that can make rough or sand no longer the hazard and penalty it should be. But the consumer doesn't always have the sport's best interests at heart. There has to be rules to protect the sport. Think about it.*

No doubt.. But to my limited knowlege I don't think they also in one "vote" made products that have been used on the tour and local courses for 10 plus years illegal as well.. and if they ever tried I can gurantee those sponsors would be very very hot and a compamise would need to be reached 

and I think that is fair.. .Others want to Boycott... Really I fail to see the reasoning in that


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

The Swami said:


> I agree with what you said here. Easton has done some good things as well as the NFAA.
> 
> What we are not doing is protecting the integrity of the game however. We have no real governing body for archery worldwide.
> 
> ...


What he said. 

I wish I had some 23 arrows I could bring to vegas...


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> No doubt.. But to my limited knowlege I don't think they also in one "vote" made products that have been used on the tour and local courses for 10 plus years illegal as well.. and if they ever tried I can gurantee those sponsors would be very very hot and a compamise would need to be reached
> 
> and I think that is fair.. .Others want to Boycott... Really I fail to see the reasoning in that


The USGA has done this. Read up.  I don't know about 10 years, but they have done it with grooves and clubhead faces on drivers to some extent. Companies have produced equipment big time that was made illegal in USGA sanctioned events, which is just about all of the events.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

JAVI said:


> Ask Jim Easton...:wink:


You just gave me a great T-shirt idea...would be a hit at Vegas


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

Doc said:


> You just gave me a great T-shirt idea...would be a hit at Vegas


I'd buy one...


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Doc said:


> You just gave me a great T-shirt idea...would be a hit at Vegas


I think we should take up a collection and present one to each Director...:wink:


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

I hate to implicate my friends in this; but, Bruce Cull and the state directors have failed to follow the NFAA constitution, and failed to represent their members. I see no reason to support any of them. Its not about arrows, but about representation and following the rules that they say we're supposed to abide by.


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

JAVI said:


> I think we should take up a collection and present one to each Director...:wink:


I'll throw in...I'm sure OBT at least would wear his...


----------



## ArcheryKinetics (Mar 1, 2007)

That's pretty disgusting to me. Since when do manufacturers rule the "ruling" body? Just when some sense was coming to U.S. archery and they put the 23 rule in place, BAM! Let the manufacturers squeel and revoke the new rule. Flabbergasting to say the least.

Besides, you'd think the manufacturers would like the fact that everyone would now have to go back and buy smaller arrows (for those of us with the larger variety). People are still going to use arrows, whether they buy 23+ sized ones or not! Good Grief!


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> You just gave me a great T-shirt idea...would be a hit at Vegas


I am not bought and paid for. My chest and back are wide open. I wear size Medium.

This is your chance Doc to pay for and own the Swami.


----------



## outdoorattic (Feb 25, 2006)

Doc said:


> It is apparent that this would be a huge waste of time trying to do anything O-fficial. You could get the petition, get the membership on board, get the directors to back this...but for what? To vote in an arrow restriction and then the King of Diamonds trumps it with one phonecall:noidea:. The ONLY way to do this is a universal gentlemen's agreement...if the majority adheres to the 23 limit, then this majority will increase at each shoot...show up with a Kawasaki at an unofficial Harley rally and you'll never do it again.



If everyone sticks together it could work, but if knowone takes part at all until it is fixed, then it I think you will get the point across.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Bobmuley said:


> I hate to implicate my friends in this; but, Bruce Cull and the state directors have failed to follow the NFAA constitution, and failed to represent their members. I see no reason to support any of them. Its not about arrows, but about representation and following the rules that they say we're supposed to abide by.


Trust me when I say there are going to be a few people reading the constitution really good in the next few days.


----------



## Chris Glass (Aug 3, 2002)

It is no suprise..... Easton knows the statistics each WAF a representative from Easton can be seen tallying up what each shooter is shooting for arrows. If you don't think for a second that those statistics determine how much the contribute to the NAA or influence how much affect Easton has on the NFAA then we should go together and I will gladly help anyone pick out a fresh new leader dog......

Easton does more for the sport of archery in terms of financial investment then any other organization and perhaps more then all others combined. There money would go somewhere else if it isn't in the NFAA, so the NFAA is going to do everything they can to keep the money in house.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

Kstigall said:


> *
> They already do........* Just reflect back on the sale and move of HQ last year!!
> I don't hold Easton responsible, it was our weak kneed, soft bellied leadership "TAKING 5"
> Where can we get the vote results? Probably can't.
> It's time WE vote out some Directors!!


EXACTLY!!!!! I know several Reps who probably did vote for what its members wanted. But whos to say several directors who had an agenda on the arrow size from members but changed to CONFORM.
And with an open mind maybe it wasnt just Easton. I know for a fact after I viewed the ONES report our rep was called and mine wasnt the first call.
Not that Im against a arrow size limit. But why does the NFAA have to follow all other ORGS. 26 series have been around for a very long time,Hunting is probably my choice for this size as well as Indoors. 
So as KS stated why not see a list of how our reps voted because the probably didnt follow there agenda on how we felt as members.(that goes for some not all)


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*The USGA has done this. Read up. I don't know about 10 years, but they have done it with grooves and clubhead faces on drivers to some extent. *

I would not even know were to look 

What I do know is I used 24 series shafts when I first started 20 years ago and 25 series for about that long... 

I doubt Ping would like to hear that a large part of there product line that had been used on Tours for 20 years in 5 months would be illegal .. Especially if they were a major Sponsor of the tour... I doubt such a comparison exist 

But yet as shooters we want to cry foul on Easton. When in all reality if such were to happen to other companies in many other sports the same problem would exist..........


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

It's time some directors were voted OUT!!


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> I doubt Ping would like to hear that a large part of there product line that had been used on Tours for 20 years in 5 months would be illegal .. Especially if they were a major Sponsor of the tour... I doubt such a comparison exist


You don't understand, the tour doesn't have the say. The USGA does. The PGA runs their tournaments as determined by the USGA. The USGA IS the final say in tournament golf in the US, not the PGA.

If golf did what archery has done, it wouldn't be where it is today. Massively popular and making a ton of money and giving a lot to charity.

I am sure the comparison of what has happened here with the USGA is much closer than you think. 

The USGA would never cave in.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

pyandbc said:


> All I can say is WOW Im done talking. You cant bash a company for making things that we have asked for but now that its being takin to the extreme you dont want it anymore.


Hey Jim Easton how are you doing today??? Rough night last night????

Keep postin'!!!!


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Read through over a 100 replies and decided to jump in again.



carlosii said:


> An earlier post made the point that maybe more companies than Easton brought this issue to the board.
> NFAA, IBO, ASA are not NASCAR. They can't dictate to the manufacturers and teams (pros) because they cannot exist without the $$ that the companies bring to the party. These organizations cannot attract enough outside sponsorship, e.g., Coke, Verizon, Bud Light, to enable them to tell the archery manufacturers to take a hike.
> Target archery can't compete with hunting archery in terms of $$ spent. The point being, the manufacturers can exist without target archery in all its venues because a lot more of their sales are derived from sales of hunting equipment over target equipment. If target archery could find a way to attract 90% of those hunting archers into shooting target too, then they might begin to have some muscle.
> Until then, NFAA, IBO, and ASA are going to need the manufacturers a lot more than those manufacturers are going to need the organizations.


*Well said*.

Wasn't there concern when Winston was going to or did drop from stock car sponsorship?

Another hinted at maybe more than just the one archery manufacturer was involved. My guess would be; Yes. 

And think about this; *3,500,000 people in archery and only some 60,000 belong to the big archery organizations.*

Who needs who?


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

The Swami said:


> You don't understand, the tour doesn't have the say. The USGA does. The PGA runs their tournaments as determined by the USGA. The USGA IS the final say in tournament golf in the US, not the PGA.
> 
> If golf did what archery has done, it wouldn't be where it is today. Massively popular and making a ton of money and giving a lot to charity.
> 
> ...


With one noteable exception..........the Masters is run by Augusta National......and they can use any rules they so choose. Granted they currently use USGA rules, but there has always been talk of them adopting a "Masters" golf ball that all players would have to choose.......of course, that is the lone exception.

But, you are correct, the USGA does not cave in to manufacturers......just ask the folks at Calloway........


----------



## Racing Archer (Feb 12, 2003)

This is a joke, make a size rule and stick to it, have some balls. Competitions need rules to be competitions of talent not equipment. I guess the next emergency meeting will be at Outdoor Nationals to discuss the 280 speed limit because the NFAA did not discuss this rule with the bow manufactures first and now the manufactures are making bows that shoot over 350fps.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

What exactly does the NFAA do for archery and why as a competitive archer do I need them?


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*You don't understand, the tour doesn't have the say. The USGA does. The PGA runs their tournaments as determined by the USGA. The USGA IS the final say in tournament golf in the US, not the PGA.*

And the USGA has banned 20 year old equipment ?? Unfortuately Archery is also not like golf.... in the fact that sponsors not related to the industry want to play as well 

But agreed.. Much could be learned by the way things are done in golf


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

JAVI said:


> What exactly does the NFAA do for archery and why as a competitive archer do I need them?


That might be a question worthy of its own thread! I'd like to know as well.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

reylamb said:


> With one noteable exception..........the Masters is run by Augusta National......and they can use any rules they so choose. Granted they currently use USGA rules, but there has always been talk of them adopting a "Masters" golf ball that all players would have to choose.......of course, that is the lone exception.
> 
> But, you are correct, the USGA does not cave in to manufacturers......just ask the folks at Calloway........


Yes, I knew about the Masters. Is it considered a official PGA event yet? It never used to be.

Not just Calloway, ask PING.  They had a few clubs that were made illegal and tried to sue. They ended up changing the design.  Later, the older clubs were grandfathered in but there still are very specific requirements on clubface grooves. Square grooves are legal now, but that was not determined for a few years until the USGA determined the sport was safe with them. The square grooves that are legal now are not the same as what manufacturers like PING were using back in the day. THose are called U grooves. The grooves now have the top edges rounded off. They are not a right angle anymore.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

JAVI said:


> With the exception of the national indoor and outdoor and your respective state and sectional championships there is no reason to be a NFAA/EFAA member... Think about it... QUOTE]
> 
> Another well said. JAVI said the club I belong to is in the Outlaw division. Basically, we do our best to let the majority of archery shooters do what they want to do, HAVE FUN, SHOOT WHAT YA BRUNG. I'm proud of that.
> 
> We will no doubt bar the big 60X GTs, but they were made to "show 'em."


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

*Amen!*



JDES900X said:


> I can't believe you guys are ready to crucify Easton. Yet the fact remains 24, 25 and 26 series shafts have been around for a very long time. I've shot clean games with 1914's, 2014's, 2114's, 2314, 2315,2413, 2419's, 2512's, 2613's, AND 2712's. I can tell you people- It Isn't the arrow size. It is the shooter who puts them there. A good shot is a good shot and a MISS IS STILL A MISS. A loser is still a loser. The new 2712's are really no big deal. The difference on either side of the shaft compared to the 26's is what like 1/128"??? Come on. This is a major cheap shot taken at a great American archery ICON. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that the NFAA decided to wait just a little longer before acting was a prudent one. I stand by the NFAA and I stand up for Easton. The rest of you, I don't know what you stand for. That's all I have to say about it.


Standin right there with ya brother !

I got this letter from Dave as well

Thanks for being there Jim....and having the courage to say what's right...I had been fighting the urge and screaming at my screen for hours now but feel emboldened with you in the mix 

Chuck


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

JAVI said:


> I can't wait to hear the official party line spin on this one... :mg:


"Vee Vere only Following Orders" Springs leapingly to mind.


----------



## archerycharlie (Nov 4, 2002)

JAVI said:


> What exactly does the NFAA do for archery and why as a competitive archer do I need them?




Of all the shoots that i go to My state and The Nationals are the only ones that i am told to be a member of the NFAA to be able to attend?  AC


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> What exactly does the NFAA do for archery and why as a competitive archer do I need them?


If it wasn't for my state affiliation I'd drop 'em.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

The Swami said:


> Yes, I knew about the Masters. Is it considered a official PGA event yet? It never used to be.
> 
> Not just Calloway, ask PING.  They had a few clubs that were made illegal and tried to sue. They ended up changing the design.  Later, the older clubs were grandfathered in but there still are very specific requirements on clubface grooves. Square grooves are legal now, but that was not determined for a few years until the USGA determined the sport was safe with them. The square grooves that are legal now are not the same as what manufacturers like PING were using back in the day.


 actually I think the closer comparison would be something that involved several manufacturers implementing a similar product with real or percieved advantages.

The Penfold Ace "Cheater Balls" of the (Late 60's early 70's) comes to mind.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Bobmuley said:


> If it wasn't for my state affiliation I'd drop 'em.


Why do you need the state, do the clubs require it for membership?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

outdoorattic said:


> Caving to the pressure just made them lose a ton of credibility.
> 
> Fat shafts are for borderline shooters that need help to feel better than they really are.


Problem there is, after Yankton they only had 5 pounds of it left.


----------



## andy1996 (Feb 15, 2004)

Woody69 said:


> Boycott Easton products !
> 
> As individual archers we are small and insignificant, but if we all stand together as one and refuse to ever buy another easton product ever again, THAT WILL MAKE A DENT, that they will notice !
> 
> ...


BUY VICTORY ARROWS!!!!


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> Why do you need the state?


A) They're good HONEST people.

B) They actually promote archery within our borders.

C) They support the largest segment of archers (bowhunters) whether a member or not.

D) If it weren't for the CSAA there would likely be 0 field archery in Colorado.

In addition to running and insuring state shoots and mail ins.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

FV Chuck said:


> Standin right there with ya brother !
> 
> I got this letter from Dave as well
> 
> ...


As stated repeatedly, it's not about the size of the arrow...it's about the ability of a commercial entity to trump the ruling VOTED on by the NFAA membership/directors.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> Thanks for being there Jim....and having the courage to say what's right...I had been fighting the urge and screaming at my screen for hours now but feel emboldened with you in the mix
> 
> Chuck


Of course you realize this is a matter of opinion right????


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> As stated repeatedly, it's not about the size of the arrow...it's about the ability of a commercial entity to trump the ruling VOTED on by the NFAA membership/directors.


Exactly!!!!!!!!!!


Some don't get it...or they do.  Look at his sig.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Bobmuley said:


> A) They're good HONEST people.
> 
> B) They actually promote archery within our borders.
> 
> ...


The TFAA is pretty much the same, but it could easily survive and thrive without the NFAA... There are other options for insurance...


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

whats that old saying about money talks and bs walks , easton is in the business to make money with out the donation to the nfaa i believe they would suffer and may not be able to stay afloat with out it it was a dumb thing for the board of directors to do such a knee jerk reaction , with out talking to the members about this i guess they got there pp slapped , thats how big business works , i agree we need a restriction but you have to go about this differently by including the manufactures they stand to loose millions put your self in eastons position if you were the ceo your bottom line would go to hell, then what. we all should take some blame in this mess . and all work together to right the ship , and not ***** about it after the fact . richard


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

The Swami said:


> Of course you realize this is a matter of opinion right????


He's from New York. They're desensitized to leadership not representing their constituents.:wink:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Bobmuley said:


> I don't know whats getting harder...finding a presidential hopeful or an archery organization that represents me.


I think it is a sane woman to be my life partner that is honest and not fickle.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

The Swami said:


> Exactly!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> Some don't get it...or they do.  *Look at his sig*.


Bought and paid for:wink:


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 2, 2004)

What does the acronym NFAA stand for anyway? I always thought the AMO was made up of manufacturers, and IBO, ASA, NFAA etc were made up of archers. Maybe I'm wrong.

N.ational
F.ield
A.rchery *equipment manufacturer's*
A.ssociation


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> Bought and paid for:wink:


Oh I am not talking about the Easton in there. I mean he is a sponser. All sponsers will be on Easton's side here. 

He's a special interest.


----------



## Hana Pa'a (Nov 18, 2005)

*No Size Restrictions*

I say shoot what you want, on your own bale. If I owned a range, I would put a $500 bale damage fee on any shaft you shoot over what I wanted it to be. I was at the IA Pro Am and those things RIPPED the bale up. How many would jump on the Telephone Pole wagon if they had to pay $1500 in bale damage fees for a weekend shoot. $500 for each Sat and Sun because they WILL be on a different bale and $500 for the practice bale. Not so many now. 
As far as lowering the scores, don't you all get it? We are now in a LEFT coast country. It is all about making you feel good about how you do. Smaller shafts or inside out scoring would drop the scores like an Olympic diver doing a belly flop. All lot of the 300 60x groupies would suddenly become 300 48x shooters and not want to participate and the attendance would fall. The mentality is "If I can snag a line or two I can shoot as well as Cuz", well not really but it makes a lot of people FEEL good about themselves when they shoot a 60x and you can't see the "x" ring lines anymore.
On the other hand a line of 17 900 shooters in a Vegas Shoot Off draws a LOT more spectators rooting for their favorite than a line of 3 shooters does.
I think as a lot have said here that the mark was missed and a great opportunity was missed by not establishing the limit on what was currently available.
Has anyone ever thought that one of the reasons CLICK and his group have taken this to the extreme is not because of the RIDICULOUS sizes that are being produce but rather because it is to them a $$$ issue as well. It is much easier to extrude an aluminum tube of a greater diameter than it is to create a carbon shaft of a new size, they put all of their eggs in the carbon basket and it is not as easy to change.
Yes we are in a viscious cycle, if we tick off the sponsors and they pull their $$$ the participation drops not only because the payout is smaller but also because now the org has to charge a higher registration fee to cover costs.

Next.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> Springs leapingly to mind.


Ok, who is your mentor Hutnicks...Berra or Bush?


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

All the people that say they should take eastons shafts and break them . Tell me how many of you are using the larger shafts , alot i would bet. So seems to me you are being hypocritical if you are *****ing about the ruling,right or wrong , and yet you are using the larger shafts. I agree there should be a limit but it should be what is offered to date and available to everyone, a 27 shaft. The companies only make what the people are paying money for. So it seems there must have been a whole lot of you self righteous people out there that bought the large diameter shafts. Nobody forced you to buy them did they, you all wanted that extra little edge that might catch you that extra X. If you want the 23 shaft to be the limit I dont care. If you are whining about this ruling but you are using the larger diameter arrows , then I call hypocrite.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Hana Pa'a said:


> I say shoot what you want, on your own bale. If I owned a range, I would put a $500 bale damage fee on any shaft you shoot over what I wanted it to be. I was at the IA Pro Am and those things RIPPED the bale up. How many would jump on the Telephone Pole wagon if they had to pay $1500 in bale damage fees for a weekend shoot. $500 for each Sat and Sun because they WILL be on a different bale and $500 for the practice bale. Not so many now.
> As far as lowering the scores, don't you all get it? We are now in a LEFT coast country. It is all about making you feel good about how you do. Smaller shafts or inside out scoring would drop the scores like an Olympic diver doing a belly flop. All lot of the 300 60x groupies would suddenly become 300 48x shooters and not want to participate and the attendance would fall. The mentality is "If I can snag a line or two I can shoot as well as Cuz", well not really but it makes a lot of people FEEL good about themselves when they shoot a 60x and you can't see the "x" ring lines anymore.
> On the other hand a line of 17 900 shooters in a Vegas Shoot Off draws a LOT more spectators rooting for their favorite than a line of 3 shooters does.
> I think as a lot have said here that the mark was missed and a great opportunity was missed by not establishing the limit on what was currently available.
> ...


You are definitely right about one thing. Here in the US we don't like our sports to be too hard. Anything to make it easier . . . especially the shooting sports.


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

*all is still so simple*



OneBowTie said:


> just when you thought it was safe to enjoy the remainder of the week before the competition is scheduled to begin......
> 
> the President called for a EMERGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING....
> 
> ...


You can't discreminate against an archer that is 7' tall and shoots a 3' arrow ,but you can score inside out so that the 7' archer will have to work as hard to find smaller shafts that will fly as he/she did to find the broom stick that would fly.

Don't forget this is only a concern indoors, the wind and fats are self governing, OH ! like scoring inside out were there is NO NATURES CONTROL OF OUR INABILITY TO CONTROL OURSELFS , or just let it degenerate like everything else $$ touches.

Maybe thats why I like out doors more.
Less politics, specially in the yard at home, NFAA not required!!!

Loosing track of the archers best interest is really not a good thing.

Don't forget OBT , going PRO, it'll all be about the MONEY.

I still have fun every day that I can shoot MY OWN ARCHERY ,no $$, no politics, no worries, no B.S.(Big Shafts didn't fly good, they're in a tube 'til I find brissels to make a broom out of them)


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Spotshooter2 said:


> All the people that say they should take eastons shafts and break them . Tell me how many of you are using the larger shafts , alot i would bet. So seems to me you are being hypocritical if you are *****ing about the ruling,right or wrong , and yet you are using the larger shafts. I agree there should be a limit but it should be what is offered to date and available to everyone, a 27 shaft. The companies only make what the people are paying money for. So it seems there must have been a whole lot of you self righteous people out there that bought the large diameter shafts. Nobody forced you to buy them did they, you all wanted that extra little edge that might catch you that extra X. If you want the 23 shaft to be the limit I dont care. If you are whining about this ruling but you are using the larger diameter arrows , then I call hypocrite.


Wrong...

Many that shoot the larger shafts were in favor of the limit. I myself was shooting 2512, the largest I own. I am now going to shoot my 2314s in Vegas because of this.

It isn't the size here, it is the principle behind it!! I would have fine with a cap of 27 series. There has to be a limit and the NFAA's constitution has to mean something. Sure it was ill planned and thought out, but there needs to be a limit.

I don't think you can call us hypocrits.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Doc said:


> As stated repeatedly, it's not about the size of the arrow...it's about the ability of a commercial entity to trump the ruling VOTED on by the NFAA membership/directors.


Do we ACTUALY KNOW that Easton pulled this move solo or are we trusting Mike on his 100% accurate reporting of the situation? Was it ONLY Easton that got a little twiggy or did all the arrow Mfg get upset?

I think the whole load, shoot, and ask later is a little mob like just now...

A big deep breath and 24 hrs will bring everybody to the table in a little less hostile mood. That's all I'm saying... 

Chuck


----------



## kward598 (Sep 25, 2002)

OMG I can't believe it.. I agree we should restructure the scoring ring.. I've always wanted a 12 on a indoor target


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

FV Chuck said:


> Do we ACTUALY KNOW that Easton pulled this move solo or are we trusting Mike on his 100% accurate reporting of the situation? Was it ONLY Easton that got a little twiggy or did all the arrow Mfg get upset?
> 
> I think the whole load, shoot, and ask later is a little mob like just now...
> 
> ...


I am sure the other arrow manufacturers were upset. They may not have had the time to react like Easton was reported to have done however.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

FV Chuck said:


> Do we ACTUALY KNOW that Easton pulled this move solo or are we trusting Mike on his 100% accurate reporting of the situation? Was it ONLY Easton that got a little twiggy or did all the arrow Mfg get upset?
> 
> I think the whole load, shoot, and ask later is a little mob like just now...
> 
> ...


From what I understand Easton threatened the same action with ASA within the last month for trying to do the same thing.


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

kward said:


> OMG I can't believe it.. I agree we should restructure the scoring ring.. I've always wanted a 12 on a indoor target



Pro 12 or center 12?


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

sagecreek said:


> Pro 12 or center 12?


Hell let's put a 14 out in the blue (6) ring!!!!

That'll keep things exciting!!!!


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

FV Chuck said:


> Do we ACTUALY KNOW that Easton pulled this move solo or are we trusting Mike on his 100% accurate reporting of the situation? Was it ONLY Easton that got a little twiggy or did all the arrow Mfg get upset?
> 
> I think the whole load, shoot, and ask later is a little mob like just now...
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter if it was exclusively Easton or several arrow manufacturers...it's still a commercial entity(ies) overturning the voted upon decision by the NFAA membership/directors.


----------



## kward598 (Sep 25, 2002)

sagecreek said:


> Pro 12 or center 12?


pro 12 of course! as the man said.. you must have a crash to have an audience.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

I see that we have 42 members viewing this thread and 11 guests?????


I wonder why there are so many guests???? Is that you Jim, Bruce and the others invovled???

Come on chime in let's hear it straight form the horses mouth!!!


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

Ok Swami , you made my point , your 2512 is still considered a larger shaft. And as to how many people really wanted it you are making a guess . There is no asking of the general people . Unless you can show in statistics where the general population is asked this question you are only talking about the few that you know and making it out to be a concensus statement.


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Ok Swami , you made my point , your 2512 is still considered a larger shaft. And as to how many people really wanted it you are making a guess . There is no asking of the general people . Unless you can show in statistics where the general population is asked this question you are only talking about the few that you know and making it out to be a concensus statement.


Sounds like we need a poll! 

Any takers?


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Ok Swami , you made my point , your 2512 is still considered a larger shaft. And as to how many people really wanted it you are making a guess . There is no asking of the general people . Unless you can show in statistics where the general population is asked this question you are only talking about the few that you know and making it out to be a concensus statement.


Actually spot shooter I started a poll last night asking this same questions. Are you in favor of a 9.3mm rule (YES or NO)

The totals have remained at or near 85% in favor of a restriction. Approx 200 votes

Thats more than Swami's friends, and trust me he doesn't have that many friends anyways!!!!


----------



## cliarcher (Jan 25, 2006)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Ok Swami , you made my point , your 2512 is still considered a larger shaft. And as to how many people really wanted it you are making a guess . There is no asking of the general people . Unless you can show in statistics where the general population is asked this question you are only talking about the few that you know and making it out to be a concensus statement.



there is a poll on this very subject.

147 voted yes they are for the restriction
26 voted no on the restriction


----------



## Radar (Mar 9, 2004)

to me it's simple .... It's time the members take things in our own hands.

You can't blame Easton for making a bigger shaft - people want them. You can't blame the NFAA for listening to Easton - they need the money. I will not let my membership expire because i like going to the shoots.

What i can do is protest by NOT shooting an arrow shaft larger than a 23!!!! If everyone did this - it would take the pressure off the NFAA; they have no choice or control. It would let arrow companies know how we feel, AND it will let those shooting the 27's what we think of them.

My hero will be the pro that wins with 23's.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

cliarcher said:


> there is a poll on this very subject.
> 
> 147 voted yes they are for the restriction
> 26 voted no on the restriction


Vote here!!!!!


http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=640726


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Ok Swami , you made my point , your 2512 is still considered a larger shaft. And as to how many people really wanted it you are making a guess . There is no asking of the general people . Unless you can show in statistics where the general population is asked this question you are only talking about the few that you know and making it out to be a concensus statement.


Are you not aware of how the NFAA process/agenda items are brought to the table and voted on? They do ask the public....then YOUR states rep votes for YOUR state.:doh:

and for the record I am shooting 9.3mm shafts NOW.:wink:


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

The Swami said:


> Oh I am not talking about the Easton in there. I mean he is a sponser. All sponsers will be on Easton's side here.
> 
> He's a special interest.


Swami-

Youre wrong here..., at least in my case. I'm not in the chair or the mind of the others but I can state unequivocally that for the $8000 a year I spend on sponsorship of the NFAA not counting travel, entry fees, and membership (add another $10,000 plus to attend all the events) they don't automatically control my mind or my decisions...


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

The Swami said:


> Ok, who is your mentor Hutnicks...Berra or Bush?


Reinhard Gehlen, of course.


----------



## KH400 (Jan 17, 2008)

Radar said:


> My hero will be the pro that wins with 23's.


Ditto! :darkbeer:


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*...it's still a commercial entity(ies) overturning the voted upon decision by the NFAA membership/directors. Also Mike never stated that Easton was behind this.*

Bull… The NFAA made a decision and a or some manufacturers expresses there opinion… They did not overturn ANY vote. The NFFA decided based on manufacturer feedback that such a move may have not been in the Orgs best interest and overturned the ruling… It's what we vote them in office to do.. If you don't agree with them vote them out

Here is what we do for you and what we would like to see in return.. Take it or leave it … we took it .. Our choice … not a forced decision at all. We have been taking it for years and Easton has acted in good faith 

Plus I agree with Chuck the REAL details are so sketchy who knows the TRUTH… 

I think the Only thing the memebrs would be happy with is if We acted how ever we wanted and the Manufactureres would showeres us with millions of dollars regardless of what it meant for them

If Easton don't like how an Org is ran they can choose not to sponsor that org and apparently they expressed such to the council.... They only other question is do we want thier money or not.... Before you answer you better take a look at what thier money is doing and what you stand to loose...

Be careful what you wish for .. It just may come true:wink:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

FV Chuck said:


> Swami-
> 
> Youre wrong here..., at least in my case. I'm not in the chair or the mind of the others but I can state unequivocally that for the $8000 a year I spend on sponsorship of the NFAA not counting travel, entry fees, and membership (add another $10,000 plus to attend all the events) they don't automatically control my mind or my decisions...


Of course, you're the one spending the money. You would be the one with the case to have things your way, not the other way around. 

If you are trying to say you wouldn't be a sponser that would overide the legal and proper decisions of the NFAA because of the money you give them, I believe you.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2008)

If OBT says it,,,then I believe it.... I don't think Mike would lie, especially about archery...


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Ok Swami , you made my point , your 2512 is still considered a larger shaft. And as to how many people really wanted it you are making a guess . There is no asking of the general people . Unless you can show in statistics where the general population is asked this question you are only talking about the few that you know and making it out to be a concensus statement.


Read my post again, I didn't quantify anything. I said many, just like you are saying a few. 



> Many that shoot the larger shafts were in favor of the limit. I myself was shooting 2512, the largest I own. I am now going to shoot my 2314s in Vegas because of this.


I also said I was ok with a cap at the 27 size arrow. I just think there should be a limit somewhere. Read my post again. Note that I said a limit, I didn't say which limit. 

I didn't prove your point at all. 

Don't debate with a Swami...


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

centerx said:


> *...it's still a commercial entity(ies) overturning the voted upon decision by the NFAA membership/directors. Also Mike never stated that Easton was behind this.*
> 
> Bull… The NFAA made a decision and a or some manufacturers expresses there opinion… They did not overturn ANY vote. The NFFA decided based on manufacturer feedback that such a move may have not been in the Orgs best interest and overturned the ruling… It's what we vote them in office to do.. If you don't agree with them vote them out
> 
> ...


I wonder if it ever occurred to you that in some states the members have no direct voice in the choice of director or chairperson... Voting them out isn't an option...


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Spotshooter2 said:


> All the people that say they should take eastons shafts and break them . Tell me how many of you are using the larger shafts , alot i would bet. So seems to me you are being hypocritical if you are *****ing about the ruling,right or wrong , and yet you are using the larger shafts. I agree there should be a limit but it should be what is offered to date and available to everyone, a 27 shaft. The companies only make what the people are paying money for. So it seems there must have been a whole lot of you self righteous people out there that bought the large diameter shafts. Nobody forced you to buy them did they, you all wanted that extra little edge that might catch you that extra X. If you want the 23 shaft to be the limit I dont care. If you are whining about this ruling but you are using the larger diameter arrows , then I call hypocrite.


Choosing to not relinquish an advantage to a fellow competitor (perceived or otherwise) while advocating a limit on arrow size is far from hypocritical...


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

I am not sure what to make of this, and I really don't have a dog in the fight...for the most part.

I actually think what has happened makes sense, smells, but makes sense.:behindsof Stay with me here. Since the introduction of the 2712, really since Iowa, there has been a clammoring for size restrictions on arrows. Personally, I think there should be a size restriction. This movement has continued to steam on like a run-away train...the proverbial snowball rolling down the hill...the dominos keep falling...

I think the worst type of decision that can be made, especially a long term decision (which the original rule adoption was intended to be), is a decision that is made under these circumstances. Some one shows up at Iowa with 5/8" arrows to make a point...a point that actuallly needed making...and let the hysteria begin. Same hysteria that I have been reading about for years, but hasn't really happend yet. The irony is that it was the same person with the 5/8" arrows, adoptee of the the mot vocal proponents of size restrictions, was asailed last year at this time for a click or 2. These are the days of our lives. 

Back to the point...decisions, long term decisions, long term decisions that aren't made with the input of all the parties, are never really good decisions...they're quick decisions designed to fix a perceived short-term problem, with little weight given to the long term consequences of all the parties. Keep in mind that I support size restrictions, and it is a long term issue, but one that requires thoughtful decision making.

Easton, and all of the other arrow manufactures have a dog in this fight. Their opinions ought to be heard...no, they shouldn't be able to buy a result, but they should at least be heard. What is wrong with slowing the train down a little, and getting the input from all of the parties? The e-mail that JD posted implies that all of the parties need to be brought to the table and figure out what works best, and what is the best result. Makes sense to me. 

Did Easton flex its wallet...maybe...maybe it will actually work out for the good of archery...long term. Can the NFAA make a reasoned decision from there, yes, and it should, and maybe that decision gets us right back to 23s as the limit, but at least all the parties came to the table. 

On a side note, the revenue that Easton produces from archery is a rather small slice of the pie whan compare to the overall revenue of Easton. I don't really think that the economic loss caused by the elimination of 27s, or even 26s would be too hard to absord, and would be recouped quickly based upon the sales of smaller arrows. How easy would it be for the other manufactures, those with a much smaller revenue stream, to recoup their investment in the r&d and production for their shafts that are larger than 23s? 

The rescinding of this rule may actually help them as much or more than Easton. Just a thought. Great marketing on their part too, and I can see the ad campaign now..."Hey, mega corp Easton bought its influence...boycott them...kick em' where it hurts...come by our 30x, etc. shafts their legal (thanks, at least by perception, to Easton). I guess an argument can be made that, if in fact this change was solely due to Easton, their actions have help their competitors too...

The NFAA doesn't exist without its members, or its sponsors. In many respects, archery doesn't exist, at least as we know it, without the organizations. Manufacturers don't exist without everybody else. It is all really connected...

A comparison to golf has been made, which is somewhat fair. Interesting is that for the most part, the governing bodies stopped development at a certain point, and said no more. Yes, there were clubs that were bigger, and balls that went farther, but for the most part, the line was drawn in a place that did not require a downsizing. Interesting of note, is that Ping actually took on the USGA several years ago over groove designs...to federal court if my memory is correct, and prevailed. 

So my prediction...the sky isn't falling. This time next year there is going to be a discussion of size limits, and it is going to be passed, with the input of all the parties. It may be at 27s, it may be less, but the writing is on the wall. The difference is that it isn't going to be a knee jerk response to a perceived immediate problem. 27 series arrows, and 5/8" arrows were legal along time ago. 

I also agree with Jimmy D...the fight ain't wih Easton,they were, if it is true, protecting their interests, just as any of us would have done had our interests been at stake. The fight is with the NFAA and those people who have the ability to adopt and construct rules...

Now, as for my dog in the fight, I ran some arrow combinations through my trust OT2 software last night. My problem is finding an aluminum arrow in a 23 size that I can get to spine with a good foc for my preferred draw and holding weight. I am one of those ape armed people who has a long draw length. Haven't done any testing, but 2317s were the only shafts that I could put together with the specs I wanted that would spine on the program. Accessories for 2317s aren't the most plentiful... 2315s would spine, just with a foc that lower, a lot lower, than I prefer. So, with no testing, is this rule going to require me to make a change in equipment, either lowering draw and holding weight to a point that is less accurate for me, or a change in the composition of the arrows I shoot? Again, no real world testing...just some pondering I have been doing...

Just my ramblings...now, back to the show.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*I wonder if it ever occurred to you that in some states the members have no direct voice in the choice of director or chairperson... Voting them out isn't an option...*

Ohhh .. Javiiii... I'm just talking in generalities... you know what I'm getting at:embara:

I could give a rat's butt if I shoot 28's or 11 .. the game is the same all can play 

What I do care about is quality tournaments.. Quality facilites, Youth programs. USA based manufacturing , fielding quality olympians ( eastons into more then arrows you know) and a whole host of other items I can not even recall at the moment.. If A company helps with that I will help them to a point

They way I look at it the whole thing sucks.. The partenrships , the back room deals and so on ... One either has to have the power and money to chage what sucks or go with the version of what sucks that best benefits them ... I have yet to see anything in my life as Utopian as archers would like


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 2, 2004)

*Easton's new line of arrows...*

The Johnson.

You can compensate for other shortcomings, with Easton's Big Johnson arrows.


----------



## x-cutter (May 20, 2003)

Where you are wrong CenterX is that Easton wants a competitive advantage and they have a reputation for doing some pretty crooked things in protecting their interests. There is a discussion in Europe right now to ban carbon arrows. When Other companies came out with carbon arrows, EASTON covered the market with propaganda trying to convince everyone that carbon in your meat was dangerous, we all know different. Even if they are not behind the carbon arrow ban in Europe it stinks to high heaven and they deserve the criticism. 
The NFAA's "JOB" is to administer the the GAME of archery. The ruling has nothing to do with target damage. That is a copout. It has everything to do with the integrity of the game and putting shooters on the most level playing field possible. This angers me more that you can even imagine and last night I switched my setup back to 30x'S due to the fact I felt the issue had been addressed and voted on by the PEOPLE THAT SHOOT ARCHERY and that to shoot them at Vegas would just be looked at as self-serving. It is funny that all the major organizational leaders have never been archers. They dont care much about the game being shot or how promoteable our sport is. It is all money motivated.
If the consensus was to keep big arrows in the game there could have been a compromise that was fair and equitable for all three major manufacturers. All three have a 26 diameter shaft and by catering to Easton they give them the competitive advantage of having the larger shaft for indoor. If you think it doesn't matter maybe you will change your mind after Vegas. I have now made the decision to shoot the BIG shaft again. This issue will not go away until something fair and equitable is done. One of the biggest things that drive me in my job and archery career is how I have been treated and looked down upon by the shooters and employees of Easton. I dont like bullys. And that is all this amounts to. It is nice that they are able to donate money to the sport of archery but trust me there is a hidden agenda. 
We are also a sponsor of NFAA, but that may change in the future if there is always a special interest agenda. I promise if we brought a 1/2" arrow onto the market then next year there would be a restriction passed to Easton's largest shaft. How does a manufacturing company react. Do you build a 28? 27? 37?


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> Interesting of note, is that Ping actually took on the USGA several years ago over groove designs...to federal court if my memory is correct, and prevailed.


I liked your post.

However with the statement above, there was a compromise. The grooves could no longer be used on new clubs. The square grooves now are different than the original design PING come out with.

Once the USGA felt it wouldn't screw with the integrity of the game, they allowed this new square groove design and grandfathered in the older line of PING clubs which was a limited amount. PING no longer used the old grooves in manufacturing, so it was a compromise, not a defeat of the USGA.

Just correcting your memory my good man.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

The Swami said:


> Of course, your the one spending the money. You would be the one with the case to have things your way, not the other way around.
> 
> If you are trying to say you wouldn't be a sponser that would overide the legal and proper decisions of the NFAA because of the money you give them, I believe you.


Swami.... just exactly how does the arrow thing affect my business or my sponsorship of the NFAA???? am I missing it?


Let's look at it another way since most of this is hypothesis or conjecture anyway..

How do we know that the NFAA wasn't acting upon reflection when they thought that the membership might get really really bent out of shape if they thought that they would have to sell all the fattys they had to buy new arrows.? What if the thought process was something like "wow look at the influx of big arrows and how much the shooters like them...we have more attendance than ever before...what happens if we kill that ability? will they leave in droves or find something else to do?....do we want to risk it, maybe we should look at this again and not take quick drastic measures unless we think it through a bit better..."

This might in fact be a stretch but..how do we know the NFAA was actually not thinking about us, the shooters?

I stand by my first resolution to wait and see what shakes out before I go pointing fingers...no matter what my affiliations or sponsorships.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

The Swami said:


> I liked your post.
> 
> However with the statement above, there was a compromise. The grooves could no longer be used on new clubs. The square grooves now are different than the original design PING come out with.
> 
> ...


Remember that well...


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

x-cutter said:


> Where you are wrong CenterX is that Easton wants a competitive advantage and they have a reputation for doing some pretty crooked things in protecting their interests. There is a discussion in Europe right now to ban carbon arrows. When Other companies came out with carbon arrows, EASTON covered the market with propaganda trying to convince everyone that carbon in your meat was dangerous, we all know different. Even if they are not behind the carbon arrow ban in Europe it stinks to high heaven and they deserve the criticism.
> The NFAA's "JOB" is to administer the the GAME of archery. The ruling has nothing to do with target damage. That is a copout. It has everything to do with the integrity of the game and putting shooters on the most level playing field possible. This angers me more that you can even imagine and last night I switched my setup back to 30x'S due to the fact I felt the issue had been addressed and voted on by the PEOPLE THAT SHOOT ARCHERY and that to shoot them at Vegas would just be looked at as self-serving. It is funny that all the major organizational leaders have never been archers. They dont care much about the game being shot or how promoteable our sport is. It is all money motivated.
> If the consensus was to keep big arrows in the game there could have been a compromise that was fair and equitable for all three major manufacturers. All three have a 26 diameter shaft and by catering to Easton they give them the competitive advantage of having the larger shaft for indoor. If you think it doesn't matter maybe you will change your mind after Vegas. I have now made the decision to shoot the BIG shaft again. This issue will not go away until something fair and equitable is done. One of the biggest things that drive me in my job and archery career is how I have been treated and looked down upon by the shooters and employees of Easton. I dont like bullys. And that is all this amounts to. It is nice that they are able to donate money to the sport of archery but trust me there is a hidden agenda.
> We are also a sponsor of NFAA, but that may change in the future if there is always a special interest agenda. I promise if we brought a 1/2" arrow onto the market then next year there would be a restriction passed to Easton's largest shaft. How does a manufacturing company react. Do you build a 28? 27? 37?


Tim after hearing that post, I'm pullin' for you with those big bassturds!!!!!


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Bobmuley said:


> He's from New York. They're desensitized to leadership not representing their constituents.:wink:


That my friends should be the post of the day !!!

Are you seeing this RK !...that was brilliant !:wink::wink:


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

x-cutter said:


> Where you are wrong CenterX is that Easton wants a competitive advantage and they have a reputation for doing some pretty crooked things in protecting their interests. There is a discussion in Europe right now to ban carbon arrows. When Other companies came out with carbon arrows, EASTON covered the market with propaganda trying to convince everyone that carbon in your meat was dangerous, we all know different. Even if they are not behind the carbon arrow ban in Europe it stinks to high heaven and they deserve the criticism.
> The NFAA's "JOB" is to administer the the GAME of archery. The ruling has nothing to do with target damage. That is a copout. It has everything to do with the integrity of the game and putting shooters on the most level playing field possible. This angers me more that you can even imagine and last night I switched my setup back to 30x'S due to the fact I felt the issue had been addressed and voted on by the PEOPLE THAT SHOOT ARCHERY and that to shoot them at Vegas would just be looked at as self-serving. It is funny that all the major organizational leaders have never been archers. They dont care much about the game being shot or how promoteable our sport is. It is all money motivated.
> If the consensus was to keep big arrows in the game there could have been a compromise that was fair and equitable for all three major manufacturers. All three have a 26 diameter shaft and by catering to Easton they give them the competitive advantage of having the larger shaft for indoor. If you think it doesn't matter maybe you will change your mind after Vegas. I have now made the decision to shoot the BIG shaft again. This issue will not go away until something fair and equitable is done. One of the biggest things that drive me in my job and archery career is how I have been treated and looked down upon by the shooters and employees of Easton. I dont like bullys. And that is all this amounts to. It is nice that they are able to donate money to the sport of archery but trust me there is a hidden agenda.
> We are also a sponsor of NFAA, but that may change in the future if there is always a special interest agenda. I promise if we brought a 1/2" arrow onto the market then next year there would be a restriction passed to Easton's largest shaft. How does a manufacturing company react. Do you build a 28? 27? 37?


Good luck Tim....


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

JAVI said:


> Remember that well...



I actually pay attention in golf. I also had some non conforming clubs at one time.  I read up on the groove thing.

I just read period...


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> Good luck Tim....


From me too...


----------



## pintojk (Jan 31, 2003)

Brown Hornet said:


> Good luck Tim....



+ 1


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

JAVI said:


> Remember that well...


Seem to recall that when all was said and done and the dust cleared. The actual testing showed only a ball / clubface grip advantage when used in damp or wet rough.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

FV Chuck said:


> Swami.... just exactly how does the arrow thing affect my business or my sponsorship of the NFAA???? am I missing it?
> 
> 
> Let's look at it another way since most of this is hypothesis or conjecture anyway..
> ...


First thing..

Yeah you missed it. What I am saying is that if you donated money to the NFAA in a substantial amount, you now know you can sway things even if they were voted on. You probably don't have the pull that Easton does. Now you get it? As a sponser, of course you want to be able to influence the sport that benefits your company. What company wouldn't want to do that??

Like I said, if you were more concerned about the sport overall and wouldn't do what was reported to have been done, then I believe you.

How do I know? I spoke to a director personally and plan on speaking to a few more. I will know a lie when I hear it. My state director won't lie to me. I am sure it will jive with what I have heard so far.


----------



## Brewer (Aug 3, 2006)

Well said Tim, good luck.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Hutnicks said:


> Seem to recall that when all was said and done and the dust cleared. The actual testing showed only a ball / clubface grip advantage when used in damp or wet rough.


Yes, that is why the USGA went with the compromise and not the U grooves.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*Where you are wrong CenterX is that Easton wants a competitive advantage and they have a reputation for doing some pretty crooked things in protecting their interests..*

I have no doubt they do want a competitive advantage… That's the name of the game .. As far as crooked you will have to enlighten me. I remember well the carbon arrow advertising. They were not promoting that carbon arrows were dangerous in your meat. They were trying to mount a marketing campaign that explained what would happen if the protruded shafts of the time were to splinter in the meat. Actually a concern that was also echoed by others outside of Easton as well . Caution was the name of the game at the time………….. Odd how the truth can be twisted either way:wink:

Easton tried to make a bigger deal out of it then it was and they failed as the masses choose another path.:embara:

Easton makes a 27 series shaft and the masses embrace it…. What is the right answer on shaft size?? I guess the answered is to continue making bigger ones until the free market system says enough and stops buying them. Or I guess.. You could lobby for a legislative change.. Or I guess you could pour so much money into the org that they would Listen to Gold Tip instead. Or you could start a grass roots movement to limit shaft diameter in the pro ranks as an example to the rest of the manufactures of what a REAL pro thinks the Game should be

Or I guess you could come up with a shaft that NOBODY else can have … degrade your manufacturing competition while taking no steps to get you or other pro's to walk the walk……You can also play the Easton game and pull sponsorship because you know THAT will advance archery and win consumers for Gold Tip product … You see how many here are threatening to purchase other arrows besides Easton….. Who knows.. Maybe GT wins after all?? 

Who am I to decide?? I'll let all the industry and organizational experts fight it out… All the above have already clealy demonstrated what Joe's want or need is not an option …


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Do we ACTUALY KNOW that Easton pulled this move solo or are we trusting Mike on his 100% accurate reporting of the situation? Was it ONLY Easton that got a little twiggy or did all the arrow Mfg get upset?
> 
> I think the whole load, shoot, and ask later is a little mob like just now...
> 
> ...



Chuck, its not surprising you'd come in on this and try to defuse a situation that wreeks of back room dealing. Then you cast your little jab at me as if im not reporting acurately.

When in all actuality, i have sugar coated some of the things said and done.

Chuck, you are not doing yourself or archery any favors with your pursuit of placing yourself on a higher plateau. 

To set the record straight. 

1) The archery world is changing, faster and swifter then most of us can comprehend.

2) The archery world, like the rest of the world has gone corporate. 

3) The President of the NFAA has my total support for the way he has brought the NFAA forward. He does things as best he can with as much red tape and such that surrounds him.

4) Easton and its namesake have done more for archery then any and all others in the world combined. 

5) The NFAA board of directors has many many people passionate about archery. BUT, it also has some that are totally clueless and are only in it for a free ride to the annual meeting.

6) the NFAA Council are very knowledgeable and passionate about archery. However at times they too appear to place personal situations ahead of what might be the good of the organization. 

now with those things being said. 

on my way back into the hotel from out on the town shooting my bow.

i passed a councilman, he stopped me and another archer to tell us that "chit has hit the fan".....and i said what happened....." EASTON IS PISSED ABOUT THE ARROW SIZE RESTRICTION" and i said, really....kinda late for that now aint it

now here is where all of us have to start to seperate the BS from the spreader......i was then told that EASTON had sold over 100 dozen 2700 series arrows at the LAS shoot and that they were bringing 40 plus dozen of them here to the WAF shoot.....

so right away i know that something is wrong...because at LAS shoot i was told by LAS employee's that they only had about 8 dozen 2700 series arrows in stock before the tourney began.....but all in all thats not my business.....but the WORD was at that point told to me that EASTON WAS PISSED.....

so then i didnt think much of it as i said to the councilman, " WELL LOOKS LIKE YOU GET TO BE THE HERO HERE" and he said how is that...i said "NOW THE WAF CAN MAKE 2700 SERIES ARROWS LEGAL AT WAF SHOOTS" 

I was told no way will the WAF do that, that would be stupid....i said, well it aint like the WAF hasnt broke ranks before with the NFAA when it best suited them....and in my opinion ....thats the only thing that could have been done at this point to save face for everyone...including EASTON....

i then went to my room to get ready for the sit down dinner that was scheduled for all the NFAA PEOPLE.....and upon arrival at 6pm at the dinner location, was told that we are having a EMERGENCY BOARD MEETING IN 15 MINUTES...

now mind you....once that word started getting out....i had a ton of people speak to me....including council and others......and in those conversations by people that are IN THE KNOW....it was all about EASTON......i more then once CAUTIONED then and said.....this is going to cause more egg on face and take and strip all creditability away from US the NFAA and EASTON...because no matter what at this point, its going to look like it was ALL EASTON'S doing whether it was or not.....

next we went into meeting room and were told...." THAT EASTON THOUGHT WE THE BOARD ACTED WITH MISINFORMATION" 

"THAT EASTON VIEWS US AS THE LARGEST AND MOST INTELLIGENT ORG OUT THERE"

"THAT EASTON HAS BEEN MAKING SHAFTS SPECIFICALLY FOR OUR SHOOTERS"

"THAT WE SHOULD HAVE CHECKED WITH "ALL" ARROW COMPANYS TO GET THEIR VIEW ON WHERE TO GO WITH ARROW LIMITATIONS"

now mind you...ALL OF US have just sat through meetings for 3 days....grueling and grinding meetings at that.....and during these meetings we saw photo's and much time was gone over on the relocation of the NFAA headquarters and how its gone from just NFAA HEADQUARTERS ....but also into a REGIONAL TRAINING CENTER.....and also into possibly a museum and display center for some other artifacts.

and of course were told that all of this was being made possible by the SIZABLE donation from EASTON or its subsidy, the EASTON SPORTS FOUNDATION......which the donation was in the area told to us of $350000 for building use and another $50k a year for so many years for a scholarship fund......

and now take into the fact that EVERYONE was in a celebritory mood for a banquet and were bum rushed with this EMERGENCY MEETING......so it doesnt take much to see that EVERYONE was not prepared or in the mood to do anything but be allowed to be DIRECTED in the way that would produce a outcome that kept the money trail flowing.....

now Chuck you can take and spin it anyway you want....and while you do support the NFAA and other orgs with your sponship dollars, i say thank you...and i hope that you continue to do so.....

however as you have your agendas to push.....

it takes people ...sometimes people like to me stand up and REPORT the facts as they have been presented to me.....

and while if taken aside and simply told....we have our largest financial contributor "WISHING" for us to look at this.....you bet your arse id not only look at it...but id be a main supporter of it.....there is a RIGHT WAY and a WRONG WAY to do things....

At this point, i can only look at history to view this event.....and i as a representative of the NFAA have to say, i do not want the NFAA being LED in the way it appears ANOTHER archery org WAS LED.....

the NFAA is setup to be governed by its members....not by its DONORS, SPONSORS, OR DIRECTORS...but by the voice of its people.....

again, i think that the directors, council, and officers of the NFAA are smart enough to deal with things if PRESENTED TO THEM IN A ABOVE THE BOARD MANNER and think that all of the above mentioned would most certainly keep whats in the best interest of the NFAA at heart when making decisions.....

so for the JIM DESPARTS, this isnt about good scores shot with what arrows.....arrows and sizes of arrows are a moot point....this is about being LED....and by whom are WE ALL being led .....

no doubt about it....i think that its time for the NFAA TO CHANGE SOME OF ITS WAYS.....

i feel that if we the NFAA would have had a seat or two on the board held by our high level sponsors and donors.....which i definately feel any company that contributes a great deal to any org is entitled to sit in on and give us advice on how things might be best for both the org and sponsors....this whole situation may have been avoided....

Members, its time for you to either allow your org to continue on as it is....(which at one point after the meeting i thought was definately heading in the right direction) or its time for you to vote in people that will stand up and speak for what you want....and at the same time they will vote for other people that will vote for what you want.....


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

Good luck Tim!




On another note,

what happened to "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas"? :wink:

epsi:


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> now here is where all of us have to start to seperate the BS from the spreader......i was then told that EASTON had sold over 100 dozen 2700 series arrows at the LAS shoot and that they were bringing 40 plus dozen of them here to the WAF shoot.....
> 
> so right away i know that something is wrong...because at LAS shoot i was told by LAS employee's that they only had about 8 dozen 2700 series arrows in stock before the tourney began.....but all in all thats not my business.....but the WORD was at that point told to me that EASTON WAS PISSED.....


So, all this hate and discontent for something under $10,000 retail? That doesn't seem very smart business to me. Especially since they lost just under $400 just in sales to me.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

x-cutter said:


> Where you are wrong CenterX is that Easton wants a competitive advantage and they have a reputation for doing some pretty crooked things in protecting their interests. There is a discussion in Europe right now to ban carbon arrows. When Other companies came out with carbon arrows, EASTON covered the market with propaganda trying to convince everyone that carbon in your meat was dangerous, we all know different. Even if they are not behind the carbon arrow ban in Europe it stinks to high heaven and they deserve the criticism.
> The NFAA's "JOB" is to administer the the GAME of archery. The ruling has nothing to do with target damage. That is a copout. It has everything to do with the integrity of the game and putting shooters on the most level playing field possible. This angers me more that you can even imagine and last night I switched my setup back to 30x'S due to the fact I felt the issue had been addressed and voted on by the PEOPLE THAT SHOOT ARCHERY and that to shoot them at Vegas would just be looked at as self-serving. It is funny that all the major organizational leaders have never been archers. They dont care much about the game being shot or how promoteable our sport is. It is all money motivated.
> If the consensus was to keep big arrows in the game there could have been a compromise that was fair and equitable for all three major manufacturers. All three have a 26 diameter shaft and by catering to Easton they give them the competitive advantage of having the larger shaft for indoor. If you think it doesn't matter maybe you will change your mind after Vegas. I have now made the decision to shoot the BIG shaft again. This issue will not go away until something fair and equitable is done. One of the biggest things that drive me in my job and archery career is how I have been treated and looked down upon by the shooters and employees of Easton. I dont like bullys. And that is all this amounts to. It is nice that they are able to donate money to the sport of archery but trust me there is a hidden agenda.
> We are also a sponsor of NFAA, but that may change in the future if there is always a special interest agenda. I promise if we brought a 1/2" arrow onto the market then next year there would be a restriction passed to Easton's largest shaft. How does a manufacturing company react. Do you build a 28? 27? 37?



its no secret that Tim and I havent seen eye to eye since this same time last year.....and we pretty much arent going to agree on much of the same.....

i think Tims post here is pretty accurate.....the only thing i will say that its the NFAA'S job at this point to do what its membership want.....

and to say that the only fair thing would have been to limit arrow size to whats already out there as in "2nd" largest production shafts....hence 26 series....then that doesnt quite level the playing field for ALL ARCHERS...as many of the shorter draw and weaker poundage shooting archers cant get the 26 or even 25 series arrows to fly well.....

but i also believe that Tim is spot on when he says that IF...IF any other arrow company did indeed invest the time and efforts to product a larger arrow....it would indeed get voted out.....now would that be by another companys wishe's....i dont know...but i believe then all of a sudden damage would come into play.....

as of now....the NFAA has no arrow size restriction.....and as far as i know the WAF has no arrow size restriction.....so load up the big arrows Tim and come let em eat...


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> its no secret that Tim and I havent seen eye to eye since this same time last year.....and we pretty much arent going to agree on much of the same.....
> 
> i think Tims post here is pretty accurate.....the only thing i will say that its the NFAA'S job at this point to do what its membership want.....
> 
> ...


What do y'all want to bet that when Tim shows up with them big honker arrows there will be an emergency meeting of the WAF board... and there will be a limit imposed at 27/64”....effective immediately...


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

JAVI said:


> What do y'all want to bet that when Tim shows up with them big honker arrows there will be an emergency meeting of the WAF board... and there will be a limit imposed at 27/64”....effective immediately...


i would be very surprised if the WAF board actually placed a restriction on any arrow at this point.....

but i will not take that bet:wink:


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

JAVI said:


> What do y'all want to bet that when Tim shows up with them big honker arrows there will be an emergency meeting of the WAF board... and there will be a limit imposed at 27/64”....effective immediately...


Better not happen....

They think it's ugly now.....I have a feeling it would get even uglier. There would be a lot of people not shooting Diamond Jim arrows anymore I think if it did happen.

Hell if that happens I might switch to GTs just because......


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> Chuck, its not surprising you'd come in on this and try to defuse a situation that wreeks of back room dealing. Then you cast your little jab at me as if im not reporting acurately.
> 
> When in all actuality, i have sugar coated some of the things said and done.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mike,

Honestly i cant blame Easton for being concerned about this issue, Being that they are the major sponsor and have been for many many many years,
IMO we owe it to Easton to listen to them, there is absolutely no organization or individual on the planet that would not think 2x about possibly bighting the hand that feeds them with out receiving reprecautions , why should the NFAA be any different?
IMO the only way that this can truly be rectified to keep all sponsors and individuals happy is to put it to a membership vote, either at WAF and Indoor Nats, or a mail in or website vote, then Easton, CX, GT, or any other manufacturer could not have a leg to stand on, or threaten the major org.

I personally don't blame Easton for saying Hey remember US??? to the NFAA and stating their case to them. 

As any business owner can relate to if you have an employee on the pay roll and they do something that goes against you or your company, when you write the checks you sometimes have to be the bad guy and pull some weight to make your point, and sometimes even give them an option of the door. :wink:


----------



## cameron (Sep 15, 2005)

Why not just make another division called "Fatty", so the large diameters can all play together?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

The Swami said:


> I liked your post.
> 
> However with the statement above, there was a compromise. The grooves could no longer be used on new clubs. The square grooves now are different than the original design PING come out with.
> 
> ...


I don't think I had even reached double digits in the age department when this all went down...and obviously read just enough somewhere, sometime, to make myself dangerous...I still support size limits, just want them to be well thought out and reasoned, not a knee jerk reaction.

I think OBT's last post, at least how I interpreted it, speaks a lot to this whole situation. By the time he got to the emergency meeting, the hysteria had already swept the place up...and his prediction was true...about the egg that is...but there wasn't any stopping of the snowball by then, and the egg is sufficiently splattered...to the extent that it even has people on this board, people who would probably agree on a lot, so impassioned, that they are throwing daggers to prove the point of their impassioned plea...yep, the ball just keeps rolling along.

I agree, size limits are needed, probably have been needed for some time, but in my view, the time that has lapsed from the placement of this issue on the platter, that has made it the elephant in the room that can no longer be ignored, really the time from Iowa to now, is too short of a time to make a weel informed, thought out decision, that brings all the parties to the table. I don't think the issue can be ignored any longer, the reputation of the NFAA, Easton, and other sponsors and manufacturers are on the line, just think the decision should be made in a calm fashion...Here's my disclaimer: I realize other organizations have done it, so it would appear an easy solution, but appearances are often deceiving...

It's kinda like the story of the old bull and the young bull looking down from the top of the hill at the cows gathered around the stock tank...following the advice of the old bull seems appropriate in this situation...


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

KEN-813 said:


> Thanks Mike,
> 
> Honestly i cant blame Easton for being concerned about this issue, Being that they are the major sponsor and have been for many many many years,
> IMO we owe it to Easton to listen to them, there is absolutely no organization or individual on the planet that would not think 2x about possibly bighting the hand that feeds them with out receiving reprecautions , why should the NFAA be any different?
> ...


Ken 

You're right... we shouldn't blame anyone for this... It's just business...

Just as my questioning my continued affiliation with the NFAA is just business... so don't blame those of us who decide to pull out.. after all... there are more tournaments that aren't affiliated with the NFAA than those that are...


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

KEN-813 said:


> As any business owner can relate to if you have an employee on the pay roll and they do something that goes against you or your company, when you write the checks you sometimes have to be the bad guy and pull some weight to make your point, and sometimes even give them an option of the door. :wink:


Frankly, I'm a little offended at the thought of equating the NFAA to an employee of Easton. Even though that seems to be how they acted.


----------



## gdcpony (Oct 16, 2007)

KEN-813 said:


> Thanks Mike,
> 
> Honestly i cant blame Easton for being concerned about this issue, Being that they are the major sponsor and have been for many many many years,
> IMO we owe it to Easton to listen to them, there is absolutely no organization or individual on the planet that would not think 2x about possibly bighting the hand that feeds them with out receiving reprecautions , why should the NFAA be any different?
> ...


Stating their case-yes
Threatening after a fair vote-no
Maybe if I win the lotto I could get a rule change to say only people with my name can win at any tournament I am shooting. I guess I'd be able to buy victory too. 
Sorry, but if I am a sponsor and my case is heard, and the vote goes against me, tough. I remodel my marketing to adjust rather than impose my will on potential customers.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

JAVI said:


> What do y'all want to bet that when Tim shows up with them big honker arrows there will be an emergency meeting of the WAF board... and there will be a limit imposed at 27/64”....effective immediately...


I'm not a betting man, but I don't like those odds...I would love to see it happen though, because it would expedite the PROcess of making the archery community aware of the dealing from the bottom of the deck.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> Chuck, its not surprising you'd come in on this and try to defuse a situation that wreeks of back room dealing. Then you cast your little jab at me as if im not reporting acurately.
> 
> When in all actuality, i have sugar coated some of the things said and done.
> 
> ...


Very Accurate ONE I wanted to ask ya How cold steak was:wink:
With that said and stated as ONE has stated it. We as members are to believe and I say this losely.
That out of all the NFAA Members 200+ per state that 95% wanted a 9.3 size restriction and the other 6.42 reps voted against a size restriction not buying it.
So lets say 200 per state(as an EX.) X 50 thats 10000 members out of that 10000 only 1284 shooters in the NFAA wanted no restriction on arrow size hypothetically speaking.(NOT BUYING IT)

Now with that said Im for a restriction of some kind preferably 26s because I shoot GT and promote GT in my shop. So you know how I addressed our Rep. After he ask my view on it. Note: before the meeting.

And as Tim stated if people are gonna use the saving on Target butts Morrell will tell you small dia. arrows cause just as much damage if not more so the copout is correct.

My true Question and why its of so much interest to many on this thread that want it set at 9.3 why there? Why not 26s?

And as ONE stated 25s,26s, doesnt shoot well for SD people they do we have several avg 300 50Xs 27"dl and shorter with XC and 30Xs so they will shoot. JUST MY OPIONION Sincerely Michael


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

JAVI said:


> Ken
> 
> 
> Just as my questioning my continued affiliation with the NFAA is just business... so don't blame those of us who decide to pull out.. after all... there are more tournaments that aren't affiliated with the NFAA than those that are...


*Bye* :darkbeer:
:moon:

Kind of a bold statement with a childish I will take my ball and go home attitude especially for somebody that is basing this on his interpretation. of 
2nd hand statements. :darkbeer:


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

OneBowTie said:


> Chuck, its not surprising you'd come in on this and try to defuse a situation that wreeks of back room dealing. Then you cast your little jab at me as if im not reporting acurately.
> 
> When in all actuality, i have sugar coated some of the things said and done.
> 
> .....


I did not mean for it to come across that you were not being truthful Mike..I apologize...eaaaaaasssssy boy.:dog1:
I merely wanted to hear ALL of the facts not just some. After several conversations and lots of reading over the last several hours I suspected there might be a little more. ....And knowing a little about how well you're connected I knew you must know more.

Thanks for sharing it, now we see a more full picture. More accurate


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Tim*



x-cutter said:


> Where you are wrong CenterX is that Easton wants a competitive advantage and they have a reputation for doing some pretty crooked things in protecting their interests. There is a discussion in Europe right now to ban carbon arrows. When Other companies came out with carbon arrows, EASTON covered the market with propaganda trying to convince everyone that carbon in your meat was dangerous, we all know different. Even if they are not behind the carbon arrow ban in Europe it stinks to high heaven and they deserve the criticism.
> The NFAA's "JOB" is to administer the the GAME of archery. The ruling has nothing to do with target damage. That is a copout. It has everything to do with the integrity of the game and putting shooters on the most level playing field possible. This angers me more that you can even imagine and last night I switched my setup back to 30x'S due to the fact I felt the issue had been addressed and voted on by the PEOPLE THAT SHOOT ARCHERY and that to shoot them at Vegas would just be looked at as self-serving. It is funny that all the major organizational leaders have never been archers. They dont care much about the game being shot or how promoteable our sport is. It is all money motivated.
> If the consensus was to keep big arrows in the game there could have been a compromise that was fair and equitable for all three major manufacturers. All three have a 26 diameter shaft and by catering to Easton they give them the competitive advantage of having the larger shaft for indoor. If you think it doesn't matter maybe you will change your mind after Vegas. I have now made the decision to shoot the BIG shaft again. This issue will not go away until something fair and equitable is done. One of the biggest things that drive me in my job and archery career is how I have been treated and looked down upon by the shooters and employees of Easton. I dont like bullys. And that is all this amounts to. It is nice that they are able to donate money to the sport of archery but trust me there is a hidden agenda.
> We are also a sponsor of NFAA, but that may change in the future if there is always a special interest agenda. I promise if we brought a 1/2" arrow onto the market then next year there would be a restriction passed to Easton's largest shaft. How does a manufacturing company react. Do you build a 28? 27? 37?



Qoute
The ruling has nothing to do with target damage.

But there no doubt its going to help save target damage by reducing the size of the arrow.
DB


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

ex-NFO said:


> Frankly, I'm a little offended at the thought of equating the NFAA to an employee of Easton. Even though that seems to be how they acted.


I used the business and employee comparison as an analogy example.
twist it however you wish :wink:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> Very Accurate ONE I wanted to ask ya How cold steak was:wink:
> With that said and stated as ONE has stated it. We as members are to believe and I say this losely.
> That out of all the NFAA Members 200+ per state that 95% wanted a 9.3 size restriction and the other 6.42 reps voted against a size restriction not buying it.
> So lets say 200 per state(as an EX.) X 50 thats 10000 members out of that 10000 only 1284 shooters in the NFAA wanted no restriction on arrow size hypothetically speaking.(NOT BUYING IT)
> ...


Easy answer... on the 9.3mm question... 

Standardization... With the exception of the NFAA, ASA, and IBO the rest of competitive archery world has a 9.3mm maximum including the NAA.


----------



## spotshooter300 (Mar 31, 2004)

*Yip*

Funny just yesterday i got my 2712 eastons,glad to hear they have changed there minds.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

centerx said:


> I support the NFAA for listening to it's members .. I also support the wisdom in reversing the ruling when they discovered a problem with what is arguably the biggest sponsor we have right now
> 
> 
> Like I said before … Why would the org work towards reducing sales of the very product they are receiving sponsorship money from??... Easton builds it …we buy it … they give money back to us ???... Why would Easton NOT have a right to express an opinion in this matter??
> ...


CenterX....when its all said and done....most likely the sales of Easton the most with a 23 size restriction......after all....market share is just that....market share....and who know has more or the most arrows in the 23 series.....

who now has the least expense involved to ramp up production of such arrow series.......

and i have yet to see many people shooting the 27 series arrows other then those that get them for free or a reduced cost.....

im sure that the tooling and R&D costs for 23 arrows has long expired for a certain arrow company out there....


if anything....i bet that the market share would tilt in favor of one arrow company more so than any other....


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

:boink:


KEN-813 said:


> *Bye* :darkbeer:
> :moon:
> 
> Kind of a bold statement with a childish I will take my ball and go home attitude especially for somebody that is basing this on his interpretation. of
> 2nd hand statements. :darkbeer:


Right back at ya' big fellow... :moon:

So it's ok for Easton to play the "it's my ball game" but not me... and I did say questioning...:wink:


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> That out of all the NFAA Members 200+ per state that 95% wanted a 9.3 size restriction and the other 6.42 reps voted against a size restriction not buying it.
> So lets say 200 per state(as an EX.) X 50 thats 10000 members out of that 10000 only 1284 shooters in the NFAA wanted no restriction on arrow size hypothetically speaking.(NOT BUYING IT)
> Sincerely Michael



Where are these % coming from?? are you making this up, I know personally being from Michigan holding some of the largest NFAA memberships of any state, I being active in archery in our state, We were never polled to see what we wanted for arrow size, so if Our state or regional rep said the majority of our state wanted this size restriction he biased it on limited info or his own personal thoughts.

I am confident in saying that if the NFAA board came up with those numbers for a % of NFAA archers polled that was a personal biased guesstimate at best to make that decision.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

JAVI said:


> I wonder if it ever occurred to you that in some states the members have no _direct_ voice in the choice of director or chairperson... Voting them out isn't an option...


In good old Virginny there isn't even an _indirect_ way to vote ANYONE in or out.....no way shape or form. Can't be done........... Membership has no input in selecting officers.......... zero, natta, el zippo


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

JAVI said:


> :boink:
> 
> Right back at ya' big fellow... :moon:
> 
> So it's ok for Easton to play the "it's my ball game" but not me... and I did say questioning...:wink:


Yes, they write bigger checks and they do more then you !


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

KEN-813 said:


> I used the business and employee comparison as an analogy example.
> twist it however you wish :wink:


What makes it worse then, is apparently you don't see anything wrong with the analogy. Apparently according to you, it's just fine and dandy if Easton considers the NFAA to be an employee. 

Hey, I paid my money, so now you do what I say.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

KEN-813 said:


> *Bye* :darkbeer:
> :moon:
> 
> Kind of a bold statement with a childish I will take my ball and go home attitude especially for somebody that is basing this on his interpretation. of
> 2nd hand statements. :darkbeer:



ken, care to say who is giving 2nd hand statements


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

KEN-813 said:


> Yes, they write bigger checks and they do more then you !


That could be said for every single member of the NFAA both individually and collectively.. So maybe we all should just leave...


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

KEN-813 said:


> Yes, they write bigger checks and they do more then you !


Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds also do or did more for baseball by filling the stadiums and helping to sell sponsorship packages.....so should we all just say....awe....they are allowed to cheat and lie....

bottom line....i sure wouldnt want to lose Easton or any other Manfacture or sponsor from our orgs.....but i also dont think that as it is...we are setup to STAY IN TUNE WITH EACH OTHER

i dont want to run and hide from a problem.....and i dont want to sweep it under the carpet

anyone that knows anything about me....knows i will address the issue....offer some sort of solution if i know of it

i said in closed doors....its time we get some of our high energy sponsors in this room with us.....during the meetings to express ideas, opinions, and help us to grow along with them.....

and that aint what happened....what happened is that the states came to the meetings and were directed by its membership to act...when that action took place....THEN second hand info and actions came into play....

i said it then...if we go back in there behind closed doors...the damage and fall out from this will only fall two ways....towards the council and towards ONE of our sponsors....the only ONE that we were talking about....

now...its time to get the NFAA to change and add board seats...to those that do ante up big bucks...and have a couple seats for certain level sponsorships......and then lets all sit and suffer in the meetings together....


----------



## Avalon (Jul 23, 2007)

As a "small player" in the realm of archery, I had no idea that Easton played

such a big role in the development of NFAA and archery as a whole. As such

a large contributor financially they should have SOME say in the proceedings.

They mindset that Easton is the devil, to me seems unfair. They SHOULD have

been consulted before this ruling was originally aired. 

While I am TOTALLY opposed to the $$ carrying the weight, because of 

what they have given to the archery world, we do owe them something.

If they cannot support the decision the NFAA made it is totally their right to

withdraw their funds. If that is what happened obviously the NFAA decided 

that that was to big of a sacrifice. 

In my mind the arrow situation is out of control and some sort of kibosh 

mechanism needs to be applied. I am thankful for what Easton is doing 

for archery. I regret that we are evidently so dependant on one organization.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Kstigall said:


> In good old Virginny there isn't even an _indirect_ way to vote ANYONE in or out.....no way shape or form. Can't be done........... Membership has no input in selecting officers.......... zero, natta, el zippo


THIS IS ANOTHER THING....ive heard this 3 times now...from Texas, Virgina, and i believe ILL people 

that they have no way to vote in or out the current set of directors and or officers of that state....

i wish all yall would produce to me some sort of document proving this.....i think that is a total conflict of what the NFAA is supposed to be about...and WE need to have some sort of policy from NATIONAL so that all states have the opportunity for EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OR REPRESENTATION......

get me proof...ill take it to the national and too the council ......


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

KEN-813 said:


> Where are these % coming from?? are you making this up, I know personally being from Michigan holding some of the largest NFAA memberships of any state, I being active in archery in our state, We were never polled to see what we wanted for arrow size, so if Our state or regional rep said the majority of our state wanted this size restriction he biased it on limited info or his own personal thoughts.
> 
> I am confident in saying that if the NFAA board came up with those numbers for a % of NFAA archers polled that was a personal biased guesstimate at best to make that decision.


And Ken I also Used EX. short for example and HYPOTHETICALLY! in my post. thanks for your reply though.
Javi I respect all you say but cause you always seem to be right on.
with that why should the NFAA, IBO, ASA standardize to meet the other orgs?
And if its for the same bow setups across the board I personally dont agree with that going from 26s to 23s to shoot in a tourney isnt that hard. Respectfully Michael


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

HOLY COW! i thought it would NEVER happen!!! I agree with "The O" 100%. I am in full support of a 23 size restriction ( i will save the "My 32+ inch draw makes the 23's too weak") who cares! Make it work.When Pockets are lined over and over without anyone knowing and then finally it causes a issue who's fault is it really? The members who have turned the other cheek for years allowing it.When a politician ( or in this case the NFAA) is allowed by its members to do biz a certain way they start to think its ok.THE O is right on the $$$$$$$$$ The members of the NFAA have to right the ship cuz it is apparent the captain cant OR wont!.Who decided to change the format from 40,50,60 to a 450 round for the stan? The Prez thinks he can duplicate the success of the vegas shoot and cash in, WRONG! the success of the WAF is its location NOT its format.How many shooters out there live for indoors??? The majority would rather shoot outdoors or at least shoot longer yardage.I hope this opens the eyes of the NFAA members and we as a club come together and take care of it.HUGE $$$$ donations or not this is the NFAA NOT the EFAA.Good post "O" and good luck "Hamma". 

Greg....OUT!

P.S. Hey "O", sucks to be told and speak to people who as you said "Are in the know" then be questioned by people who don't want to hear the truth doesn't it? No disrespect intended but kind of ironic.


----------



## leftee (Nov 15, 2005)

I'm amazed they changed their minds for years of support and a measly 350K plus 50K a year.Heck thats almost real money to some of us.What happened to the 'American Way'?Nope they should have told Easton to go plumb to hell.Sounds like most would have..they think.


----------



## pragmatic_lee (Jan 19, 2008)

OneBowTie said:


> Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds also do or did more for baseball by filling the stadiums and helping to sell sponsorship packages.....so should we all just say....awe....they are allowed to cheat and lie....
> 
> bottom line....i sure wouldnt want to lose Easton or any other Manfacture or sponsor from our orgs.....but i also dont think that as it is...we are setup to STAY IN TUNE WITH EACH OTHER
> 
> ...


OBT,
Not sure if the By-Laws for NFAA would allow it, but there is such a thing with many non-profit organizations as "non-voting" board members. These members are representatives of "interested parties" and may engage in discussion, offer suggestions, etc., but not have voting rights. The voting rights are left to the "representatives of the membership" as they are normally the ones voted on and elected by the membership.


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> ken, care to say who is giving 2nd hand statements


OK I admit saying that you gave 2nd have info was not correct, Sorry:darkbeer:

I meant it more in the way people are interpreting what happened and what was said biased on how it was worded.

You have to admit the tone or wording of your first posting and the wording or tone of your latest post of what happened are slightly different.

Your 2nd post of the meeting was better representing of a version of both sides and what actually happened rather then directly referring to Easton as the major Villain with out allot of in between. :wink:


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

*thanks OBT*

for keeping us in the loop.
As usual you are representing the sport at the cost of your own game, unless you get back to your game and your own needs, good luck to you, and shoot good.

Shotgun archery will be its own demise, until the center again becomes the object.

Thanks -Cecil


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

bigGP said:


> HOLY COW! i thought it would NEVER happen!!! I agree with "The O" 100%. I am in full support of a 23 size restriction ( i will save the "My 32+ inch draw makes the 23's too weak") who cares! Make it work.When Pockets are lined over and over without anyone knowing and then finally it causes a issue who's fault is it really? The members who have turned the other cheek for years allowing it.When a politician ( or in this case the NFAA) is allowed by its members to do biz a certain way they start to think its ok.THE O is right on the $$$$$$$$$ The members of the NFAA have to right the ship cuz it is apparent the captain cant OR wont!.Who decided to change the format from 40,50,60 to a 450 round for the stan? The Prez thinks he can duplicate the success of the vegas shoot and cash in, WRONG! the success of the WAF is its location NOT its format.How many shooters out there live for indoors??? The majority would rather shoot outdoors or at least shoot longer yardage.I hope this opens the eyes of the NFAA members and we as a club come together and take care of it.HUGE $$$$ donations or not this is the NFAA NOT the EFAA.Good post "O" and good luck "Hamma".
> 
> Greg....OUT!
> 
> P.S. Hey "O", sucks to be told and speak to people who as you said "Are in the know" then be questioned by people who don't want to hear the truth doesn't it? No disrespect intended but kind of ironic.


hey, you take things way to personal at times......ive never doubted you spoke to those in the know...but you didnt allow for anyONE else to have spoken on the very same subject to those in the know.....

i never doubted your word...never...but you didnt allow for any other word....

no issues....we take each fight and deal with them....

i know you are in favor of bettering things......if you ever thought i didnt....you misread me way too much.....

ok....for ONEce we are on the same fight:wink:

see you when you arrive.....and shoot well


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

AVALON said:


> As a "small player" in the realm of archery, I had no idea that Easton played
> 
> such a big role in the development of NFAA and archery as a whole. As such
> 
> ...


Good Post Avalon! :darkbeer: I agree 100%


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

No V for me this year.Got Sweet Seats to make and Possible new job with the RR so gotta hang local.I know you will miss me!


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> And Ken I also Used EX. short for example and HYPOTHETICALLY! in my post. thanks for your reply though.
> Javi I respect all you say but cause you always seem to be right on.
> with that why should the NFAA, IBO, ASA standardize to meet the other orgs?
> And if its for the same bow setups across the board I personally dont agree with that going from 26s to 23s to shoot in a tourney isnt that hard. Respectfully Michael


You're right it isn't that difficult to switch back and forth although it is a pain in the butt... So I generally end up not shooting some tournament 'cause I didn't want to fool with it... Yeah I know I'm lazy... the wife tells me that all the time..:wink: The solution would be to set up 2 bows for each arrow size, but I don't think the wife is gonna go for that one...

To be honest the standardization is really about indoor competitions and the ASA and IBO aren't really affected.

I would also like to see standardization on the age for seniors at 50... only the NFAA holds out for 55...


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

KEN-813 said:


> OK I admit saying that you gave 2nd have info was not correct, Sorry:darkbeer:
> 
> I meant it more in the way people are interpreting what happened and what was said biased on how it was worded.
> 
> ...


i wont argue the tones.....im human....and sometimes its hard to have to be a minority to call wrong wrong...and right right....

and i for the record want it known....i love what our president and EASTON have done for your game....i would hate to lose either over anything when all said and done...as simple as one voicing a concern .....

i know eastons intentions most likely arent to rule everything...but it sure does seem lately that it would be hard to argue against....

i want some change....that would add balance and stability to our worlds in archery....

i think that Easton DEFINATELY HAS THE MEANS TO ADD JUST THAT.... and i think we need to change the NFAA to allow for ALL OF US TO SEE other views and opinions...and its time to do it infront of the world...and not what can be percieved as a back room deal or order.......thats all


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

KEN-813 said:


> Where are these % coming from?? are you making this up, I know personally being from Michigan holding some of the largest NFAA memberships of any state, I being active in archery in our state, We were never polled to see what we wanted for arrow size, so if Our state or regional rep said the majority of our state wanted this size restriction he biased it on limited info or his own personal thoughts.
> 
> I am confident in saying that if the NFAA board came up with those numbers for a % of NFAA archers polled that was a personal biased guesstimate at best to make that decision.


My point was Ken out of what 45 reps 7 voted against standard size. All the people that those 38 were representing wanted 9.3 as standard arrow size? Im not believeing that. Sounds like the ARROW was Loaded ONE way:wink:


----------



## ken.nan63 (Feb 16, 2004)

*Fat-Oversixzed arrows*

People,
I think that there is a simple soluation to the problem of the large arrows. Make all tournments be shot under the rules of insideout. Anything touching the inside of the scoring area goes to the lower value. Then we will se the larger size arrows fall by the way side.
Hope that all of you have a great day. Kenny


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Why do you think compounds aren't in the Olympics yet? SpEcial intErEst's! Recurve's are the Fav for some certian family members and if compounds are let in some people are afraid recurve's in the olympics would fade away.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

The ORIGINAL vote wasnt excactly close now was it?????
Why do you think compounds aren't in the Olympics yet? SpEcial intErEst's! Recurve's are the Fav for some certian family members and if compounds are let in some people are afraid recurve's in the olympics would fade away.


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

*Dependent not!*



KEN-813 said:


> Good Post Avalon! :darkbeer: I agree 100%


Stronger clubs decrease the dependency on mfgs for support, plus they also keep more $$ local for use on members properties. Which is not the the profiteers agenda.

Strong clubs need no organizing, they are already run by the members, and can operate without help or problems from out side tyrrants who only want to use the club and its membership.

Archers are as strong as your local club is!!!!!!!


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> i wont argue the tones.....im human....and sometimes its hard to have to be a minority to call wrong wrong...and right right....
> 
> and i for the record want it known....i love what our president and EASTON have done for your game....i would hate to lose either over anything when all said and done...as simple as one voicing a concern .....
> 
> ...



I applaud Easton for his contribution to archery, admittedly he has done many good things and undoubtedly will do more. But there is a fine line between buying control and contributions and I think that line has been crossed with at least two and possibly three of the current organizations... But at least the first is independently owned and doesn't represent itself as being directed by it's membership.

I think the NFAA should just tank the idea that it is a confederation of member state organizations and a not for profit entity..


----------



## wolfman_73 (Mar 7, 2005)

So has the big diamond stepped up to defend this move or not?

Would be nice to hear what someone from the company PR dept. has to say one way or the other.


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

*I find it most amazing that none of the arrow manufacturer's were notified or had no idea that reducing the size of arrows was an agenda item this year....

How did it get past them???....after all they do live in a state that has a Director and Councilmen sitting at that table. 

I agree that the membership should rule and the size should be reduced, but to not even think about asking for the arrow manufacturer's input seems a little strange. Cutting them off by going straight back to the 23's to me is too harsh and costly for everyone....

PHASE THEM BACK....26's in 2008....25's in 2009....23's in 2010......just like they were PHASED IN.....

Will there be a meeting again tomorrow????...Bring all of the Arrow Manufacturers in that are there. Tell them...."The membership has voted to reduce the arrow size....how are "YOU"...going to do it"???*
.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Hmmm. I've put a lot of thought into this topic. Last night at league we were discussing how great it was that the NFAA finally got in lock-step with the rest of the world. Then I find out all this . . (the overturned decision). Now all this about Easton. I have to say my initial knee-jerk reaction was to be angry and annoyed with Easton. I even made a brief (and deleted) post that I would no longer buy their stuff. 

But as I said, I've been thinking. Blaming Easton for this is a bit overboard no matter what they did or said. Why does Easton make fat arrows? Because consumers buy them! Easton has put a lot of R&D dollars into a product for a small niche of archery and, while I'm sure they aren't losing money, they did sort of have the rug pulled out from under them on this. Easton puts a lot of money into archery, the NFAA, local clubs, etc. I DO NOT agree with some of their marketing tactics and business practices (this debate, the whole carbon is deadly thing, the ruination of junior baseball/softball by exaggerating how dangerous wooden bats are, etc.) BUT it isn't their fault. I'll bet they can't crank out 2712s fast enough to meet demand. I also suspect the WAF and 90% of the other tournaments in the US probably wouldn't be what they are today without help from Easton in the past. 

I was shooting last night and shooting rather well for me. I wound up the second game with a 298 (Vegas face). Either my best score or tied for my best score ever. I don't remember. I shoot 2315s. With 2613s I would have had a 300 . . my first ever . . but you know what? The two 9s were NOT good shots and I knew it when the release went off. I didn't DESERVE to be rewarded for those shots. If I had shot those two arrows like I did the other 28 they would have been dead-center in the middle of the X. Now . . after reading this debate I thought "Would I have been happy if I had fat arrows and gotten a 300"? The answer? Positively NO. No more so then I could be happy if someone made a scoring error, or if I was shooting 3d and made a terrible shot and hit a lucky 14. I KNOW it was a bad shot. I KNOW I did not deserve a 300 . . . so I'll stick with 2315s. Sadly, I am mostly alone in this. I suspect the vast majority of folks griping about this restriction are shooting arrows bigger then 2315 because "you need to do it to be competitive". Wonder where I've heard that recently? Maybe the Mitchell report? Tour De France? Okay so fat arrows aren't the same as steroids but the idea is the same. If you REALLY want to make a statement, stop using over-sized shafts.

It is a difficult position for me because I have always liked Easton shafts. I think the X7 is about second to none as target shafts go and they are certainly reasonably priced. Our small little club has one of our big shoots sponsored by Easton. They send us a nice check for our NAA tournament. (Hint: this shoot has an arrow restriction of 2315). I haven't seen any interest from Gold Tip, Carbon Express, or Victory in helping out local clubs. Perhaps they do . . maybe they'd sponsor us if we asked . . . I don't know but Easton has been doing this for us for years. So what is a guy (or an organization) to do? Bite the hand that feeds him?

Finally, I'm not even an NFAA member at this point. I let it lapse this year. There just isn't a large benefit to being an NFAA member in PA. The vast majority of indoor and field shoots are governed by the PSAA who long since parted ways with the NFAA. We also have a fairly good NAA presence. While I was really hoping the move to a size restriction would be a stepping stone for the NFAA to make a bid to become the NGB for archery in the US, I guess the fact that they don't have one still doesn't preclude that idea. (Different shoots, different formats). I'm not at all pleased with the NAA with some of their recent shenanigans but I do like their stricter and more consistent rules better, and I do like the way they modify their rules. The NFAA could learn a lot here. So for now I'll keep my NAA membership watch the NFAA and wait and see what happens. I'll also be shooting my 2315s mostly 'cause I'm too cheap to buy two sets of arrows. 

But if you really want to vote . . . stop buying giant, fat arrows!


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

That would be interesting?


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Mr. October said:


> ...
> 
> But if you really want to vote . . . stop buying giant, fat arrows!


See Javi's competitive edge post to get my feelings on it. I think you're "guilty" of the same thing....NAA, 9.3 mm arrow restriction, 2315...when you could be shooting 2114s in NAA shoots.

You choose the 2315 for the same reason alot of us are shooting 2613s and 2712s. We feel we must in order to keep up with the Jones'. The inverse would happen if NAA suddenly went to a 27xx limit...the masses would be shooting ever larger shafts. Nearly all of are guilty to some degree.

I still don't find the decision to be about arrow size restrictions but rather a laughable execution of the NFAA constitution.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Bobmuley said:


> See Javi's competitive edge post to get my feelings on it. I think you're "guilty" of the same thing....NAA, 9.3 mm arrow restriction, 2315...when you could be shooting 2114s in NAA shoots.
> 
> You choose the 2315 for the same reason alot of us are shooting 2613s and 2712s. We feel we must in order to keep up with the Jones'. The inverse would happen if NAA suddenly went to a 27xx limit...the masses would be shooting ever larger shafts. Nearly all of are guilty to some degree.
> 
> I still don't find the decision to be about arrow size restrictions but rather a laughable execution of the NFAA constitution.


Actually Bob . . until last year I was shooting Larry Wise's Phantom Pros which are skinny little arrows. It is just that I changed bows and the 2315s spined much better for the new setup . . . . and I already owned them!


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> ....I think the NFAA should just tank the idea that it is a confederation of member state organizations and a not for profit entity..


I've thought this for a very long time. It would force good business decisions.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

You know what its about Bob...CONTROL! When a company that sponsors any function/club or what have you wants more for their money than just advertising then it no longer is a sponsorship.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

It's simple enough........ONE emergency meeting was called so I can't see why another can't be called RIGHT NOW.........
Make 2613 the max..........Easton can lead the way..........
What do you say EASTON?!?!?!? You guys stirred the pot now you have an opportunity to put a lid on it! Make the call, you KNOW he'll answer!!.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Why not raise the level of competition? Go to the 23 and forget it. That way the NFAA,NAA State and local indoor tourneys will have a standard.In addition people who DO shoot both venues ie; Cuz,Reo,Logan,Willet and many many other shooters from every skill level can use the same equipment for all indoors.Ultimately the level of competition will be raised due to not having to change bows or re-tune from one week to the next.It is too bad that a special interest takes away from the spirit of our sport.I am watching the banner flash in corner of my screen for Martins Firecat and something just occurred to me.What do you think Hoyt/Easton would do or say if a company came out with a bow that shot 500 FPS @ 30 inches 5 GPP???? OR came out with a Arrow that revolutionized the arrow industry and was truly more accurate and superior to any other arrow on the planet???? ( yeah,yeah i know the x-10,Nano,Ultra-light GT or whatever other you shoot is best but you get the point) They would do what the have done in the past..........GET IT BANNED! The NFAA folded like a cheap suit on the BHFS issue with the behind the riser deal when Hoyt put the string STS type system on didnt they????? Now V-bars and whatnot are legal in BHFS.


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

Kstigall said:


> It's simple enough........ONE emergency meeting was called so I can't see why another can't be called RIGHT NOW.........
> Make 2613 the max..........Easton can lead the way..........
> What do you say EASTON?!?!?!? You guys stirred the pot now you have an opportunity to put a lid on it! Make the call, you KNOW he'll answer!!.


It's not that the owners of the NFAA haven't been involved in a similar controversy before. Prior to the introduction of their 26/64 shaft, there wasn't a size limitation in FITA. 2512s were legal. In response, FITA made 23/64s the limit. Does the NFAA's owner not sponsor FITA, NAA and Olympic ventures?

As to money: The owners of the NFAA gives $350,000 and $50,000/yr. We the members only give well over $500,000 every year and our voices don't count.

You're right Javi. The management of Easton's shooting organization only listen to $$$$$$? Let them hear us!!!! Despite their contribution to archery in the past, we don't need Easton, they need us! Without us, Easton could not exist.

Tim, Shoot the center out!!!!!


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

OUCH 3D! Are you suggesting what it sounds like your suggesting?


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

Blame it all on Javi.:wink:

BTW I am not sponsered by an arrow company and shoot mostly CXLs and _*only* _bought 2 dozen Eastons last year.


----------



## Strutter Cutter (Jun 28, 2004)

*Corporate agenda*

*"I have now made the decision to shoot the BIG shaft again."*

Yeh, that will really stick it to "the man".

I hope you at least abandon the "no-click" group for your demonstration. That IS where the most focus (unless there's controversy of some sort :embara is so I hope you'll enter the most visible and publicized group so you'll get maximum bang (thud) for your buck. 


"Or I guess you could come up with a shaft that NOBODY else can have … degrade your manufacturing competition while taking no steps to get you or other pro's to walk the walk……You can also play the Easton game and pull sponsorship because you know THAT will advance archery and win consumers for Gold Tip product … You see how many here are threatening to purchase other arrows besides Easton….. Who knows.. Maybe GT wins after all?? "


----------



## Two Bears (Feb 9, 2005)

OK.....

Somebody who is at Vegas with "SACK" go and turn the Easton banners upside down take some pictures of it and send it to Easton to show them what we feel about the "heavy" they just put on the NFAA.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

I think the only "Heavy" the NFAA cares about is the weight of the CHECK Easton writes HIM errrrrr them every year.


----------



## KH400 (Jan 17, 2008)

bigGP said:


> You know what its about Bob...CONTROL! When a company that sponsors any function/club or what have you wants more for their money than just advertising then it no longer is a sponsorship.


Nicely put...I couldn't agree more. The other thing I keep seeing is that "Easton has done so much to promote archery..." Make no mistake, every penny that Easton has put into promoting archery is because that penny, in the long run, becomes a nickel in their pocket. That's what they are in business for; to make money. Promoting archery is part of _how_ they go about making money. It isn't from the goodness of their hearts, nor do I think it should be. Now they are starting to act like they own archery instead of supporting archery, and I have a problem with that.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

Personally I dont want to see the NFAA become just like every other Archery org.
I dont believe having A NAA member head the committee was fair either.(Kinda ONE sided).
If your gonna put a restriction it should have been 26s pretty simple but then again we woulda still had a thread similar to this anyway with that result.
Kinda Lose Lose unless its 9.3:wink:


----------



## tabarch (Sep 20, 2006)

*Where Does The Blame Lay*

 I want to know EXACTLY who is to blame, I know that Bruce and the NFAA councilmen are on TOP of the list and then the state directors that bent over and took one in the back side for <E> is next in line. PLEASE will someONE please post the state directors who flip floped on the vote, that way we know who does not have any NADS. Even in the FED. GOV. when sombody flip flops on a vote it is out there for the public to see, so if this is truly an organization run by the membership we should know who voted for what and when they changed thier minds.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Jan 20, 2003)

Soo...basically Easton got ticked off and threatened to pull the plug on a lot of money to the NFAA if they didn't do away with the new rule. Even though the general concensus based on polling data from AT and other show that a very high majority of archers...to the tune of roughly 80% are in favor of the arrow restrictions that were just put in place.

Sounds like a boycott of easton arrows coming.


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

KH400 said:


> Nicely put...I couldn't agree more. The other thing I keep seeing is that "Easton has done so much to promote archery..." Make no mistake, every penny that Easton has put into promoting archery is because that penny, in the long run, becomes a nickel in their pocket. That's what they are in business for; to make money. Promoting archery is part of _how_ they go about making money. It isn't from the goodness of their hearts, nor do I think it should be. Now they are starting to act like they own archery instead of supporting archery, and I have a problem with that.



IT IS CALLED A RETURN OF INVESTMENT, it would make no sense for Brunswick Bowling balls to donate money, sponsor or Promote Archery, much less it would make sense for Easton to sponsor archery if it were not in their best interest.

Selling arrows is eastons business PERIOD, they are and have always been ambassadors to archery of all forms for as long as they have been a company.
I will stand by my guns that all the arrow manufacturers have a beef with this size limit ruling, I guarantee none of them want the 2315 size limit, fortunately for GT and CX they have Big Brother Easton to be the bad guy and stand up for them, and take the punches, then take pot shots at them for doing so :sad: (X-Cutter) even though they are benefiting by Easton showing some sponsorship Muscle.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

I can see them saying no go to the 2712's but the 26 series have been around for a loooooooooong time. I cant see knocking them outta the game.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> Personally I dont want to see the NFAA become just like every other Archery org.
> I dont believe having A NAA member head the committee was fair either.(Kinda ONE sided).
> If your gonna put a restriction it should have been 26s pretty simple but then again we woulda still had a thread similar to this anyway with that result.
> Kinda Lose Lose unless its 9.3:wink:


You may have seen the same complaints but not from me, I had already resigned myself to the 2712 sizing.. knowing full well that money talks... 


Now we know it will bended knees make....:wink:


----------



## Avalon (Jul 23, 2007)

KEN-813 said:


> IT IS CALLED A RETURN OF INVESTMENT, it would make no sense for Brunswick Bowling balls to donate money, sponsor or Promote Archery, much less it would make sense for Easton to sponsor archery if it were not in their best interest.
> 
> Selling arrows is eastons business PERIOD, they are and have always been ambassadors to archery of all forms for as long as they have been a company.
> I will stand by my guns that all the arrow manufacturers have a beef with this size limit ruling, I guarantee none of them want the 2315 size limit, fortunately for GT and CX they have Big Brother Easton to be the bad guy and stand up for them, and take the punches, then take pot shots at them for doing so :sad: (X-Cutter) even though they are benefiting by Easton showing some sponsorship Muscle.


Agreed.
Easton is not to blame for putting investing their money where they will get returns. That's called BUSINESS. Should they try to control all of archery? NO. Do they have a right to pull funds if they disagree with the policies of organizations they support? ABSOLUTELY!
The NFAA allowed themselves to become overly indebted indebted to a single business. Easton dropped the proverbial soap and the NFAA happily picked it up and now is in the process of reaping the rewards for that action.
Easton is a business. If you fault them for looking out for themselves instead of you, you'd better not run your business the way you are demanding they run theirs.


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

GVDocHoliday said:


> Soo...basically Easton got ticked off and threatened to pull the plug on a lot of money to the NFAA if they didn't do away with the new rule. Even though the general concensus based on polling data from AT and other show that a very high majority of archers...to the tune of roughly 80% are in favor of the arrow restrictions that were just put in place.
> 
> Sounds like a boycott of easton arrows coming.


Even though AT is a big on-line community 80% so far that have voted think the 23 size is the way to go, but AT is by far not the majority of NFAA members, plus how many have voted multiple times :wink:

Personally I am happy with the 26 size limit since we have been shooting them for years and years, I say don't mess with what is not broken until now. or when the 27's came out :wink:

I will still continue to shoot NFAA events with a rule of 26, 23 or what ever, I just don't see Easton as being the root of all evil in this situation.

I will accept any arrow size they choose, if it is done with the best interest of the sport, and is voted on by the actual members of the NFAA, not only as a knee jerk reaction to the vote of 20 or 30 people that obviously didn't look at the big picture and see who all that this decision would affect.


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

how can a few over ride the vote? explain that again?

the word Tool comes to mind for some reason.


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

Bees said:


> how can a few over ride the vote? explain that again?
> 
> the word Tool comes to mind for some reason.


A "few" didn't over ride the vote. The "situation" was explained and a new vote was taken. If people don't like the outcome, call your state director and tell him/her. THEY changed their vote.


----------



## KSNimrod (Dec 14, 2004)

I don't suppose something could be worked out where "sponsors" who make larger arrows could directly fund target bales for clubs that host NFAA shoots? That and the "score it inside out" answer seem to be the most logical.


----------



## ex-NFO (Sep 20, 2003)

KSNimrod said:


> That and the "score it inside out" answer seem to be the most logical.


I can't see Easton agreeing to inside-out scoring. Instead of losing 26xx and 27xx sales for target shooters, they would basically lose all aluminum sales to target shooters.


----------



## PTH (Dec 30, 2004)

*Shaft debate*

I've spent several hours reading most all of the comments about the arrow size debate and how Easton flexed their muscles. If you were a large archery equipment manufacturer that sold 3-4 million dollars plus in arrows sizes 24 thru 27 because of customer demand, and the organization you help support, ruled that your arrows could be no bigger than 2315...how would you feel. I'm pretty sure most of us (with a brain) would not be happy and would do what we could to get it fixed. You can call it flexing your muscles if you wish but it's really business of which the financial impact could be hudge. Those who say we should boycott Easton are not thinking this through very well. By the way OBT thanks for trying to keep us all informed, we all seldom totally agree with you...but your love for our sport is not questioned.:zip::zip::zip:


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Bob_Looney said:


> A "few" didn't over ride the vote. The "situation" was explained and a new vote was taken. If people don't like the outcome, call your state director and tell him/her. THEY changed their vote.


Even if 80+ % of the NFAA membership called their director to display their displeasure there wouldn't be an emergency meeting called to vote on this again...


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Mr. October said:


> if you really want to vote . . . stop buying giant, fat arrows!


The real answer to all the anger.


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

Bobmuley said:


> Even if 80+ % of the NFAA membership called their director to display their displeasure there wouldn't be an emergency meeting called to vote on this again...


I don't expect a re-vote but there are 10 pages of people ticked off at Easton and the NFAA.

The ones who voted "in" the arrow rule without letting mfg's know beforehand are the same ones who changed their votes after at least one found out.

I understand you can't allow a single mfg. to rule your organization BUT at some point the two need to work together, you need an open line of communication. We NEED each other.
This could have been handled a lot better. Had people been informed before hand a consensus could have been reached that everybody could have lived with.


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

*Playing Devils Advocate*

BEFORE I GO ANY FARTHER LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. I TO BELEIVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SHAFT SIZE LIMIT. 
HOWEVER:
I hear about back door politics. But the voting by the directors without proper authorization from its members is also backdoor politics. So who is right and who is wrong on this issue?? I am a Presient of our archery club in Maryland and I can tell you that I never got the memo that the arrow size was going to be discussed this week in Vegas. I believe that the members have a horse in this race and they need to be counted. We got agenda items about all sort of stupid stuff (IMHO) but nothing about an issue as large as this. I hear outcry from the masses but I am not sure all or even a magority agrees with an arrow restriction. The only way to know for sure is to have a vote by the members. The directors voted and then they were shot down. How come they didn't at least come up with a limit or at least a discusion that would leave the max. arrow size the max. that is available today:embara:?? Just my thoughts.


----------



## SLash (Apr 2, 2005)

*Well it's time to go........*

Well it's time to go to league and before I log off I'd like to thank OBT for coming forward with this information. Heck I'd even like to thank everyone who has responded to this thread, pro-or-con.

I do believe there needs to be a limit on arrow diameter. 27/64 or 9.3mm I really don't care. What I do care about is knowing that our voice and vote in the NFAA means something. Right now I'm not sure it does.

I also care about the little ranges that try to scrape out a living selling equipment and giving us a place to shoot. If arrow size restrictions aren't implemented the damage to back stops will continue to be more severe as arrows get bigger and bigger. This damage will cause the shop owners to have to replace their backstops more frequently and cut into their profits, causing some of them to run in the red and perhaps even close.

But this is just the opinion of an old man who has been in this sport long enough to have seem some of the good and some of the bad. I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider the emergency meeting of last night and what caused it to happen, part of the bad.

Thanks again to OBT for being who he is and bringing us the news and I hope Tim Gillingham and the 40/64 GT's do a job on the pro's at Vegas.

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it and then not like it.

SLash


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

dead eye dick said:


> whats that old saying about money talks and bs walks , easton is in the business to make money with out the donation to the nfaa i believe they would suffer and may not be able to stay afloat with out it it was a dumb thing for the board of directors to do such a knee jerk reaction , with out talking to the members about this i guess they got there pp slapped , thats how big business works , i agree we need a restriction but you have to go about this differently by including the manufactures they stand to loose millions put your self in eastons position if you were the ceo your bottom line would go to hell, then what. we all should take some blame in this mess . and all work together to right the ship , and not ***** about it after the fact . richard


Easton can take it's bat and arrows (not ball) and bugger off home like the spoiled child they are, there's plenty of other arrow companies that would glady step up to fill the gap !

Everyone keeps saying easton is entitled to do this because of how much money they put up in sponsership, THAT'S CRAP !

The amount of money they put in is totally irrelevant, the only thing that money entitles them to is some free advertising at the events, it DOES NOT entitled them to have a say or any control on the rules of those events !

Woody


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

do you really think easton needs target archery to survive as a business , you must not no much about the company its a lot larger than archery


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

Hinkelmonster said:


> I see that we have 42 members viewing this thread and 11 guests?????
> 
> 
> I wonder why there are so many guests???? Is that you Jim, Bruce and the others invovled???
> ...


or is that arse ??? :wink: :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## Avalon (Jul 23, 2007)

Woody69 said:


> Easton can take it's bat and arrows (not ball) and bugger off home like the spoiled child they are, there's plenty of other arrow companies that would glady step up to fill the gap !
> 
> Everyone keeps saying easton is entitled to do this because of how much money they put up in sponsership, THAT'S CRAP !
> 
> ...


I don't know how mcuh Easton has given. If they have given enough that some venues would not exist, your above statement is entirely wrong. 

The NFAA has allowed Easton to extend their profit into NFAA territory to far. That is entirely the fault of the NFAA NOT EASTON. I do not believe for a second that Easton gave with pure motives hoping to get nothing in return. The NFAA chose to allow a business to dictate their decisions. Easton was being a business and looking out for numero uno. Debatable...maybe. Are they entitled to that? Absolutely.

Woody...Hopefully your strong comments can be backed up by facts the you are positive are true. If not ...fodder on the AT gossip fire already burning out of control
My comments are not meant to be argumentative. I would sit and share one with you any day.:darkbeer:


----------



## KH400 (Jan 17, 2008)

KEN-813 said:


> IT IS CALLED A RETURN OF INVESTMENT, it would make no sense for Brunswick Bowling balls to donate money, sponsor or Promote Archery, much less it would make sense for Easton to sponsor archery if it were not in their best interest.
> 
> Selling arrows is eastons business PERIOD, they are and have always been ambassadors to archery of all forms for as long as they have been a company.
> I will stand by my guns that all the arrow manufacturers have a beef with this size limit ruling, I guarantee none of them want the 2315 size limit, fortunately for GT and CX they have Big Brother Easton to be the bad guy and stand up for them, and take the punches, then take pot shots at them for doing so :sad: (X-Cutter) even though they are benefiting by Easton showing some sponsorship Muscle.


I understand that...if you read what I said, we basically agree to a point..."*That's what they are in business for; to make money. *Promoting archery is part of *how* they go about making money. It isn't from the goodness of their hearts, *nor do I think it should be*." As with any business decision, there is always the consumer reaction to be dealt with. My consumer reaction is that I don't like it...yours is that it is okay. I can live with that. The outcome will be determined by whether or not this action yields a net gain for them or a net loss. I think the whole thing gives both Easton and the NFAA a black eye, and there are no winners in this at all. JMHO.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

AVALON said:


> I don't know how mcuh Easton has given. If they have given enough that some venues would not exist, your above statement is entirely wrong.
> 
> The NFAA has allowed Easton to extend their profit into NFAA territory to far. That is entirely the fault of the NFAA NOT EASTON. I do not believe for a second that Easton gave with pure motives hoping to get nothing in return. The NFAA chose to allow a business to dictate their decisions. Easton was being a business and looking out for numero uno. Debatable...maybe. Are they entitled to that? Absolutely.
> 
> ...


The largest part of Easton's contributions have been geared at winning a Gold metal in the Olympics not in compound archery...


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

AVALON said:


> ...Woody...Hopefully your strong comments can be backed up by facts the you are positive are true. If not ...fodder on the AT gossip fire already burning out of control
> My comments are not meant to be argumentative. I would sit and share one with you any day.:darkbeer:


There's not a single instance in this document that says sponsors can influence, recount, or make up rules.

http://www.nfaa-archery.org/depot/documents/435-2007514-NFAA Constitution and By-Laws.pdf


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Bobmuley said:


> There's not a single instance in this document that says sponsors can influence, recount, or make up rules.


Evidently what is written isn't alway the rule...:wink: How many times have we been told if it's in writing it is the rule...


----------



## Avalon (Jul 23, 2007)

Bobmuley said:


> There's not a single instance in this document that says sponsors can influence, recount, or make up rules.
> 
> http://www.nfaa-archery.org/depot/documents/435-2007514-NFAA Constitution and By-Laws.pdf


Nope. They could have been told no. The organization is allowing this. As to who is the bad guy in this situation is up to our individual discretion.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> Evidently what is written isn't alway the rule...:wink: How many times have we been told if it's in writing it is the rule...


Enough times that I was starting to believe it.:embara:


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

...anyone have a migrane yet??...besides me that is??...


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

From what i have heard the US is only about 30% of Hoyt/Eastons market anyway? The NAA is the standard in Europe so why do they give a rip about the 23 rule? OHHHH thats right they have the revenue to make 100 different size arrows where as the "Other" arrow company's simply cant afford to keep up considering the cost of manufacturing a "new" shaft every couple years.This sounds to me like the monopolies that the federal government doesn't allow cable company's,Railroads and many other businesses to have or even more importantly the GOV doesn't allow them to OPERATE in a certain manner that excludes or prevents a competitive market place for the consumer.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

DONDEERE said:


> ...anyone have a migrane yet??...besides me that is??...


Woke up with one...must have been a premonition.:wink:


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

Bobmuley said:


> Woke up with one...must have been a premonition.:wink:


...no doubt Bob

...the handfulls of extra strength excedrin stopped working around noon, so there is NO HOPE left for the rest of the day...only an hour and a half left at the store and then it's a dark room and PEACE and quite from heere on out!!:asleep:


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Actually I have a solution, I probably will get baked for it.

If the NFAA has 1000 members, theoretically may actually be more, we increase our dues to $1000.00 per member thereby replacing Easton's contribution. Then the NFAA tells Easton to blow, re-votes and implements a size restriction which I am in favor of whether 23,25,26 or 27 as long as it's the same for everybody.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

swerve said:


> Actually I have a solution, I probably will get baked for it.
> 
> If the NFAA has 1000 members, theoretically may actually be more, we increase our dues to $1000.00 per member thereby replacing Easton's contribution. Then the NFAA tells Easton to blow, re-votes and implements a size restriction which I am in favor of whether 23,25,26 or 27 as long as it's the same for everybody.


Do we get veto rights with the increased fee?:wink:


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

Bob_Looney said:


> I don't expect a re-vote but there are 10 pages of people ticked off at Easton and the NFAA.
> 
> The ones who voted "in" the arrow rule without letting mfg's know beforehand are the same ones who changed their votes after at least one found out.
> 
> ...


The orgs don't have to tell the mfgs anything, it's none of their business what the orgs do or decide, the mfgs job is to make whatever products we need if they want our business, it's not up to the mfgs to tell us what we need or want !

The orgs are supposed to make the rules for us all to compete under, and the mfgs are supposed to make the equipment that conforms to those rules, the mfgs shouldn't have any say in what those rules are !

Woody


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

I also care about the little ranges that try to scrape out a living selling equipment and giving us a place to shoot. If arrow size restrictions aren't implemented the damage to back stops will continue to be more severe as arrows get bigger and bigger. This damage will cause the shop owners to have to replace their backstops more frequently and cut into their profits, causing some of them to run in the red and perhaps even close.


Again Slash Smaller Dia arrows affect targets more than large dia arrows


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Bobmuley said:


> Do we get veto rights with the increased fee?:wink:


You bet. We could own interest in the company, stockholders, NFAA Co. Then as shareholders we sell a sponsorship to Easton and begin to collect on our investment:grin:

Don't it suck how the world goes round.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

bigGP said:


> From what i have heard the US is only about 30% of Hoyt/Eastons market anyway? The NAA is the standard in Europe so why do they give a rip about the 23 rule? OHHHH thats right they have the revenue to make 100 different size arrows where as the "Other" arrow company's simply cant afford to keep up considering the cost of manufacturing a "new" shaft every couple years.This sounds to me like the monopolies that the federal government doesn't allow cable company's,Railroads and many other businesses to have or even more importantly the GOV doesn't allow them to OPERATE in a certain manner that excludes or prevents a competitive market place for the consumer.


I am in no way, shape, or form defending Easton here........but in THEORY the government does not allow monopolies. Mainly because they want no competition of their own.

Next, they allowed the single most expensive and inefficient means of transportation to gobble up up any competition by the railroads purchasing of the major trucking(freight) companies.

OK, carry on......:wink:


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> I also care about the little ranges that try to scrape out a living selling equipment and giving us a place to shoot. If arrow size restrictions aren't implemented the damage to back stops will continue to be more severe as arrows get bigger and bigger. This damage will cause the shop owners to have to replace their backstops more frequently and cut into their profits, causing some of them to run in the red and perhaps even close.
> 
> 
> Again Slash Smaller Dia arrows affect targets more than large dia arrows


Shop owners can restrict arrow size any time they want, they own the shop or charge more to cover the additional target damage.

If any body can list 10 shops in the same state that have hosted 10 different NFAA sanctioned shoots, I would truly be amazed. 

26's have been around for years, at least for the 4 years since I started shooting again, so 1/64" caused all of this exponential target damage.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

FITA anyone ???? :wink: :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## PennMan (Jun 17, 2006)

*Warning!!! Inflamatory Reply...*



Woody69 said:


> Easton can take it's bat and arrows (not ball) and bugger off home like the spoiled child they are, there's plenty of other arrow companies that would glady step up to fill the gap !
> 
> Everyone keeps saying easton is entitled to do this because of how much money they put up in sponsership, THAT'S CRAP !
> 
> ...



Even a ********* from down under should have at least one working neuron in his brain to realize that Easton is one of the main drivers of this sport. Don't they also own HOYT? :zip:

Cursing them and agitating for a boycott is just plain *MORONIC*...::mg:

They have given technologic advancements to this sport and financial support to USA Olympic hopefuls far beyond any other manufacturer.

Or would you rather have to learn Korean to order all your equipment from Seoul?

Large arrows cut a few lines, but you still have to put it in the center. And going to inside out scoring in ALL venues would drive ACE sales through the roof because whenever there is a rules change regarding equipment, people rush out to buy the stuff that optimizes their scores. It's called gamesmanship. 

Either you keep up with the big boys or you get left behind.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

tabarch said:


> I want to know EXACTLY who is to blame, I know that Bruce and the NFAA councilmen are on TOP of the list and then the state directors that bent over and took one in the back side for <E> is next in line. PLEASE will someONE please post the state directors who flip floped on the vote, that way we know who does not have any NADS. Even in the FED. GOV. when sombody flip flops on a vote it is out there for the public to see, so if this is truly an organization run by the membership we should know who voted for what and when they changed thier minds.


you want to know who flip flopped.....i think i somewhere in a previous post put it out there.....

you have to understand.....the meetings cover 3 1/2 days......and they truly are taxing and grinding meetings.....

so again, to give you a brief overview ......

there was no outside influence directing or "LEADING" the votes toward a 9.3 size....if anything, before a committee was put in place to hash out arrow's......if anything, there was a attempt from the President for us to lean toward a 26 or 27 series arrow as it was already currently in use......

now i can tell you from the very beginning of discussions, shops, shooters, and manufactures were all part of the discussion process.....and hearing from shop owners, sponsored and non sponsored shooters, the consensus was rather quickly leaning toward a restriction......then it became what should the restriction be.....and that then rather quickly through communications and debate started leaning toward 9.3mm

well then after all the committee's came back to the main meeting to begin the business at hand....the arrow subject was the 2nd business of order.....and it came to the floor and was passed without much argument at all.....there were some arguments to limit the size to a larger size arrow...but all in all...the debate was mild compared to some other topics that came before the directors.....and in a reasonable amount of time, the mood of the room was for the 9.3mm size.....

now...skip forward.....2 and 1/2 days later....not once was the arrow subject ever brought back to the floor.....not once was it ever even whispered as being a controversy brewing......

but there were many other subjects and rules discussed ....some with much more heat in the debate.....some with no heat at all or debate....

but when it was all said and done....the meeting was adjourned.....job well done by all (that is strictly my opinion of course)

so at the end of 3 1/2 days of constant meetings and discussions......all of the directors, council, pres, vp, and guests, wives, children, grandchildren were looking forward to the customary dinner that evening....

imagine the shock coming into a dinner to find out that "chit has hit the fan" and we are now being called into a "EMERGENCY MEETING-TO DISCUSS A BAD DECISION ON ARROWS" and let me just say this.....the whispers and prep that everyone was getting before we stepped into that meeting was quite shocking, scary, and heavy hearted......

it may be easy for all of you to say that anyone flipped flopped.....but when what is now the weight of the archery world placed on your shoulders TO DO SOMETHING or else the end may be coming......what would YOU do.....i dont blame anyone in that meeting for simply caving in.....who wants the world to end on their watch

and again......i am not sure that the end result isnt the right result....its just the way we came to it....

i believe that anyone including and especially our president and council should have been better informed on this arrow subject....as i will tell you right now...THEY ACTED LIKE THIS ARROW RESTRICTION SUBJECT was brand new and out of the blue.....i can tell you like i told them....how is it that i knew this subject was going to come up...and how is it that they knew it was going to be ONE of the most IMPACTED topics of archery at present time...so much so that they MADE A SPECIAL COMMITTEE just for arrows:embara:

i think all of us....if we are honest with each other....given the right amount of presentation and prep.....would or could be influenced with a decision that could be lived with by both the org and manufactures.....

however, that didnt happen....and when it was all said and done....the way this has turned out.....how can egg not be on the face of a few.....

bottom line....this is just another bump in the archery road.....BUT....we all can learn and perhaps prevent such a thing from happening again.....

how...by changing the way the NFAA conducts its meetings....

1) place outsiders on the board
2) have in place a veto power by the president to veto anything that may cause undo hardship with our sponsors, vendors, members
3) change the whole way that the NFAA meetings are conducted.....we used ROBERTS RULE'S OF ORDER -and quite frankly, its not organization friendly today.....we do not discuss IMPORTANT MATTERS THAT WILL OR COULD HELP IMPROVE NFAA EXPERIENCES
4) cut out having to have 50 people vote to get something done.....give more power and authority into less peoples hands.....and if you dont like the way they are doing things....GET RID OF THEM

now...i want to again state....that i think the NFAA PRESIDENT does a fantastic job....i have not met anyone else that i think could do the job as well as he is doing.....i accept that his hands are indeed tied and he operates for the best of the org and its longevity.....i accept that he is human and i wont always think he makes perfect decisions....who of us does......

i also think that ALL OF US OWE EASTON some gratitude and respect......they dont owe us a dang thing.....and yet they give give give....and i do think that for what they give...they should have a say so in some matters....just think there is a line that shouldnt be crossed....i dont think that it should ever appear that ANYONE DICTATES to what has to be done....EASTON as a company... as successful as it is...knows that they will not always get their way....but they should and obviously do have a large influence in our sport with all that they do....i see no harm in that....but the way this all played out....does seem that a line was crossed....

will i hold EASTON or NFAA's feet to the fire.....you bet to a degree.....do i wish to boycott or give up on either.....maybe for a few hot minutes i felt that way...but all in all NO...id rather do MY JOB and point out the wrongs...and try to fix them so they dont happen again.....

i dont think what happened was right...but after stepping away and reading this thread.....talking to countless people on the phone.....and reading emails and such.....I DO BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT THING IS IN PLACE.....i dont think that moving to such a leap in another direction would have been doing justice to the whole......

i only wish i had the wisdom to speak up in the first place......to lead others to a more economical outcome for all.....

i hope everyone steps back...takes a breath....and helps those in positions to change things that are broke.....

i am pretty sure that most of us feel that what took place wasnt the best way to get a change done....and i feel that we pretty much have gotten the attention of people that we needed too....

now....i challenge everyone to take some part in getting any org any kind of help with bettering everyones archery experience somehow....someway...whether that is merely by voicing opinions, and offering solutions to your local club, local associations.......or to your national orgs ..... or by stepping up and taking a position that will place you in the hot seat for the actions of others....

all in all.....i do say that ALL the directors and council and officers and employee's of the NFAA put alot of hard work, thought and effort into this past weeks meetings.....and after some cool down period myself....i respect and appreciate everyone of them for putting themselfs on the hot seat and making decisions that many others dont have the stomach to do......and i WILL STAND BESIDE EACH AND EVERY DIRECTOR AND SAY I SAW NO FLIP FLOPPING....but more of concerned wisdom 

i wish all yall were coming to vegas and able to shoot....if not, yall can live through my crummy shooting...as im sure that i will not have a peaceful moment this weekend....but hey....somebody has to take the hot seat...might as well be ONE:wink:


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Really*



PennMan said:


> Even a ********* from down under should have at least one working neuron in his brain to realize that Easton is one of the main drivers of this sport. Don't they also own HOYT? :zip:
> 
> Cursing them and agitating for a boycott is just plain *MORONIC*...::mg:
> 
> ...


So you think Easton should be able to tell the NFAA and members how its going to be as far as rules that should be set. You think if Easton closed it doors tommorrow another arrow manufactuer wouldnt take its place.
Believe life will go on for archery. Wow thats amazing look at reality.
DB


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

well put mr bow tie. and thank you for the good job your doing for us


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Very True BIG, HOWEVER. I can tell you from personal experience that believe it or not we ( I am a engineer for the BNSF) are not in competition with trucks as much as you think.I am in the BLET which joined with the Teamsters? How can that work you ask?( they can strike,WE CANT thanks to Prez Reagan) Rails and truckers in the same union? The Railroads own and pay for ALL of their own track and maintenance.The RR has NO liability Insurance.NONE it is self bonded.The price of diesel is a small factor but think of this.How many trucks do you think 1 train accounts for? Last week i ran a train that was 6500 feet long and 12000 tons.At the average of 3 semi's per rail car thats 255 semis for my train.On the flip side it takes way longer to move by freight due to the obvious reasons.Therefore if you need it quick pay some truck driver who can pound red bull and no-doz ( i wont mention anything else)instead of me who is drug tested non-stop for any reason under the sun.Rails and truckers are both trying to make money but the big difference pertaining to the buy-out of trucking company's is that the RR being self bonded(no workman's comp or anything)owning and maintaining its "Road" per say along with having very substandard reporting rules to the GOV (You can get a DUII on a horse,lawnmower,skateboard,tricycle but not driving a train!) means it does not fall under the same category.Your example is closer related to Savage buying Bowtech.1 doesn't really compete with the other but they are under the same guidelines UNLIKE the Railroad, but at a certain point Big BRO does step in.


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

JAVI said:


> The largest part of Easton's contributions have been geared at winning a Gold metal in the Olympics not in compound archery...



What the Hell does the NFAA and this discussion have to do with Gold medals ?
We are talking about Easton and their contributions to the NFAA not FITA or Olympic archery. that is a totally separate contribution for Easton. just one of many.


----------



## Brewer (Aug 3, 2006)

*Maybe I'm delusional*

Help me out here OBT and those that may have more info than I do. What's the sticking point on reopening "negotiations" And coming to a compromise, ok 23's are a problem with a large sponsor, maybe 26's or 27's aren't. * I agree that a line was crossed and what the membership voted on should have stood, but we're past that point*. Looking forward, why can't a new "emergency session" be convened to look at arrow restrictions that will meet the masses(and sponsors) requirements? Not that one shooter means much, but this can certainly decide where I may choose to shoot in the future.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

swerve said:


> Shop owners can restrict arrow size any time they want, they own the shop or charge more to cover the additional target damage.
> 
> If any body can list 10 shops in the same state that have hosted 10 different NFAA sanctioned shoots, I would truly be amazed.
> 
> 26's have been around for years, at least for the 4 years since I started shooting again, so 1/64" caused all of this exponential target damage.


I just can't buy the target damage argument. Take a small diameter shaft and I'll penetrate much deeper into the targets and pull out more foam/material with the small diameter shaft than a fat shaft of the same weight. This is why nails are pointed:wink:...now back to the discussion at hand...Privately owned Commercial Entity Trumps the Vote of Members/Directors of a Non-Profit Archery Organization.


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

Thanks for the update OBT. Good Luck this weekend. 

As much as I hate to think politics is involved, from Easton or some other source, I guess it's a part of the process when a major decision like this is made.


----------



## Twiztd1 (Oct 17, 2002)

Doc said:


> You just gave me a great T-shirt idea...would be a hit at Vegas


Doc you need to change the graphic to a puppet.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

Well now, isn't this interesting!

Let me spell a few things out for you, and I hope EVERYONE reads this post.


As for Doc's comment about the 2" sewer pipe. Rumor has it that someone at the Iowa Pro-Am had an answer for the NFAA and their lack of arrow limitations, and it doesn't stop there. Will an honest half inch or more be enough (can't remember the exact size)? Everyone watch the pro division in Vegas for some true X eliminators, I know I can't wait to see the show. And no, the humongous arrows don't come with a diamond on them. :happy1:


If anyone involved in either the NAA or NFAA doesn't think the diamond is wagging the dogs, then you really need to wake up and smell the decaf. Personal friends are running the NAA, the diamond will be seen in SD on the side of the new NFAA facility (which doesn't even have a barracks if my people are correct), and even one or more of the Olympic training centers bares the name. There's even plans in the works to add onto one of the current Olympic training facilities with funding from Easton. Most of the money is great, and has done the sport of archery WORLDS of good in the United States, but the big guys still get bigger as is the American way.


In response to banishing Easton.........ya, right. It's never worked on the oil companies, so why do you think it'd work on them? Really, arrows is only one facet of their organization.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

There are a couple of rules I'd like changed. Does anyone know when the NFAA will be publishing a price list?

Apparently integrity runs around $500,000.


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> bottom line....this is just another bump in the archery road.....BUT....we all can learn and perhaps prevent such a thing from happening again.....


...exactly...and "that" will be the hardest part at least within the "current" NFAA framework...great postage bro...

...the only thing constant is CHANGE...there will no doubt be more of it in the days, weeks, months and yeere's to come in large part due to this very incident...


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> you want to know who flip flopped.....i think i somewhere in a previous post put it out there.....
> 
> you have to understand.....the meetings cover 3 1/2 days......and they truly are taxing and grinding meetings.....
> 
> ...


Good Post BowTie :darkbeer:

I know I am guilty of applying the knee jerk decision in the past on issues that I was against, and standing my ground, that after thinking over it taking a step back and letting cooler heads prevail, I took a better understanding.
Sometimes we cant always have it the way we want it due to the impact that it can have others.

As for this being good or bad for the sport, Easton or the NFAA, and the participants. I think they will all be fine, I think as you stated the NFAA took a huge leap into another direction that we weren't fully ready to take. I agree I hate to think it took a thret from Easton to chang the mind of the comitee, but i think they felt backed into a corner and came out swinging from the hip pocket :wink: I am sure Easton did not like doing that, as well as im sure the NFAA did not like hearing it.
But I think reversing the decision was a good idea until we have a better well balanced plan.

:darkbeer:


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Twiztd1 said:


> Doc you need to change the graphic to a puppet.


You mean a whole bunch of puppets:wink:
Good idea:thumb:



Spots_N_Dots said:


> As for Doc's comment about the 2" sewer pipe. Rumor has it that someone at the Iowa Pro-Am had an answer for the NFAA and their lack of arrow limitations, and it doesn't stop there. Will an honest half inch or more be enough (can't remember the exact size)? Everyone watch the pro division in Vegas for some true X eliminators, I know I can't wait to see the show. And no, the humongous arrows don't come with a diamond on them. :happy1:


I suspect Tim G has been acquiring carbon by the boat load just to make 3 shafts...looking forward to watching a Vegas 3 Spot completely disappear with one arrow.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Brewer said:


> Help me out here OBT and those that may have more info than I do. What's the sticking point on reopening "negotiations" And coming to a compromise, ok 23's are a problem with a large sponsor, maybe 26's or 27's aren't. * I agree that a line was crossed and what the membership voted on should have stood, but we're past that point*. Looking forward, why can't a new "emergency session" be convened to look at arrow restrictions that will meet the masses(and sponsors) requirements? Not that one shooter means much, but this can certainly decide where I may choose to shoot in the future.


ok, ive tried to explain...the meetings ended.....upon arrival to a nice warm and fuzzy dinner......most everyone was shocked and "Culled" into a meeting.....

now mind you....like anywhere else in life.....most of the time you are prepared for meetings and so forth when you head into them......and for most of us....that THINKING cap was already removed and placed in storage.....

and as you hopefully can imagine.....this was a very shocking and tense, frightful meeting we went into....again, it was almost as if the whole weight of the archery world was thrust upon us.....and simply not wanting to MAKE 2 WRONG DECISIONS.....we did what we simply thought was the most neutral decision we could come up without upsetting the "apple" cart:wink:

if given more time and at a different time and place....yes perhaps better and more level heads could have prevailed...


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

ccwilder3 said:


> There are a couple of rules I'd like changed. Does anyone know when the NFAA will be publishing a price list?
> 
> Apparently integrity runs around $500,000.


...LMAO...got to admit, even though I have a headache from reading all this...your post CCWILDER3 made me let out a big ole chuckle...

...THANKS for that:darkbeer:


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

bigGP said:


> Very True BIG, HOWEVER. I can tell you from personal experience that believe it or not we ( I am a engineer for the BNSF) are not in competition with trucks as much as you think.I am in the BLET which joined with the Teamsters? How can that work you ask?( they can strike,WE CANT thanks to Prez Reagan) Rails and truckers in the same union? The Railroads own and pay for ALL of their own track and maintenance.The RR has NO liability Insurance.NONE it is self bonded.The price of diesel is a small factor but think of this.How many trucks do you think 1 train accounts for? Last week i ran a train that was 6500 feet long and 12000 tons.At the average of 3 semi's per rail car thats 255 semis for my train.On the flip side it takes way longer to move by freight due to the obvious reasons.Therefore if you need it quick pay some truck driver who can pound red bull and no-doz ( i wont mention anything else)instead of me who is drug tested non-stop for any reason under the sun.Rails and truckers are both trying to make money but the big difference pertaining to the buy-out of trucking company's is that the RR being self bonded(no workman's comp or anything)owning and maintaining its "Road" per say along with having very substandard reporting rules to the GOV (You can get a DUII on a horse,lawnmower,skateboard,tricycle but not driving a train!) means it does not fall under the same category.Your example is closer related to Savage buying Bowtech.1 doesn't really compete with the other but they are under the same guidelines UNLIKE the Railroad, but at a certain point Big BRO does step in.


I realize you are not in competition with OTR trucks....you OWN them. At least the biggest freight companies.:wink:

And, this is NOT a jab at the employee(blue collar) level. I too know from first hand experience, that when I order a railcar full of product, and the RR "loses" that railcar in a yard in Chicago for 30 days, not only do I NOT get any reimbursement for my downtime...I get a BILL for demurge time for that railcar.

Just to stay on topic.........

Someone earlier pointed out in a seemingly emotional post that Easton owned Hoyt, and was basically the American salvation of archery. 

For the record, I shot Hoyt bows for many years, and loved every minute of it. I fletched and shot more Easton arrows than you can shake a stick at.

That said......if Easton evaporated today, by next week there would be a new company stepping in where Easton left off. 

It is ALL about the bottomline here, or there would be no leveraging taking place.


----------



## sharkred7 (Jul 19, 2005)

The Swami said:


> Yes, I knew about the Masters. Is it considered a official PGA event yet? It never used to be.
> 
> Not just Calloway, ask PING.  They had a few clubs that were made illegal and tried to sue. They ended up changing the design.  Later, the older clubs were grandfathered in but there still are very specific requirements on clubface grooves. Square grooves are legal now, but that was not determined for a few years until the USGA determined the sport was safe with them. The square grooves that are legal now are not the same as what manufacturers like PING were using back in the day. THose are called U grooves. The grooves now have the top edges rounded off. They are not a right angle anymore.


Just wanted to throw a thought out there on this without reading through the rest of the posts, sorry if redundant.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe there is no advertising during the masters because a certain group threatened to boycott every product advertised unless they changed their bylaws to allow women to compete.

John


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

Doc said:


> I just can't buy the target damage argument. Take a small diameter shaft and I'll penetrate much deeper into the targets and pull out more foam/material with the small diameter shaft than a fat shaft of the same weight. This is why nails are pointed:wink:...now back to the discussion at hand...Privately owned Commercial Entity Trumps the Vote of Members/Directors of a Non-Profit Archery Organization.



I agree Doc 26 or 27 shafts don't do any more damage IMO than smaller deeper penetration small diameter shafts. the target damage concern was for the arrows that Tim G shot at IOWA those 5/8' shafts really messed up the bails.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Doc said:


> I just can't buy the target damage argument. Take a small diameter shaft and I'll penetrate much deeper into the targets and pull out more foam/material with the small diameter shaft than a fat shaft of the same weight. This is why nails are pointed:wink:...now back to the discussion at hand...Privately owned Commercial Entity Trumps the Vote of Members/Directors of a Non-Profit Archery Organization.


Is there truly a Non-profit anything

We all could have implemented the arrow restrictions in our individual clubs, we didn't need the NFAA to do it for us. 

NFAA sanctioned events? Name them, what is there 8. You don't even have to go by their rules to have their club insurance, just be inspected.

So we expected NFAA directors to do something we didn't, couldn't or wouldn't. If we as the archery public did not allow them to be shot any place, or the NFAA couldn't have events anywhere but their own facilities, would there be a need for an arrow restriction?

Why didn't it happen because clubs don't want to turn away shooters and the MONEY, they just want someone else to blame it on.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

PennMan said:


> Even a ********* from down under should have at least one working neuron in his brain to realize that Easton is one of the main drivers of this sport. Don't they also own HOYT? :zip:
> 
> Cursing them and agitating for a boycott is just plain *MORONIC*...::mg:
> 
> ...


easton doesn't drive crap for me !

I don't use easton arrows.

I don't use a Hoyt bow.

I pay for all my own stuff, as i'm not sponsered by anyone.

Compounds aren't even allowed in the Olympics, so why would i care what easton does there ?

The only driving force in my archery world is me !

I'm the one who has to get myself to shoots.

I'm the one who has to provide all my own gear.

and at the end of the day, i'm the one who has to live with myself and how i choose to play the game !

Woody


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Woody69 said:


> easton doesn't drive crap for me !
> 
> I don't use easton arrows.
> 
> ...


Woody...why not just tell it like it is...don't hold back:lol:


----------



## Brewer (Aug 3, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> ok, ive tried to explain...the meetings ended.....upon arrival to a nice warm and fuzzy dinner......most everyone was shocked and "Culled" into a meeting.....
> 
> now mind you....like anywhere else in life.....most of the time you are prepared for meetings and so forth when you head into them......and for most of us....that THINKING cap was already removed and placed in storage.....
> 
> ...


I'll stipulate that the above is all true, but is there no possibility of re-opening "negotiations" to find an arrow restriction that is acceptable for the masses and the sponsors? Not trying to stir the pot, but I don't want to see 3" PVC pipe being shot just because someone could get it to fly.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

Doc said:


> Woody...why not just tell it like it is...don't hold back:lol:


I'm trying, but some people don't get it until easton tells them too ! :wink: :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Brewer said:


> I'll stipulate that the above is all true, but is there no possibility of re-opening "negotiations" to find an arrow restriction that is acceptable for the masses and the sponsors? Not trying to stir the pot, but I don't want to see 3" PVC pipe being shot just because someone could get it to fly.


no i dont see that happening...as half of the directors left right after the dinner for home....and another percent left this am....

now on the other hand...the WAF does have the option to limit arrows.....

however, i must caution, IF...IF the WAF or for that matter NFAA did impose some kind of limit....before we were actually able to speak with all the arrow companys about what they have in the pipeline....wouldnt it just look like we did what maybe Easton wanted us to do

so in all fairness, if a limit was now placed on arrows...and say another arrow company out there said they had a larger arrow in the pipeline....wouldnt it be another no win situation for all of us....

i think that at this point...the best possible non biased decision was made.....

meaning...NO DECISION


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Woody69 said:


> I'm trying, but some people don't get it until easton tells them too ! :wink: :darkbeer:
> 
> Woody


Nope they don't get cause it's not just a Easton thing, its an American thing. We always want govermental entities(actually anything that requires voting) to solve our problems. And if you even remotely think that big business doesn't make the rules in this country guess again.

FITA, actually I don't think that any Japanese companies should be allowed to sponsor any FITA events, because they are the only country that allows the slaughter of WHALES Run that one through your local FITA org and see how she floats.:grin:


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

*Inside out*



PennMan said:


> Even a ********* from down under should have at least one working neuron in his brain to realize that Easton is one of the main drivers of this sport. Don't they also own HOYT? :zip:
> 
> Cursing them and agitating for a boycott is just plain *MORONIC*...::mg:
> 
> ...



Thanks Penn Man

Well thats 2 of us that see that inside out score cures all and puts the game back in the middle, were it belongs!!!

No more shot gun archery indoors, thaught it was supposed to be presision shooting.

With that, easton can have their way with no limits to size, and bring those 1/2'' shafts out to the 90 meter line, maybe shotgun archery will work for you there, cuz with inside out for indoors it won't work there.

WOW I feel better, starting to think either I was crazy or just invisible.

Still doesn't look to good 2800 views looking and only two, archer enough to see the real problem, NOT THE SIZE OF THE SHAFT , BUT THE WAY WE SCORE THE SHAFTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOT.

TO NOT CURE THIS IS THE ARCHERS FAULT WHEN SCORING CAN STOP THE SHOTGUN APROACH TO REACHING THE MIDDLE. EASTON DOESNOT SCORE THE SHOOT THE SHOOT DIRECTOR DOES.


----------



## Brewer (Aug 3, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> no i dont see that happening...as half of the directors left right after the dinner for home....and another percent left this am....
> 
> now on the other hand...the WAF does have the option to limit arrows.....
> 
> ...


I don't see it as doing what Easton wanted. When TG shows up with his arrows I think there's going to be a rather large "Oh ----!" moment. And, if there's not enough voting members for a quorom(sp) how are they going to handle that! I realize nothing would have affected Vegas, or Louisville and Hartford for that matter, but I hope his shafts just might make somebody, somewhere realize where we're going if nothing is done. I'm not absolutely a fan for a 23 limit, but I am a HUGE fan for a limit somewhere, just tell me where it is.

Brian


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

swerve said:


> Nope they don't get cause it's not just a Easton thing, its an American thing. We always want govermental entities(actually anything that requires voting) to solve our problems. And if you even remotely think that big business doesn't make the rules in this country guess again.
> 
> FITA, actually I don't think that any Japanese companies should be allowed to sponsor any FITA events, because they are the only country that allows the slaughter of WHALES Run that one through your local FITA org and see how she floats.:grin:


Well then why bother with the whole charade of the NFAA and all the other orgs, just put big business in charge right from the start, and make it clear that the members have no say, just pay your money and do what your told, at least then we all know where we stand up front, instead of being led to believe we actually have a voice, when we don't !

The only reason i mentioned FITA was because they already have the 9.3mm rule which seemed to be what's causing all the comotion, so the easiest solution is for us all to just swap over to FITA, then there is no problem, well almost none, because i would like it reduced even further, but that's not about to happen any time soon !

Haven't the other countries of the world already got rules about whaling, just like the NFAA made a rule about arrow size, but then along come the Japanese or in this case easton and say to hell with that we want it our way and we don't care what the rest of you voted for !

Woody


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> all the committee's came back to the main meeting to begin the business at hand....:


def: Camel-A horse designed by a "committee". :wink:


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Woody69 said:


> Well then why bother with the whole charade of the NFAA and all the other orgs, just put big business in charge right from the start, and make it clear that the members have no say, just pay your money and do what your told, at least then we all know where we stand up front, instead of being led to believe we actually have a voice, when we don't !
> 
> The only reason i mentioned FITA was because they already have the 9.3mm rule which seemed to be what's causing all the comotion, so the easiest solution is for us all to just swap over to FITA, then there is no problem, well almost none, because i would like it reduced even further, but that's not about to happen any time soon !
> 
> ...


If the NFAA would have adopted the restrictions at the same time as the NAA(FITA) I don't think there would have been an issue with Easton, at the time they only had the 24 and 25's that were larger. The NFAA "membership" did not want the limit they wanted larger shafts. Now we have all kinds of companies that have larger shafts not just one. So now we are here.

Remember the individual membership has never voted on anything in NFAA history. Even the Directors are people who do it because nobody else will, for the most part they are not elected by all the individual members of each state. I have never received a ballot for any director candidates.

The point I was trying to make with the whaling is that FITA is no different than NFAA. I would almost guarrantee that Easton has as much if not more influence there than with the NFAA. Sponsorship money is a tremendous power in any national organization or worse international organization.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

swerve said:


> If the NFAA would have adopted the restrictions at the same time as the NAA(FITA) I don't think there would have been an issue with Easton, at the time they only had the 24 and 25's that were larger. The NFAA "membership" did not want the limit they wanted larger shafts. Now we have all kinds of companies that have larger shafts not just one. So now we are here.
> 
> Remember the individual membership has never voted on anything in NFAA history. Even the Directors are people who do it because nobody else will, for the most part they are not elected by all the individual members of each state. I have never received a ballot for any director candidates.
> 
> The point I was trying to make with the whaling is that FITA is no different than NFAA. I would almost guarrantee that Easton has as much if not more influence there than with the NFAA. Sponsorship money is a tremendous power in any national organization or worse international organization.


Those two statements don't seem to fit together ??? 

Easton may not be the only company involved, but it seems they put in the most money and have the biggest say in what happens !

As i said before, the orgs should make the rules, and the mfgs should make the equipment that conforms to those rules, at no time should the mfgs have any say in what the rules are, unless we just get rid of the orgs and put the mfgs in charge !

Woody


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I really think that there is a bigger thing that needs to be brought up here. Easton talked to the NFAA and discused the new 27's before they made them and they were told there was no problem with making them. I know because when they sent them to me I asked were I could shoot them and I was informed that every were but the NAA and the NFAA indoor. They told me that there was a 26 restriction there. They had talked to all the diffrent organisations. So for the NFAA to come out and make a arrow no good after saying it was ok kind is in bad taste. I can't say that anyone at Easton said anything to anyone, but I would think that you would if you were told your arrows were ok going to vegas and got there and they said no go. We all need to open our eyes and know the hole story. 

Just my thoughts but Easton has done a tone and will keep helping the sport I love grow.

Reo Wilde


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Reo*



Reo said:


> I really think that there is a bigger thing that needs to be brought up here. Easton talked to the NFAA and discused the new 27's before they made them and they were told there was no problem with making them. I know because when they sent them to me I asked were I could shoot them and I was informed that every were but the NAA and the NFAA indoor. They told me that there was a 26 restriction there. They had talked to all the diffrent organisations. So for the NFAA to come out and make a arrow no good after saying it was ok kind is in bad taste. I can't say that anyone at Easton said anything to anyone, but I would think that you would if you were told your arrows were ok going to vegas and got there and they said no go. We all need to open our eyes and know the hole story.
> 
> Just my thoughts but Easton has done a tone and will keep helping the sport I love grow.
> 
> Reo Wilde



Would you say that about any sponsor that didnt agree with the governing body? Seems the members and directers all agreed with what might be better for NFAA and members. Do sponsors have the right to govern assc and how they do there rulings?
DB


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I don't say they have a right to make the rules. I will say that if some one tell's you something there word should be worth something.

Reo


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

*THIS is the way*



OneBowTie said:


> you want to know who flip flopped.....i think i somewhere in a previous post put it out there.....
> 
> you have to understand.....the meetings cover 3 1/2 days......and they truly are taxing and grinding meetings.....
> 
> ...



Mike-

This is fantastic... I really like the tone of this post and I REALLY appreciate all you do for us. I cant imagine the work you guys do out there and for the most part I dont see a long line of volunteers signing up for it either so doubly respected....(not that my opinon on it really mattered, but I just wanted to say it publicly)

THIS is the kind of work and reasoning I know a guy like you is capable of....this is what I was trying to get across earlier... when we were in the heat of the moment....

I truly hope you continue on this path ...... No BS man... this I liked quite a bit.
Stir when you have to or want to but COMMUNICATE when you need to and it's all much much better. We all appreciate it more...

Thanks for your efforts

See you on the line-
Chuck


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

Reo said:


> I really think that there is a bigger thing that needs to be brought up here. Easton talked to the NFAA and discused the new 27's before they made them and they were told there was no problem with making them. I know because when they sent them to me I asked were I could shoot them and I was informed that every were but the NAA and the NFAA indoor. They told me that there was a 26 restriction there. They had talked to all the diffrent organisations. So for the NFAA to come out and make a arrow no good after saying it was ok kind is in bad taste. I can't say that anyone at Easton said anything to anyone, but I would think that you would if you were told your arrows were ok going to vegas and got there and they said no go. We all need to open our eyes and know the hole story.
> 
> Just my thoughts but Easton has done a tone and will keep helping the sport I love grow.
> 
> Reo Wilde


Thanx Reo 
Tear-em up this weekend Bro! :darkbeer:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

So IS Jim Easton Bigger than Jesus or not??

I really want to know? Every once in a while there is a company, musician, athlete, raving loon, that has spent to much time at their chosen pursuit and feels they are the centre of all creation. Looks like you have this here. and a willing band of ersatz disciples as well to boost the ego.

Is the NFAA repairable from the inside? Don't make me laugh, the process model is so corrupted with impaired decision making it wouldn't surprise me if they started a land war in Russia right now. 

I am bloody amazed that an IRS audit has not pulled their NFP status for undue influence matters. If ever there was an org that needs auditing they are it.

High time the sport was put back into the hands of Archers, and removed as the playtoy of over indulging aluminum extruders.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Totally agree*



Reo said:


> I don't say they have a right to make the rules. I will say that if some one tell's you something there word should be worth something.
> 
> Reo


But I have seen this over turning of rules in many assc because of sponsors. Never felt it was right. Quess in life money talks and who spends the most.:wink: NFAA voted and made a democracy call. I do believe you vote for the good of the members as well.
DB


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

*I hope this trend doesn't continue into 3-D!*

I can see it now. Maybe Mathews will hire a new engineer who learns how to design a bow that shoots 400fps (a real forgiving 400 fps bow too)! Unfortunately, nobody in the ASA circuit will shoot this bow because it of the 280 fps speed limit. They could shoot bigger diameter arrows and weight them down, but the ASA had the foresight to place a restriction on arrow diameter (rumor is that they, the IBO, and another organization had a gentlemen's agreement to get an arrow restriction passed). So, Mathews realizes that the only way they are to get this new fangled bow into the hands of the top 3-D pros is to force their hand. They decide to tell the ASA that they will drop all sponsorships of the organization unless the ASA drops their speed limit. The ASA thinks they have no option but to drop the speed limit that was in place. The trickle down effect at the local level is devastating because standard 3-D targets are not built to withstand this punishment, and many of the close down. Luckily, I do not think Mathews, or any other respectable company would try this, and even if they did, no respectable organization would cave this easily.

OBT, I'm glad after your cool down period you have decided to justify the decision (I'm glad because sleep is hard enough to come by in Vegas without all this turmoil), but a flip flop foul has occurred. Even the political action committees in the U.S. gov't cannot call Congress to order. A group was formed, discussions took place, and a vote was taken. Even a presidential veto cannot override a 42-6 (or whatever it was). You say the decision was made to leave it as it stands. My understanding is that there was a restriction in place...9.3 mm. Granted, it had not been in place long, and had not even taken effect, but the votes had been cast. ONE, if I'm ever lucky enough to get an invite to the "Barn", I hope you put a restriction on arrow size. If not, you might need to win a bunch of crispies to pay for your targets.

Who suffers from all of this? We all do. It is difficult to host a tournament if you cannot affordably keep targets in good condition. Ranges will close, and people (many NFAA members) will have to look even further to find a local indoor shoot. I'm not sure if a 1.5 hour drive can find me one local tournament all year. I used to have locals to drive to every month. 

I have not been an NFAA member for several years now, and that is not likely to change any time soon.

NFAA board members: Next time you go to Vegas, leave your flip flops at home. That is unless you are afraid you will step on Diamonds!


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Daniel Boone said:


> Would you say that about any sponsor that didnt agree with the governing body? Seems the members and directers all agreed with what might be better for NFAA and members. Do sponsors have the right to govern assc and how they do there rulings?
> DB


No DB, they don't. All the NFAA directors had to do is the following. 

Thank You Easton for your past support, but next year you can keep your money and we will keep the arrow restriction we voted for. That simple. Easton did not vote.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Just a thought*

What if an emergency vote was taken by all archers at Vegas and they voted. Would anyone see this in a different light. Just a thought. Is money the ruling factor in NFAA.
DB


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Hutnicks said:


> So IS Jim Easton Bigger than Jesus or not??
> 
> I really want to know? Every once in a while there is a company, musician, athlete, raving loon, that has spent to much time at their chosen pursuit and feels they are the centre of all creation. Looks like you have this here. and a willing band of ersatz disciples as well to boost the ego.
> 
> ...


 Jesus shoots trad and cedar shafts.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Easton doesnt get a vote*



swerve said:


> No DB, they don't. All the NFAA directors had to do is the following.
> 
> Thank You Easton for your past support, but next year you can keep your money and we will keep the arrow restriction we voted for. That simple. Easton did not vote.



There a sponsor. I totally agree NFAA might consider all options from arrow manufactuers and I mean ever manufactuer not just the ones that donated the most.
DB


----------



## MonzaRacer (Jun 11, 2006)

Ok take my opinion as what it is, a new archer who has used only a few different arrows. Those were for testing bows.
Now that I am more informed/experienced I like my 25/64 X-Cutters. 
But honestly NO RESTRICTION,,, come on. If I had my thoughts Easton just dropped the 27s so all arrows EXCEPT that one , would be leagal size limts ,,,,till the other brands(a chosen number) had the same size(27s) out for the PUBLIC consumption.
What this means is I would have left the door open up to 26s, then till enough DIFFERENT arrow companies had 27s in stock FOR ANYONE, no one off runs just for these 15 PROs.
I do assume as I dont sell arrows that other than Easton make 26s, if so the companies in number SAY 3 or more , having them in production, then make them legal.
I shoot 25/64 X-cutters and I love them and it kind of sucked when I would have to spend ANOTHER $110 for a dozen arrows(which I dont have).
I would hunt withthem if I was good enough to hunt.
One thing I dont understand is, why my hunting sight isnt allowd, oh yeah only well sighted people can shoot.
I have a Toxonics K955M as I need a lens to see the target.
But it cant be used. 
But limit to currently available sizes by 3 or more companies. and set the max allowable limt to 27s period.
Just my own idea.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2008)

First of all No Person in the world is as big, as important and certainly not as needed as Jesus....come on guys...

If What Reo says is true (I have no reason not to beleive him) 

If Easton did in fact ask the NFAA whether or not the new 27's would be accepted/legal...Prior to their making/marketing the new 27 arrows.... IMHO Easton has done nothing wrong..

But if there is no size limit..how can anybody protest, or Orginization prohibit the use of Jumbo Arrows....if they are not breaking a rule,,,what wrong are they doing ? 

Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Toyota,,,they all want to be on an equal field in Nascar...not give the other an advantage... I can see why Gold Tip, Easton and Carbon Express would want/expect the same things...


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Daniel Boone said:


> There a sponsor. I totally agree NFAA might consider all options from arrow manufactuers and I mean ever manufactuer not just the ones that donated the most.
> DB


I dont' think you have to consider anything unless you take their money. But nobody wants that either.

Actually I think Easton's money would be better spent on more hunting shows. In our club we have 80+ members, 5 target archers,4 of which are in my family and the #1 arrow of choice is an Easton, but dang sure not a 2712


----------



## Swerve's CEO (Dec 11, 2007)

*Reo*

I just got off the phone with Mr. Pemberton... Congrats to you Reo, Logan and your dad for 1st 2nd and 3rd at the Pembe Open this last weekend. You guys shot great!! :wink:


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

swerve said:


> Jesus shoots trad and cedar shafts.


LOL, Well Easton and his big Aluminium shafts better watch out for the big bolt of lightning coming down from above ! :wink: :wink: :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*You think Easton*



swerve said:


> I dont' think you have to consider anything unless you take their money. But nobody wants that either.
> 
> Actually I think Easton's money would be better spent on more hunting shows. In our club we have 80+ members, 5 target archers,4 of which are in my family and the #1 arrow of choice is an Easton, but dang sure not a 2712


Doesnt support hunters. They spend lots supporting the hunters as well. No one can say Easton doesnt support archery in all venues. I believe they have right to argue any point. Im not sure if they have the right to over turn a dissision by the governing body of an assc and its members.
DB


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Hell if he's going to smack the archery list of "bad guys and bad companies" with lightning bolts, his arm is going to get awfully damned tired.

Who does he start with? Darton, Martin, Bowtech, Mathews, or Dear GOD( no pun intended) Elite Archery.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Daniel Boone said:


> Doesnt support hunters. They spend lots supporting the hunters as well. No one can say Easton doesnt support archery in all venues. I believe they have right to argue any point. Im not sure if they have the right to over turn a dissision by the governing body of an assc and its members.
> DB


Easton didn't over turn anything. Easton can't vote. They don't have a vote. If they did vote the decision would be illegal because Easton can not be a member. NFAA by-laws do not have provisions for corporate membership. 

Jim Easton can be a NFAA member but he can't vote because he is not the State Director. Even if he was the state Director his would be one vote of fifty. He still cannot overturn anything.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Daniel Boone said:


> Doesnt support hunters. They spend lots supporting the hunters as well. No one can say Easton doesnt support archery in all venues. I believe they have right to argue any point. Im not sure if they have the right to over turn a dissision by the governing body of an assc and its members.
> DB


Not Sure?? Here, let me help you out with that Dan'l. NO they don't. They are exerting financial leverage to overrule a legitimate elected governing body.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Hmmm*



swerve said:


> Easton didn't over turn anything. Easton can't vote. They don't have a vote. If they did vote the decision would be illegal because Easton can not be a member. NFAA by-laws do not have provisions for corporate membership.
> 
> Jim Easton can be a NFAA member but he can't vote because he is not the State Director. Even if he was the state Director his would be one vote of fifty. He still cannot overturn anything.


Someone overturned the ruling by the directors. 
DB


----------



## Swerve's CEO (Dec 11, 2007)

Daniel Boone said:


> Someone overturned the ruling by the directors.
> DB


Obviously the directors overturned their decision! Not like there was a judge and a jury with the NFAA members as witnesses.


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

*Not the first time.*

Reo, If they asked then they should have been told that there will be a National meeting and the subject will be put on the agenda. You have to admit that the sizes are getting larger and larger so where is it going to stop. Ridiculous.

I understand that it cost alot of money for Easton to do R&D on this arrow but it sounds like they had already developed them when they went and asked. So it was going to happen anyway.

Back when Easton had a monopoly on arrow shafts they pulled a dirty trick, and I mean low handed dirty trick. Around 1991-92 at the Vegas shoot AFC composites was making carbon arrows and was really starting to get momentum in the hunting market. Easton put out a flyer saying that carbon arrows were dangerous to use in hunting situations and could be poisonous. AFC had to put out a flyer countering Eastons claims. Easton came back and said that they were talking about their own arrows but the damage had been done. In reality it was Eastons arrows that were fragile and broke easily and on the other hand AFC shafts were hard to break.
Since then I have avoided buying Easton arrows. Every year Easton arrows go up in price, even when the economy was unchanged like it is today.

If the board is smart they would say, OK we won't limit the size of the arrow but we will score the target inside out. People on their own would make the decision on what would be more advantageous. 

I am sorry but these actions by the NFAA are so cowardly that I really wish them ill. 

Rchr


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

Rchr said:


> I am sorry but these actions by the NFAA are so cowardly that I really wish them ill.
> 
> Rchr



Thats totally ridicules and uncalled for


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

KEN-813 you are right. I don't mean that in a personal way. I will rephrase it I hope it comes back and it bites them where it hurts in the @$$ (wallet).


----------



## Nanny (Dec 18, 2002)

*What is is what is or is it*

I would think that GT would have much more to loose than Easton with a size restriction... Are you positive that it was all Easton swaying the decision or are you speculating... after all... I would think their (Easton) sales of the smaller shafts far outweight the larger shafts, so are they really loosing anything with a restriction??? 
If it indeed was Easton... I give the guy credit for having the balls to stand behind his business... In fact I think we all would do the same if we were in his shoes... Fight for what is ours... That's a no brainer...
I think there is just a bit more to this than one is saying and I believe alot of you are running with a speculation... Lets not let speculation destroy an organization and a business...


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Nanny said:


> I would think that GT would have much more to loose than Easton with a size restriction... Are you positive that it was all Easton swaying the decision or are you speculating... after all... I would think their (Easton) sales of the smaller shafts far outweight the larger shafts, so are they really loosing anything with a restriction???
> If it indeed was Easton... I give the guy credit for having the balls to stand behind his business... In fact I think we all would do the same if we were in his shoes... Fight for what is ours... That's a no brainer...
> I think there is just a bit more to this than one is saying and I believe alot of you are running with a speculation... Lets not let speculation destroy an organization and a business...


 Well technically the NFAA was not HIS, at least up until the emergency meeting handed over the keys.

Now as for losing business. Given that hunters are the largest market could the logs not have been sold there? I for one don't believe that there was a lot of em made. Someone touted 40 dozen somewhere. You telling me 480 bloody arrows is going to break Easton? That is pure nonesense, _*there is more afoot here than we are being told.*_ And once again I'm thinking that Bruce is sitting on info that should be shared with the board and membership. Given that the ruling would not go into effect until June it just makes no sense whatsoever that this kind of action would be taken by a manufacturer to protect such a minimal investment.

Someones planning a future here and it isn't the NFAA its Directors or members.


----------



## bhtr3d (Feb 13, 2004)

heres something to think about: What if they just say that sure we have no problem with the 27xx... but the new shooting rule for scoring will be shafts must be all inside scoring ring. (inside out).


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

swerve said:


> Easton didn't over turn anything. Easton can't vote. They don't have a vote. If they did vote the decision would be illegal because Easton can not be a member. NFAA by-laws do not have provisions for corporate membership.
> 
> Jim Easton can be a NFAA member but he can't vote because he is not the State Director. Even if he was the state Director his would be one vote of fifty. He still cannot overturn anything.


you know maybe he can't vote, theres nothing that he can do.

Except take his money else where. after all isn't this is all about anyway. personally I like the change and to see it recended is a slapp in the face to us all.


----------



## Limey (May 6, 2005)

Solution........


1. Alllow any size arrow you like heck even 15 inch battleship shells.

2. Make the line score the lower score.:wink:


----------



## mudpup (Nov 9, 2005)

AVALON said:


> I don't know how mcuh Easton has given. If they have given enough that some venues would not exist, your above statement is entirely wrong.
> 
> The NFAA has allowed Easton to extend their profit into NFAA territory to far. That is entirely the fault of the NFAA NOT EASTON. I do not believe for a second that Easton gave with pure motives hoping to get nothing in return. The NFAA chose to allow a business to dictate their decisions. Easton was being a business and looking out for numero uno. Debatable...maybe. Are they entitled to that? Absolutely.
> 
> ...



Right there is the first problem.
Would the NFAA be shut down if they lost ONE sponsor?
If so, they have bigger problems than arrow size.


----------



## Crown Trophy (Dec 3, 2003)

*a little off the topic but...............*

Does Bruce own an archery business in Yankton..... where the new facility is to be built? Someone mentioned to me that he does. Just wondering.
Greg


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

Maybe I can get some anwsers from my state director, will see I sent him a email. can't wait to here what he has to say.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Rchr said:


> Reo, If they asked then they should have been told that there will be a National meeting and the subject will be put on the agenda. You have to admit that the sizes are getting larger and larger so where is it going to stop. Ridiculous.


Part of the problem here is that it doesn't sound like the leaders of the NFAA even knew about this agenda item. In fact, it is relatively new . . . or at least since after the introduction of the 2712. (You don't think they thought these up on a Monday and produced them by Friday do you?) 

I suspect there is way more then a grain of truth to what Reo is saying and I also suspect that Easton did substantial market research to determine if the 2712 was worth doing. I am fine with arrow size limits and I wouldn't mind seeing a 9.3mm limit eventually but a phased approach would be better then an immediate one. At least give companies that have invested in product demanded by consumer time to make up their R&D and tooling costs. 

Regarding sponsorship, think about this on a personal level. If you were to sponsor a personal cause for years . . . something you truly believed in (and Easton DOES love and believe in target archery) and then that cause turned around and pulled the rug out from under you do you think you would be delighted?


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

swerve said:


> I dont' think you have to consider anything unless you take their money. But nobody wants that either.
> 
> Actually I think Easton's money would be better spent on more hunting shows. In our club we have 80+ members, 5 target archers,4 of which are in my family and the #1 arrow of choice is an Easton, but dang sure not a 2712


Good point Swerve. I'm quite sure from a bang-for-the-buck perspective taking the target $$$ and investing in hunting shows, etc. would probably be a better return. Your numbers bear out the importance of sponsorhip of target archery. Without sponsorship it probably wouldn't.


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

Maybe it's time for Bruce to go. After all it was his ill advised move to Yankton before the California property deal closed that left the orginization open to this *extortion* by Easton. Maybe too, the IRS should investigate the relationship between the tax exempt Easton Foundation and the for profit Easton family businesses. Alas, unlike golf, there are no balls in archery.

At least the grandiose plans for Yankton need to be scaled back to reduce reliance on outsiders.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

So,
Based on Mr. Despart's post, am i to believe that he will be taking his 19's to Vegas this weekend, since arrow size plays absolutely no factor in 599 vs. 600?

I like the phase out plan. Settling on 23's by 2010. I'm also in favor of a full "Inside Out" scoring scheme, all the way from the "X" to the "1" ring.
If you're touching the line, you get the LOWER score.
Let's reward ACCURACY, not arrow obesity.
Get rid of the "Gee, i ALMOST got into the "10" ring, so just give it to me."
Hogwash. Put it all the way in there, with yellow showing around your shaft, or quit whining.

I agree with a previous poster, that arrow size currently does matter, or else we should just go to the 122cm FITA target at 10 yards, so the whiners can still shoot their big scores.
Inside Out scoring would CURE that for good AND A 300 (60X) WOULD FINALLY MEAN SOMETHING AGAIN, cause it would become more rare.

I am an NFAA member, with my 2008 dues paid in full.

These are my wishes.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

divot250 said:


> you know maybe he can't vote, theres nothing that he can do.
> 
> Except take his money else where. after all isn't this is all about anyway. personally I like the change and to see it recended is a slapp in the face to us all.


The only point that I have been trying to make all along is that Easton Did NOT SLap US. Everybody wants to make Easton the bad guys. If you or I had the ability to donate $500,000.00 to an organization, then they turn around piss on us. We would make a request to the organization to stop or we will withdraw our money. Actually for me I wouldn't care whether it affected my sales or not, atfter all don't we recruit or solicit sponsors. After that it is the organization's decision, period.

That was Easton's perogative its their money. Would Bill Gates continue to sponsor or suport an organization who chose to ban MicroSoft software or maybe only Windows. NO and anybody who thinks they would is extremely naieve. Our world does not work that way. Even the Red Cross doesn't publically protest against things done by their sponsors.

That being said before we rip to hard on the NFAA, we as members need to figure out how to replace the money. I personally favor the arrow restriction, always have. I won't villify a company that donates a tremendous amount of money and equipment to NASP, JOAD and almost any tournament that you go to, because my organization chose to keep their money.


----------



## gobblinfool (Dec 6, 2004)

*just my thoughts*

I agree with this last post, inside out scoring, if you touch the blue line it is a 5, if you touch the 4 ring it is a 4. Not sure how well this would be taken by the public, as we are driven by success. To the hard core guy that practices a lot, this isn't a issue, but archery should be about inclusion. I still think what Tim G did was awesome, but as I stated someplace earlier, how big of a splash did it make?? What if an average amateur like me (55X) average was to shoot those big fat arrows and score two 60xs in a row at nationals, then would someone say enough is enough??


----------



## Avalon (Jul 23, 2007)

swerve said:


> The only point that I have been trying to make all along is that Easton Did NOT SLap US. Everybody wants to make Easton the bad guys. If you or I had the ability to donate $500,000.00 to an organization, then they turn around piss on us. We would make a request to the organization to stop or we will withdraw our money. After that it is the organization's decision, period.
> 
> That was Easton's perogative its their money. Would Bill Gates continue to sponsor or suport an organization who chose to ban MicroSoft software or maybe only Windows. NO and anybody who thinks they would is extremely naieve. Our world does not work that way. Even the Red Cross doesn't publically protest against things done by their sponsors.


spot on.
Easton can do what they choose with their money. The NFAA can choose to accept/decline. It seems to me the NFAA chose to accept.


----------



## Avalon (Jul 23, 2007)

gobblinfool said:


> I agree with this last post, inside out scoring, if you touch the blue line it is a 5, if you touch the 4 ring it is a 4. Not sure how well this would be taken by the public, as we are driven by success. To the hard core guy that practices a lot, this isn't a issue, but archery should be about inclusion. I still think what Tim G did was awesome, but as I stated someplace earlier, how big of a splash did it make?? What if an average amateur like me (55X) average was to shoot those big fat arrows and score two 60xs in a row at nationals, then would someone say enough is enough??


Gobblinfool--first of all your not an average amateur. I've shot beside you and your far above amateur. (Am I on your good side yet)

I think what you suggest would totally make this arrow issue go away. Make it happ'n cap'n.:wink:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

In between phone calls last evening about important issues such as arrow set up and shot sequence, I had a chance to reflect on the recent scandal concerning the NFAA and with that reflection I have come to these conclusions. 

1.The NFAA isn't the ruling body of archery
2.The NFAA is as it began; a club born of dissension and sixty-nine years later it is still entangled in dissension.
3.Like the majority of clubs everywhere the individual member has little to no impute in the decision process. 
4.It matters little if Easton or anyone else uses their money to influence the rules of the club, I have to decide for myself if I want to be a member and if I want to participate in their tournaments. 
5.If the NFAA is to flourish it should stop kidding the membership and drop the club act. The NFAA should come out of the closet (so to speak) and acknowledge that it is a business who's product is a series of national tournaments; not a good ol'boy club of folks out for a day of flinging arrows on a warm spring day...


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

swerve said:


> The only point that I have been trying to make all along is that Easton Did NOT SLap US. Everybody wants to make Easton the bad guys. If you or I had the ability to donate $500,000.00 to an organization, then they turn around piss on us. We would make a request to the organization to stop or we will withdraw our money. Actually for me I wouldn't care whether it affected my sales or not, atfter all don't we recruit or solicit sponsors. After that it is the organization's decision, period.
> 
> That was Easton's perogative its their money. Would Bill Gates continue to sponsor or suport an organization who chose to ban MicroSoft software or maybe only Windows. NO and anybody who thinks they would is extremely naieve. Our world does not work that way. Even the Red Cross doesn't publically protest against things done by their sponsors.
> 
> That being said before we rip to hard on the NFAA, we as members need to figure out how to replace the money. I personally favor the arrow restriction, always have. I won't villify a company that donates a tremendous amount of money and equipment to NASP, JOAD and almost any tournament that you go to, because my organization chose to keep their money.



I agree with what your saying, I just worded it poorly, why don't we as members have anysay so. Instead of just one person representing us from our state. I think there would be alot in favor of a arrow restriction.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

gobblinfool said:


> I agree with this last post, inside out scoring, if you touch the blue line it is a 5, if you touch the 4 ring it is a 4. Not sure how well this would be taken by the public, as we are driven by success. To the hard core guy that practices a lot, this isn't a issue, but archery should be about inclusion. I still think what Tim G did was awesome, but as I stated someplace earlier, how big of a splash did it make?? What if an average amateur like me (55X) average was to shoot those big fat arrows and score two 60xs in a row at nationals, then would someone say enough is enough??


Gotto love this site. Wasn't Tim G. getting crucified a year ago? Isn't he called Click on here quite often.

2 years ago he shot the same arrows at a warm up before the Utah Open. Utah Open restricted the arrow size to 2315 for the touney a week later, citing the same issues being used today target damage ect. 

Archers were agast at how Easton eliminated the use of X-cutters and 30X shafts and how Easton was flexing their muscle to eliminate Gold Tip as a competitor, since that is a Easton sponsored tournament as well. Nobody even cared that the restriction eliminated their large target shafts as well. Actually there was a thread on the issue. Might have to go back and see how people responded then and compare that to what they are saying now.

Hypocracy is an evil thing:grin:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

swerve said:


> Gotto love this site. Wasn't Tim G. getting crucified a year ago? Isn't he called Click on here quite often.
> 
> 2 years ago he shot the same arrows at a warm up before the Utah Open. Utah Open restricted the arrow size to 2315 for the touney a week later, citing the same issues being used today target damage ect.
> 
> ...


I was wondering if anyone would pick up on this...


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

JAVI said:


> I was wondering if anyone would pick up on this...


There are days when the BS here gets so bad you just about gag.:grin:

PS I have an excellent memory. Still working on everything you told me, thanks again. :teeth:


----------



## Strutter Cutter (Jun 28, 2004)

*Simple I think*

There probably was a knee jerk reaction to BIG shafts. There PROBABLY should've been more collaboration before the passing of the rule. I don't blame Easton nor do I blame the directors or membership. Now that it's a major issue, let's talk about it and get it done. SOMETHING will come of it. In fairness to everyone, companies down to membership, there should be collaboration.

WHERE DID ALL OF THIS START?

You know, it's not like EASTON secretly built this SUPERSIZE shaft and ONLY gave a few dozen to select people. They didn't build a prototype to USE that wasn't available to the AVERAGE person who wants to put in an order. I don't know exactly WHEN people could order the 27 size shafts but I think "average" people have been using them most of this indoor season. 

From the outside looking in, it looks to me like Gold Tip has enabled a FEW to have an unfair advantage over the field. What's the rule on shooting PROTOTYPE arrows NOT available to the general public. ANYONE interested in fairness in a competition should be looking at that aspect this weekend. I'm SURE that not even all of GOLD TIP's STAFF SHOOTERS were able to get an arrow bigger than a 30x.

This is looking like an ADDITIONAL black eye to some one, or some company.


----------



## MADAM ARCHER (Apr 10, 2005)

what else went on in the meeting was anything passed? thanks


----------



## SLash (Apr 2, 2005)

*To quote the Godfather.........*



swerve said:


> Easton didn't over turn anything. Easton can't vote. They don't have a vote. If they did vote the decision would be illegal because Easton can not be a member. NFAA by-laws do not have provisions for corporate membership.
> 
> Jim Easton can be a NFAA member but he can't vote because he is not the State Director. Even if he was the state Director his would be one vote of fifty. He still cannot overturn anything.


To Paraphrase.

"We'll make you a deal you just can't refuse."

You don't always need to be eligable to vote to get your way.


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

Seems like the board had everything from the arrow judging committe to make an educated vote except for the 2009 financial plan. :wink:


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

swerve said:


> Gotto love this site. Wasn't Tim G. getting crucified a year ago? Isn't he called Click on here quite often.Because he did the wrong thing in alot of peoples eyes.
> 
> 2 years ago he shot the same arrows at a warm up before the Utah Open. Utah Open restricted the arrow size to 2315 for the touney a week later, citing the same issues being used today target damage ect.
> 
> ...


Easton has repeatedly shown how heavy their hand can be. But I still don't see that as the problem. Its not about arrows. Its about the words that govern the NFAA (which may be more theory than rule at this point). 

OBT, 'nother good post. The things that you propose would require a major rewrite of the constitution. If we can't follow the first one, what insurance do we have that a rewritten one would be followed? 


What would Easton's position be if a membership vote showed "we" want a 9.3mm arrow restriction?


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Bobmuley said:


> Easton has repeatedly shown how heavy their hand can be. But I still don't see that as the problem. Its not about arrows. Its about the words that govern the NFAA (which may be more theory than rule at this point).
> 
> OBT, 'nother good post. The things that you propose would require a major rewrite of the constitution. If we can't follow the first one, what insurance do we have that a rewritten one would be followed?
> 
> ...


Bob, I don't think Easton would care one way or another. I don't think that you do either. The only decision the membership has to decide is whether it needs the money or not. If we want to run the "club" right, then we can't be in a position to need sponsor money or you put a limit of $2000.00 per sponsor. Then nobody will be affected unduly by any decisions the club makes.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Anyone care to comment on the secret merger deal between the NFAA and the NAA... :wink:


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

As far as giving sponsors or manufacturers a vote. You might want to check with members of the National Cattleman's Ass. They did that a few years ago did not quite go as the membership was told it would go before they voted.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> Anyone care to comment on the secret merger deal between the NFAA and the NAA...


As long as they keep producing "Archery Focus" and maybe even up the quality of this fine publication, i don't care if they merge or not.

I shoot both FITA and NFAA anyway.

Maybe Easton can be put in charge of the whole thing, long as they send me a couple dozen FREE X10s in a 550 spine, 28inches, spin wings and 100 gr parabolic tips.

Then i'll happily send in my membership to the EFAA next year.

:grouphug:

Of course, i've always wanted to try Nanos....

And CXFAA has kind of a ring to it....

The bidding starts at 2 dozen custom arrows.

Major companies can PM me for my vote, starting now.


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

I just got word that my state rep voted against the arrow restriction. Now he voted against the 9.3mm but wanted to limit it at the 26 series, would have been fine by me


The thing that bothers me the most is they formed a arrow committee and it was a NAA offical leading the way. No wonder there was the intial 9.3mm in place.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> The thing that bothers me the most is they formed a arrow committee and it was a NAA offical leading the way. No wonder there was the intial 9.3mm in place.


Who's leading who here?
9.3mm?

That sounds like a Euro cave to Easton's 23/64 of an inch diameter.

If it were truly FITA and metric, they'd have stated 9mm. or 10mm. Something nice.


----------



## lx12ringer (Jan 23, 2004)

Reo said:


> I really think that there is a bigger thing that needs to be brought up here. Easton talked to the NFAA and discused the new 27's before they made them and they were told there was no problem with making them. I know because when they sent them to me I asked were I could shoot them and I was informed that every were but the NAA and the NFAA indoor. They told me that there was a 26 restriction there. They had talked to all the diffrent organisations. So for the NFAA to come out and make a arrow no good after saying it was ok kind is in bad taste. I can't say that anyone at Easton said anything to anyone, but I would think that you would if you were told your arrows were ok going to vegas and got there and they said no go. We all need to open our eyes and know the hole story.
> 
> Just my thoughts but Easton has done a tone and will keep helping the sport I love grow.
> 
> Reo Wilde


If that is the case, I can't blame Easton one bit!


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Should there be a "Emergency" board meeting called? 

This board meeting can be a conference call, the questions to be put on a mail ballot would be determined. The questions would be faxed for the Board members to review prior to creating the mail ballot.

Example questions for the mail ballot:
1) Should there be a maximum arrow diameter? 
2) The max arrow diameter shall be 27/64? 
3) The max arrow diameter shall be 26/64? 
4) The max arrow diameter shall be 28/64? 
6) The max arrow diameter of 27/64 becomes effective as of 7/01/*08*
7) The max arrow diameter of 26/64 becomes effective as of 7/01/*09*
8) The max arrow diameter of 28/64 becomes effective as of 7/01/*08*
9) Should a maximum arrow diameter be considered at the next annual meeting?
7) Shall a committee of 3 (?), appointed by the President, study, review and communicate with the archery community, including manufacturers, arrow diameters?
8) Maximum arrow diameter of xx/xx (or 9.3 mm) effective 1/01/09 or 1/01/10

Having a maximum diameter quickly imposed, would help settle the waters even if it's a bigger than what currently is currently available.

I hope arrow manufacturers collectively realize we don't want them in a "mine is bigger than yours" war. I think it's primarily up to Easton to step up and lead. Because, I suspect their capacity to crank out large diameter tubes at a reasonable cost is much greater than any manufacturer of carbon tubes. If they want to remove carbon arrow makers from the "big" tube table than can. Essentially, if Easton wants to they can own the "mine is bigger than yours" market, :wink: that so many male egos gladly succumb to.

:wink: Does anyone know where I can get a .19 blade for my Pro Tuner?


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Kstigall said:


> Should there be a "Emergency" board meeting called?
> 
> This board meeting can be a conference call, the questions to be put on a mail ballot would be determined. The questions would be faxed for the Board members to review prior to creating the mail ballot.
> 
> ...


Betcha Best can build you one.;grin:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Supposing for a moment that the wayward children (NFAA) are allowed back into the pack (NAA)... what will Easton do about the arrow restriction already in place for all NAA events? :wink:


----------



## azone5 (Jan 5, 2004)

I've read all the posts, all-be-it a little hurriedly so I can have time to do other things today. I don't have commonly shared knowledge that many of you do relative to the organizations and manufacturers. With that said my feelings are that:

*OBT is honorable, wise, and practical. We need more like him.
*Inside out scoring makes the issue go away.
*Reduce size over a specified time period if you wish.
*Add non-voting manufacture reps to the Board.

I probably missed it but why is the BIG E pi$$ed? Evidently the Board was not overly concerned about arrow size since it was not a hot topic in the initial discussion and vote. Someone outside of the Board had to make a BIG enough issue out of it to get the Board to call an emergency meeting. Now everyone is upset - the Board, members, etc. Easton got what they wanted, and now they're pi$$ed???


----------



## azone5 (Jan 5, 2004)

I don't think this is the case: "If you build it, they will come."


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I was on the arrow committee and in the general session I voted for the 9.3.

However, I was on a plane when the emergency meeting was called, otherwise I would have fought to the death to not rescind the earlier board of directors ruling.

I do not believe that Easton is concerned about arrow shaft sales relative to the 9.3 ruling and I do not think Easton wants to control the NFAA other than to fund select joint operations with us.

In order to create the infrastructure necessary to fulfil their olympic goals, Easton needs NFAA as much or more than NFAA needs Easton.

Even prior to the $500,000, Easton has been a good friend and sponsor and not a dictator to NFAA.

I think it is just that their feelings were hurt that we did not offer them the courtesy of some minor degree of participation in the process. I do not think they are mad or pissed, just bruised feelings.

If we do that for the 2009 directors meeting, I believe Easton will embrace the 9.3 mm maximum arrow diameter. Given the rest of the target archery world, it is the only restriction that makes sense.


Regarding the idea of inside out scoring without any restriction on arrow diameter, the targets would have to be changed to protect the game for the majority of the shooters.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

FS560 said:


> I was on the arrow committee and in the general session I voted for the 9.3.
> 
> However, I was on a plane when the emergency meeting was called, otherwise I would have fought to the death to not rescind the earlier board of directors ruling.
> 
> ...


Thank you Jim...


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

FS560 said:


> I was on the arrow committee and in the general session I voted for the 9.3.
> 
> However, I was on a plane when the emergency meeting was called, otherwise I would have fought to the death to not rescind the earlier board of directors ruling.
> 
> ...


Another Jim has spoken. Thanks for that info.

I noticed a lot of the 3D orgs capped it at 27/64ths. That seemed to make Easton happy, but not other arrow manufacturers.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

*What changed your mind?*



FS560 said:


> I was on the arrow committee and in the general session I voted for the 9.3.
> 
> However, I was on a plane when the emergency meeting was called, otherwise I would have fought to the death to not rescind the earlier board of directors ruling.....





FS560 said:


> Here is one NFAA director that will not vote for arrow size restrictions of any kind.


I hope it all works out for the best next year.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Isn't there something that can be done now? 
A simple "Emergency" mail ballot sent to the directors that could ask a lot of questions or just a couple. I have a some suggestions in my previous post, #495 above.

Get something recorded, with arrow makers being aware, that puts a cap on diameter.

Does anyone have connections they can call on to talk with Easton AND Gold Tip? If Easton/Hoyt and Gold Tip determined that their staff and Pro's wouldn't shoot anything over xx/64th's it would go a long ways to settle this until the next annual meeting.

If the WAF, Iowa Pro/AM, Lancaster Classic and other major indoor shoots put a cap on arrow size things would at least settle down somewhat.

I have to believe that the 27xx shaft is so incredibly insignificant to Easton's bottom line that they could eat it and not get the slightest burp. It's THEIR choice and it would put the heat on Gold Tip to cease and desist their "telephone pole" development.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

collective opinion of members of our state association along with thinking that a world standard for maximum target arrow size might be a good thing.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

This is not the kind of legislation that should be done by a mail ballot of the directors. Actually, I was told that the directors present for the emergency meeting rejected the mail ballot idea in favor of face to face at the 2009 meeting.

There would be time to invite all arrow shaft manufacturers to the directors meeting to state their comments.

Of course, a directors meeting this May or June would be best but NFAA and the states cannot afford that expense.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

Now really!...........

What’s the big deal about arrow size limit?...

I like it just the way it is, no limit!...:wink:

Who else feels like I do?..:dontknow:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

monty53 said:


> Now really!...........
> 
> What’s the big deal about arrow size limit?...
> 
> ...


Not many according to the numerous polls over the past day and a half...:wink:


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

IMO the 23 limit would be better for archery as a whole.Raise the level of competition and do less target damage for the small shops and clubs.The arrow companys will sell the same amount of arrows,it will just be more of one size.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

> do not think they are mad or pissed, just bruised feelings.


Their feelings where hurt so a ruling was recinded?
That's funny!

Steve


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Kstigall said:


> Isn't there something that can be done now?
> A simple "Emergency" mail ballot sent to the directors that could ask a lot of questions or just a couple. I have a some suggestions in my previous post, #495 above.
> 
> Get something recorded, with arrow makers being aware, that puts a cap on diameter.
> ...


Why call an emergency anything....take the time to do it right. Seriously....there is nothing gained or lost rushing and making a change NOW. If the rule was over turned again...the arrow rule wouldn't go into effect until June 1 anyway....and by then ALL indoor shoots are over. Infact really there is only ONE major shoot left that would be effected by that ruling if the 9.3 rule was to take place next week....Nationals. WAF runs the Hartford shoot....:wink:

All of the other major indoor shoots (LAS, Iowa and a few others) can set the rule for whatever they want anyway....they aren't NFAA run shoots.

I don't care what they do I am shooting 23XX size shafts anyway....and may just shoot my field arrows for everything next year......


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> Regarding the idea of inside out scoring without any restriction on arrow diameter, the targets would have to be changed to protect the game for the majority of the shooters


I respectfully request an exlanation of this.
Why do the targets need to change to implement I/O scoring?

yes, the scores will drop. Don't you see that's a GOOD thing? It rewards excellency in ACCURACY, not arrow diameter.
People's PRs will initially drop to a new level, but they will settle out and high scores will mean more.
So we won't have as many 60X 300s flying around (or 40+X 450s). Am i the only one who believes that'll be GOOD for our sport?
If dang near every 'tard with a log approaching the diameter of the X can score a "perfect" 300, what happens to the value of perfection?

Do really good archers NEED target mods, for "score protection"? Really?

I say the moment your club or org goes to true I/O scoring, the very first week the top shooters will still be setting the bar for all the aspiring underlings and inside a month, every one in the country will know what the new quality score looks like.
everyone will start paying attention to their P.R.s all over again and emphasis will be placed where it SHOULD be. Accuracy.

And i'll say it. Anyone shooting 26+ claiming it's not about accuracy is being disingenous. You know darn well, the reason you went from a PROPERLY spined 19, up to a rediculously over-spined 26 was NOT because you thought you were an Uber Aimer. It's because you were hanging around just OUTSIDE that next ring and were hoping to pick up just a couple more points by jar licking.

I say, man/woman up and if you want that next point, put your WHOLE arrow inside its ring.

Can i get a second, from the floor?


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

hammerheadpc said:


> I respectfully request an exlanation of this.
> Why do the targets need to change to implement I/O scoring?
> 
> yes, the scores will drop. Don't you see that's a GOOD thing? It rewards excellency in ACCURACY, not arrow diameter.
> ...



That will just get people to start shooting knitting needles like Kward  and cause severe target damage also. :wink:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

hammerheadpc said:


> I respectfully request an exlanation of this.
> Why do the targets need to change to implement I/O scoring?
> 
> yes, the scores will drop. Don't you see that's a GOOD thing? It rewards excellency in ACCURACY, not arrow diameter.
> ...


Past history tells us that increasing the difficulty of the game will only drive people away... The last time targets were changed to make the game more difficult the pros scores tanked for a few months then returned to about the same level and the Joe's scores were so bad that they stopped shooting...


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The issue is not the top shooters but the recreational shooters. We learned that the hard way in 1977.


----------



## Meleagris1 (Jan 8, 2003)

JAVI said:


> Past history tells us that increasing the difficulty of the game will only drive people away... The last time targets were changed to make the game more difficult the pros scores tanked for a few months then returned to about the same level and the Joe's scores were so bad that they stopped shooting...


Maybe we need to create a few more divisions to boost moral . . . :wink:


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

hammerheadpc said:


> I respectfully request an exlanation of this.
> Why do the targets need to change to implement I/O scoring?
> 
> yes, the scores will drop. Don't you see that's a GOOD thing? It rewards excellency in ACCURACY, not arrow diameter.
> ...


Not from this corner of the floor.:wink:

Like every other post here, this is just an "OPINION" but MY opinion is that we do not need to change the way we score our current games. Even with 26/64, or 27/64 arrow diameter, we simply do not have a high number of 600 shooters(double Vegas), much less 600 with a high X-count.

Surely you do not think that the current rank of top end target archers would change noticably if there were an immediate rules revision on scoring inside out, and/or diameter restrictions?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

FS560 said:


> This is not the kind of legislation that should be done by a mail ballot of the directors. Actually, I was told that the directors present for the emergency meeting rejected the mail ballot idea in favor of face to face at the 2009 meeting.
> 
> There would be time to invite all arrow shaft manufacturers to the directors meeting to state their comments.


Imagine that, taking time to have a well thought out decision giving all the parties effected a chance to come to the table, as opposed to a relatively quick decision, without a solid process in place to get there.

Irrespective of how good of an idea limiting arrow size is(and I believe it to be a good one) the process by which the decision is made has a lot longer lasting effect of the decision. I highly doubt the wave that has swept the internet would be even remotely close to what has happened if...

Unfortunately, the process that both the original decision, and subsequent decision rescinding the original decision, were flawed. No fault of the individual directors, just swept up in the "emergency" and something needed to be done. Still needs to be done, just better. The lasting effects of how these decisions were handled, may be worse than the actual issue that they were intended to resolve, or unresolve.

What I think is actually the most important decision that came from the meeting, the one that is being over looked, and the one which may speak volumes about the state of archery, and the organizations, we had to establish special rules and committees to make sure that the rules were being followed...and enforced. Why does any organization need rules to follow the rules, and we have to have special committiees to make sure that the rules enforcing the rules are actually followed. 

To me, this is really where the lack of credibility lies, and everyone seems to miss that. It's a game...there should be honor amongst the participants. When we have to make rules to follow the rules...where is the honor...?

I guess when you look at the entire arrow mess, it is easy to see why the rules are so hard to follow by the participant...they can't be followed from the top down... It's kinda like raising kids...you can't punish them for foul language if they just repeated what you said...you can either ignore it (not the right message), or take your lumps too...unfortunately, I have acquired a taste for Dawn liquid detergent as of late...


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

hammerheadpc said:


> I respectfully request an exlanation of this.
> Why do the targets need to change to implement I/O scoring?
> 
> yes, the scores will drop. Don't you see that's a GOOD thing? It rewards excellency in ACCURACY, not arrow diameter.
> ...



What would the avg shooters Vegas score look like if you only got an X if it was inside out.....

Heck even a 5 spot round for that matter....:embara:


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> Surely you do not think that the current rank of top end target archers would change noticably if there were an immediate rules revision on scoring inside out, and/or diameter restrictions?


Absolutely not. And that's the point.
What it *would *end is the arrow diameter arms race.
And it would bring even more "score integrity" if you will.

Of course then we'd have to have rules on the other side to prevent yahoos from trying to shoot arrows with the thickness of the human hair, but that could be solved by fairly well-known safety rules of grains per pound or some such.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> Why call an emergency anything....take the time to do it right. Seriously....there is nothing gained or lost rushing and making a change NOW. If the rule was over turned again...the arrow rule wouldn't go into effect until June 1 anyway....and by then ALL indoor shoots are over. Infact really there is only ONE major shoot left that would be effected by that ruling if the 9.3 rule was to take place next week....Nationals. WAF runs the Hartford shoot....:wink:
> 
> All of the other major indoor shoots (LAS, Iowa and a few others) can set the rule for whatever they want anyway....they aren't NFAA run shoots.
> 
> I don't care what they do I am shooting 23XX size shafts anyway....and may just shoot my field arrows for everything next year......


If we wait until the '09 meeting then all the '_09_ shoots will be over.
It would make a statement and MAYBE get the manufacturers to slow down their "arms" race or pissing match depending on how you look at it.

Secondly, when I say "now" I'm referring to now as in 2008. It would be months before a "ballot" was created, mailed, voted on, returned and tallied.
The questions asked _could_ simply be, "Shall there be a maximum arrow diameter?" and "Shall the maximum diameter be 27/64th's?". It would be in place for _all_ of '09 including Vegas, Nationals, sectionals and state shoots. These 2 simple questions could stall the diameter competition. Follow up ballots could be used for more complicated or debatable questions. 
The "9.3" question would still be viable for the '09 annual meeting if it isn't settled this year.

It's really up to Easton. I believe Easton can produce aluminum pipes easier and for a lot less money than carbon pipes can be produced. I do know that the carbon fiber arrows are more expensive to produce. Compare the price on 26/13's to any of the fat carbon arrows. I would expect the start-up of a new bigger pipe is more complex and/or costly for most companies making carbon shafts than it is for Easton to build monster aluminum pipe. I would expect Easton has precisely built very large diameter aluminum pipe being produced and all they would need to is test, anodize and label for it to be an arrow. 

So that's why I say do it!!


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

Let's be honest here and get a few things straight. Anyone, from the NFAA, target manufacturer, or arrow manufacturer, that says they did not know about any discussions of arrow standards had their head in the sand. It was announced at the ATA show, it was announced by Mike T over on the ASA site, and it was announced here that the 3 big orgs had gotten together to decide on a standard. That was back in january. This was not a suprise to Easton.

Lets also be honest in at least one other thing. While many may not agree with the tactics Easton may or may not have done, their actions proteted their competitors. how many people shoot GT 30x or X cutters in doors, or CE Line jammers (or whatever they are called, indoors, and how many would have then had non-conforming arrows?

Would I like to see a 9.3mm standard? Sure. However, I would like to see it implemented over a 4 or 5 year period. 27x this year, 26x next year, 25x the following, then 24x, then finally 9.3. This would benefit all arrow manufacturers, not just Easton. Let's face it, if the arrow standard jumped straight to 23 this year it would put major costs on GT, Victory, and CE to re-tool and do the R&D necessary top get a conforming "fat shaft." Easton would not need to retool, and would not need to do any retooling, heck, even their fat shaft carbons are conforming. If anything the other arrow manufacturers should be thanking Easton.

Set a standard. Make it a gradual transition period. That allows all manufacturers to re-coup current production and R&D costs, allows a period to transition to the new standards, and gives archers time to also implement the new standard.

Personally, I see the vile and hatred to Easton being misplaced. The last time I checked they do not have an actual vote. Plus, by being vocal they helped their competition.

Furthermore, has anyone checked to see if: a. this emergency meeting was within the by-laws of the constitution; or b. if there was enough directors present to establish a quorom?


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

reylamb, That would be unfair to every other arrow company out there.How many company's make every size arrow????? ONE! that is the point.So the other companys will have to spend big $$$$$ to make a arrow for 1 year???Make a decision and stick to it.PERIOD.no need to take 5 years,do it and be done.


----------



## funkymunky (Jun 29, 2005)

*arrow size*

So all this means I can shoot my 1/2 inch draw bow with my 19 yard 35 & 3/4 inch long, 1 & 1/2 inch diameter arrows & I'm good, huh? I am on a plane!!!!!


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

what would that arrow weight?


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

bigGP said:


> reylamb, That would be unfair to every other arrow company out there.How many company's make every size arrow????? ONE! that is the point.So the other companys will have to spend big $$$$$ to make a arrow for 1 year???Make a decision and stick to it.PERIOD.no need to take 5 years,do it and be done.


How would it be unfair? It gives GT 2 years on the 30x, and 4 years or so on the X cutters.......and CE the same amount of years on their fatter shafts. Sounds to me like it is a fair way for all of the manufacturers not to get the shaft.........so to speak. Jump all the way to 9.3 in one season and that hurts GT and CE more than it helps.


----------



## funkymunky (Jun 29, 2005)

*arrow weight*

That info is top secret. They are made from space age material that I purchased from area 51. They are light weight, though. No bend, spined for any bow weight. I only have one dozen, so not everyone can have them.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

If Easton did indeed want to influence the NFAA ruling on arrow diameter, the clearcut way to achieve their goals would have been to use ArcheryTalk.com as a tool to put the fear of God into the NFAA.

I`m just saying....


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

reylamb said:


> How would it be unfair? It gives GT 2 years on the 30x, and 4 years or so on the X cutters.......and CE the same amount of years on their fatter shafts. Sounds to me like it is a fair way for all of the manufacturers not to get the shaft.........so to speak. Jump all the way to 9.3 in one season and that hurts GT and CE more than it helps.


fair or unfair the fat shaft will still be gone
if I knew in 2 years the arrows I practice with will be illegal..scrap them and move to the legal arrow
it's unfair to the consumers more than the companies
200.00 for a dozen arrows to compete....now unuseable...too big
gonna hunt with 30X shafts ? i doubt it
if it will be done just get it over with
we'll all take the hit and move on with life


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

JAVI said:


> Supposing for a moment that the wayward children (NFAA) are allowed back into the pack (NAA)... what will Easton do about the arrow restriction already in place for all NAA events? :wink:


JAVI !!! I got headache as it is now you want to give me a heart attack? :jksign:

"Outlaw club" that we are we are going to let the big 27s shoot. I doubt will see too many 27s being launched out to 50 yards at 3D targets. Might even put sign out front 27/64" :welcomesign:


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

JAVI said:


> Supposing for a moment that the wayward children (NFAA) are allowed back into the pack (NAA)... what will Easton do about the arrow restriction already in place for all NAA events? :wink:


JAVI !!! I got headache as it is now you want to give me a heart attack? :jksign:

"Outlaw club" that we are we are going to let the big 27s shoot. I doubt will see too many 27s being launched out to 50 yards at 3D targets. Might even put sign out front 27/64" :welcomesign:

Yes, if we hold a sanctioned shoot we will adhere to that organizations rules. Right now it looks like the NFAA is out and the ASA has the go ahead.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

reylamb said:


> Let's be honest here and get a few things straight. Anyone, from the NFAA, target manufacturer, or arrow manufacturer, that says they did not know about any discussions of arrow standards had their head in the sand. It was announced at the ATA show, it was announced by Mike T over on the ASA site, and it was announced here that the 3 big orgs had gotten together to decide on a standard. That was back in january. This was not a suprise to Easton.
> 
> Lets also be honest in at least one other thing. While many may not agree with the tactics Easton may or may not have done, their actions proteted their competitors. how many people shoot GT 30x or X cutters in doors, or CE Line jammers (or whatever they are called, indoors, and how many would have then had non-conforming arrows?
> 
> ...


12 midnight on tues western time zone is what I understand after 12 floor is closed till 09. Like I said thats how I interpreted it


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Funky- I will take 3 !!! that leaves you enuf?:tongue:


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Kstigall said:


> I would expect Easton has precisely built very large diameter aluminum pipe being produced and all they would need to is test, anodize and label for it to be an arrow.


Easton has produced, and may still, bicycle frame tubing, ski poles, and golf club shafts out of aluminum tubing, and the bicycle frame tubing out of aluminum/carbon tubing like ACC arrow shafts, just much larger.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

reylamb said:


> Furthermore, has anyone checked to see if: a. this emergency meeting was within the by-laws of the constitution; or b. if there was enough directors present to establish a quorom?


I have not checked the bylaws, will tonight.

About the quorum, at the regular meeting, there were 55 weighted director votes. I was told there were 48 at the emergency meeting. Apparently, the emergency meeting was called when directors showed up for the banquet.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

reylamb said:


> ...
> 
> Furthermore, has anyone checked to see if: a. this emergency meeting was within the by-laws of the constitution; or b. if there was enough directors present to establish a quorom?





> C. Duties:
> 1. President:
> 1.1 The President shall preside at all general session, mail or conference call meetings
> of the NFAA Council, Board of Directors, or any duly constituted body. The
> ...





> C. Annual Meeting:
> 1. The Board of Director shall meet at least annually at a time and place designated by the
> Council after review of all bids and other sites obtained by the Executive Secretary. The
> meeting shall be set at a site most economical and prudent to the members and state
> ...


I don't see anything that says they have to have a minimum number of directors present for an emergency meeting.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The president is empowered to call an emergency board meeting under Art. V.C.1.6 on page 14.


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

*Just Curious*

why the "emergency" about arrow diameter
fat shafts werent born last nite
what made this agenda so urgent all of the sudden?


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> why the "emergency" about arrow diameter
> fat shafts werent born last nite
> what made this agenda so urgent all of the sudden?


$3,000,000 dollars:wink:


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Seems to me the Presidents empowerment (or at least HIS view of his power) is part of the problem?


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

JAVI said:


> $3,000,000 dollars:wink:


send me 3,000,000 and I'll make a decision
then Y'all can be pissed at me
with 3 mill .....I WON'T CARE !!!!:wink:


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Why the emergency? 1 company's ability to keep raising the bar by continually making bigger shafts and the rest of the arrow company's not being able to financially keep up therefore not being able to compete.Consumers do bear some of the blame but if you want to win and others are shooting a much larger shaft then you are??? you figure it out.


----------



## bhtr3d (Feb 13, 2004)

I believe it is mentioned earlier in the by-laws; the amount of persons you need for a quorum.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

bhtr3d said:


> I believe it is mentioned earlier in the by-laws; the amount of persons you need for a quorum.





> D. Quorum: At all meetings of the NFAA Council, seven members shall constitute a quorum
> including conference calls.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

reylamb said:


> Let's be honest here and get a few things straight. Anyone, from the NFAA, target manufacturer, or arrow manufacturer, that says they did not know about any discussions of arrow standards had their head in the sand. It was announced at the ATA show, it was announced by Mike T over on the ASA site, and it was announced here that the 3 big orgs had gotten together to decide on a standard. That was back in january. This was not a suprise to Easton.
> 
> Lets also be honest in at least one other thing. While many may not agree with the tactics Easton may or may not have done, their actions proteted their competitors. how many people shoot GT 30x or X cutters in doors, or CE Line jammers (or whatever they are called, indoors, and how many would have then had non-conforming arrows?
> 
> ...


In the NFAA By-Laws the President _can_ call an emergency meeting. 

:embara: I did spend most of the morning reviewing "Roberts Rules of Order".
From what I gathered, which was more than I could contain in my pea brain, the motion to "Reconsider" or to "Rescind" at the emergency meeting was within the guidelines. 

A motion to "Reconsider" "must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side" along with other criteria. The "vote" also may have been or could have been "Rescinded". Whether the "vote" was reconsidered or rescinded doesn't matter as it has the same effect. Besides, does it really matter if it was or wasn't technically done precisely by "Roberts Rules of Order"? I don't think it does. I think the focus should be on "the here and now".


----------



## bigtommy (Feb 28, 2006)

I personally think that they should limit arrow size to our standard size shaft that most of use for hunting. What difference would it make it would be equal because everyone would be shooting that size.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

bigtommy said:


> I personally think that they should limit arrow size to our standard size shaft that most of use for hunting. What difference would it make it would be equal because everyone would be shooting that size.


I use a Xcutter 24s have used 25s aluminums:wink:


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Why not go for the gusto and just say everyone must use 2315s? Golf says you can only use certain balls, Nascar says you must use these tires, and the NBA plays with only one ball. :wink:


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

Bobmuley said:


> Why not go for the gusto and just say everyone must use 2315s? Golf says you can only use certain balls, Nascar says you must use these tires, and the NBA plays with only one ball. :wink:


Bob you make a really good point as does alot of others who want the 23 series. How many of us have spent countless hours and dollars finding the arrow that best shoots for us I know I have.
2 yrs to get my IBO setup where I feel the most comfortable Xcutter Ultralite
1 yr NFAA Indoor setup and it just so happens 30 Xs shoot and group better than 23,24,25,26,27 series eastons and paper tune the best for my setup also.
25,26 series have been around 20 + years never been an issue until now.
IMO I feel its more of the standardization NAA FITA in most minds than anything and I feel the NFAA should stand alone and not conform. Only My Personal Opinion.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

This is the exact reason archery is still just a side note in sports! Oh wait!! In Europe archery is on prime time TV and they have standardized venues??? HUH? very interesting? Do you think the NFAA and other archery orgs will ever get the hint?


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Tuning isn't too aweful hard, even with arrow restrictions. 

Short draw, there's plenty of light spined arrows in 23xx and smaller arrows. All the options for softening 23's would be the same as softening a 2613, etc. 

Big ol GP like arms and you don't want to back the poundage off? Slide a 2014 two thirds of the way down a 2314. Stiffens them right up and gives excellent FOC and durability. ACC, 22 series, and several hunting shafts with excellent straightness can be had in very stiff spines and are smaller than anyone's proposed limits.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

I am quite sure i would be able to get the GT 23 size shaft to work for me.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Who or what group started the ball rolling? Arrow size was not on the Agenda.  Not that posted on the NFAA website. It takes X number of Directors to approve bringing forth something not on the Agenda.

We are told to look over Agenda items and get with our Directors with opinions. It's sort of hard to give a opinion when the item isn't there for us to review. Here's a Constitution or By-Law that could be ironed out dang quick; All items must be on Agenda on whatever deadline we have now. No item may be voted on until presented to the members for viewing in a timely fashion. Exception being that of physical danger to contestant, spectator or bystander (judges, target personnel, etc.).

At least the change would eliminate surprises for everybody.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

bigGP said:


> This is the exact reason archery is still just a side note in sports! Oh wait!! In Europe archery is on prime time TV and they have standardized venues??? HUH? very interesting? Do you think the NFAA and other archery orgs will ever get the hint?


no:wink:


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

I say Limit the size to 27/64's and be done with it. For good. Not all that much difference between the 26's and 27's. Weve been shooting 26 series shafts for waaaaay to long to have them tossed out the window. Limit it with whats in production as of now and put the cap there.


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

*I/O must happen to save this mess*



hammerheadpc said:


> I respectfully request an exlanation of this.
> Why do the targets need to change to implement I/O scoring?
> 
> yes, the scores will drop. Don't you see that's a GOOD thing? It rewards excellency in ACCURACY, not arrow diameter.
> ...


I agree and I think that makes 3 of us now.

The old vegas targets(same size had no X ring and were used for shoot off scoring'' inside out") and that maintained the integrity of the game.

The archers are supposedly better now, unless the integrity of the archers ,not the targets is the problem.

No shot gun archery.

But arrows must be available to all sizes of archer at all style of shooting, thats why all sizes of shafts are made, there's an entire population of potential archers that will be discreminated against if they cannot use the right shaft spined for their very long draw length.

Thats why they are made. Not for shotgun archery.

Be honest with your self and each other these things are degenerating our sport. If we don't get it under control, we'll loose all of the organizations in archery to turmoil, and law suits and unnessary rules that could of(and still can)be avoided by the shoot director saying this shoot scores I/O.

It's always with in his power when the quality and /or the safety of the turny are in jepardy, and the directors word is always final on shoot day !!!!!

A little honesty can eliminate a lot of unnessary rules.

If joe archer can't get their act together, some high $$ promoter will be glad to step in and take control of our failed ORGs and then none of the $$ will get back to the clubs/ and archers as it needs to, so the sport can regenerate, instead of degenerate as it is doing now.

Its just part of the wake up I hope you-all will hear it.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*See this for what it really is.*

You guys who are talking about inside out scoring are missing the point. Easton threatened the NFAA if they didn't rescind the the 9.3 rule. What do you think would happen if the NFAA would have passed an inside out rule?

When I first heard about this I thought that it was just about not consulting with the mfrs. before the decision was made and that we could simply "table" this for a year so everyone could catch up. I realize now that I missed the point. This isn't about existing inventory in bigger shafts, this is about the fact that Easton can cheaply build an arrow that their competition can't and by protecting that monopoly the company can corner our piece of the market. This isn't just about selling more arrows to target archers, it's about driving the competition out and they strong armed us to get it done. Easton is truly the bad guy here and they are taking advantage of their size and money. Can they do it? Of course, it's their money and they can spend it as they like. Did the NFAA have to cave under Easton's heavy handed thumb and become accomplices to this power play? Of course they did. I predict that this issue never makes it to the table again so long as Easton has a competitive advantage in mass producing 27xx+ arrows. 

The only players with the ability to foil what I feel is a shameful power play is the customer. Collectively, we pull Easton's strings and I think it's time to jerk back. Easton makes a great product, but when they use their considerable power and wealth to force us to do what they want instead of what we as competitors and members feel is best for our sport then they no longer deserve our business. If you believe that competition is good for the consumer, and that the NFAA should be able to determine its own destiny I respectfully suggest that you consider supporting arrow manufacturers other than Easton until they get our message to rescind their decision to push our organization around.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

bigGP said:


> I am quite sure i would be able to get the GT 23 size shaft to work for me.


GT doesnt make a 23s arrow NOW they do carry a 22s ultralite. And the Xcutter just misses the 24s size:wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

AlChick said:


> You guys who are talking about inside out scoring are missing the point. Easton threatened the NFAA if they didn't rescind the the 9.3 rule. What do you think would happen if the NFAA would have passed an inside out rule?
> 
> When I first heard about this I thought that it was just about not consulting with the mfrs. before the decision was made and that we could simply "table" this for a year so everyone could catch up. I realize now that I missed the point. This isn't about existing inventory in bigger shafts, this is about the fact that Easton can cheaply build an arrow that their competition can't and by protecting that monopoly the company can corner our piece of the market. This isn't just about selling more arrows to target archers, it's about driving the competition out and they strong armed us to get it done. Easton is truly the bad guy here and they are taking advantage of their size and money. Can they do it? Of course, it's their money and they can spend it as they like. Did the NFAA have to cave under Easton's heavy handed thumb and become accomplices to this power play? Of course they did. I predict that this issue never makes it to the table again so long as Easton has a competitive advantage in mass producing 27xx+ arrows.
> 
> The only players with the ability to foil what I feel is a shameful power play is the customer. Collectively, we pull Easton's strings and I think it's time to jerk back. Easton makes a great product, but when they use their considerable power and wealth to force us to do what they want instead of what we as competitors and members feel is best for our sport then they no longer deserve our business. If you believe that competition is good for the consumer, and that the NFAA should be able to determine its own destiny I respectfully suggest that you consider supporting arrow manufacturers other than Easton until they get our message to rescind their decision to push our organization around.


But, But, But If you don't buy Easton, Archery will simply disappear off the face of the earth! No Field, No FITA, 3D all will simply cease to exist without the big E.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> But, But, But If you don't buy Easton, Archery will simply disappear off the face of the earth! No Field, No FITA, 3D all will simply cease to exist without the big E.


As much as I hate to admit it... that isn't far from the real truth... without their money many of the organizations would suffer and some could fold..


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

AlChick said:


> You guys who are talking about inside out scoring are missing the point. Easton threatened the NFAA if they didn't rescind the the 9.3 rule. What do you think would happen if the NFAA would have passed an inside out rule?
> 
> When I first heard about this I thought that it was just about not consulting with the mfrs. before the decision was made and that we could simply "table" this for a year so everyone could catch up. I realize now that I missed the point. This isn't about existing inventory in bigger shafts, this is about the fact that Easton can cheaply build an arrow that their competition can't and by protecting that monopoly the company can corner our piece of the market. This isn't just about selling more arrows to target archers, it's about driving the competition out and they strong armed us to get it done. Easton is truly the bad guy here and they are taking advantage of their size and money. Can they do it? Of course, it's their money and they can spend it as they like. Did the NFAA have to cave under Easton's heavy handed thumb and become accomplices to this power play? Of course they did. I predict that this issue never makes it to the table again so long as Easton has a competitive advantage in mass producing 27xx+ arrows.
> 
> The only players with the ability to foil what I feel is a shameful power play is the customer. Collectively, we pull Easton's strings and I think it's time to jerk back. Easton makes a great product, but when they use their considerable power and wealth to force us to do what they want instead of what we as competitors and members feel is best for our sport then they no longer deserve our business. If you believe that competition is good for the consumer, and that the NFAA should be able to determine its own destiny I respectfully suggest that you consider supporting arrow manufacturers other than Easton until they get our message to rescind their decision to push our organization around.


AC Im gonna agree to disagree until the verdict comes in after VEGAS maybe E did flex some muscles and maybe they didnt. Whose to say but........?????
As far as inventory we sell alot of 24,25,26 series arrows and have several dozen in stock just for our target archers so the grand picture would be the effect a limit would have on the smaller archery shops not just the big E.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

JAVI said:


> As much as I hate to admit it... that isn't far from the real truth... without their money many of the organizations would suffer and some could fold..


Like that would be a bad thing? Bunch of jokers with "This space for Let" on their foreheads, so far removed from their memberships they make Chile look well run, go under, let me know where to send the wreath:wink:


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

bigGP said:


> This is the exact reason archery is still just a side note in sports! Oh wait!! In Europe archery is on prime time TV and they have standardized venues??? HUH? very interesting? Do you think the NFAA and other archery orgs will ever get the hint?


Ok lets just let the goverment take our guns why not other countries have gun control.

OK lets just let anyone who wants come into our country why not....

There is alot on TV to do with archery. Whats so SWEET about AMERICA we have FREEDOM and dont like to CONFORM to others BELIEFS. (MOST AMERICANS THAT IS)

I think IMO to many people are watching the CHANGE thingy in the primaries
and not the whole picture UNITY as in UNITED JMO

So my point would be why not stand behind the NFAA IBO ASA as well as EASTON and any of their decisions instead of BUSTIN their 00 Are they not AMERICAN BRED ORGS? And have their own standards? If we promote our american orgs like the europeans koreans ETC do maybe we would get a little more CREDIT, EXPOSURE ????? JUST MAYBE?????

or maybe EASTON should just say hey will go to KOREA and mfg. hmmmm maybe they will appreciate us more???? Another american company gone loss of american jobs hmmmmm maybe??????I cant say Im just a spec on earth but I do know change isnt always the answer.
Anyways on a lighter note see yall at STATE field and NATIONAL field shoots........

RESPECTFULLY MIKE


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

xxspot-GT would have made a 23 if the NFAA could have held their water.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

bigGP said:


> xxspot-GT would have made a 23 if the NFAA could have held their water.


Yes im sure and I agree with you SIR:wink:


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

JAVI said:


> As much as I hate to admit it... that isn't far from the real truth... without their money many of the organizations would suffer and some could fold..


That's not their money, that's our money and if we give it to someone else they can support the sport of archery. The game exists because we play it, not because some equipment manufacturer pays for it.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

AlChick said:


> That's not their money, that's our money and if we give it to someone else they can support the sport of archery. The game exists because we play it, not because some equipment manufacturer pays for it.


I wish it was that simple... it would take years for anyone to catch up to Easton, Hoyt, Delta, and Easton's other interests... Do you really think that Gold Tip, Carbon Express or any other arrow manufacture can compete financially with Easton et al


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

AlChick said:


> That's not their money, that's our money and if we give it to someone else they can support the sport of archery. The game exists because we play it, not because some equipment manufacturer pays for it.


All Right, at least one person gets it. Manufacturers exist to serve the customer NOT the other way around. :thumbs_up


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> All Right, at least one person gets it. Manufacturers exist to serve the customer NOT the other way around. :thumbs_up



Tell that to Bill Gates...................


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Grey Eagle said:


> Tell that to Bill Gates...................


Yahoo's doing a pretty good job of _*that*_ right now


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> Yahoo's doing a pretty good job of _*that*_ right now


...as they drift toward the Great Financial Falls known as bankrupcy. :wink:


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Grey Eagle said:


> Tell that to Bill Gates...................


Actually, Gates does an outstanding job of anticipating what we want and providing it before we ask for it ,as opposed to Apple who is always telling us what we should want: But back to the point.

No one is naive enough to believe that Easton can be destroyed by a few target archers, but this scandalous travesty has happened because Easton knows that the little guys are struggling to compete with them and by controlling our choices they can force us to help them drive the small guys out of the market. We don't buy away from Easton because we think the company can't do without us. We buy to help the small guys stay in business. Competition provides choice, promotes innovation, and moderates prices. These are good things, and we need to vote with our feet and dollars to protect them. We are the only ones who can.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

carlosii said:


> ...as they drift toward the Great Financial Falls known as bankrupcy. :wink:


Hey, _*they*_ shaved a billion in yearly expenses. Kinda makes Easton with his 3 mill look like a punter now, doesn't it. Maybe archery needs to look elsewhere for a tyrant, ooops, benefactor.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

AlChick said:


> Actually, Gates does an outstanding job of anticipating what we want and providing it before we ask for it ,as opposed to Apple who is always telling us what we should want


 When using toxic cleaning products please follow the instructions and use adequate ventilation:nod:


----------



## metalarcher (Apr 8, 2006)

don't care ABOUT ALL THE POLITICS, I like big DIA ARROWS... and while they help….. (About 5 points and a few x's per 3 games for me), they sure ain’t a replacement for good shooting, which I stuggle with. Plus, if i/o’s are counted big hurts it would seem. I would think if a ruling were to be may it would consider the arrows already in the market, but I am sure it is more complicated that that.

As to "hurting butts" YOU GUYS ARE MORE EXPERT THAN I BUT, @ Wildwood, with the butts they have, I do not see this as a huge issue. Possibly not all "BUTTS" are the same?


----------



## metalarcher (Apr 8, 2006)

don't care ABOUT ALL THE POLITICS, I like big DIA ARROWS... and while they help….. (About 5 points and a few x's per 3 games for me), they sure ain’t a replacement for good shooting, which I stuggle with. Plus, if i/o’s are counted big hurts it would seem. I would think if a ruling were to be made it would consider the arrows already in the market, but I am sure it is more complicated that that.

As to "hurting butts" YOU GUYS ARE MORE EXPERT THAN I BUT, @ Wildwood, with the butts they have, I do not see this as a huge issue. Possibly not all "BUTTS" are the same?


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Like that would be a bad thing? Bunch of jokers with "This space for Let" on their foreheads, so far removed from their memberships they make Chile look well run, go under, let me know where to send the wreath:wink:


Hut...if I had a printing company, I would pancake an albino fawn from Chile and print that post out...well played:first:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Doc said:


> When using toxic cleaning products please follow the instructions and use adequate ventilation:nod:


The Apple Lobby rears it's head once again Enjoy your Newton:wink:


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> Like that would be a bad thing? Bunch of jokers with "This space for Let" on their foreheads, so far removed from their memberships they make Chile look well run, go under, let me know where to send the wreath:wink:


Yes! And JAVI yes! 

If we the archers don't get ourselfs under control, the money makers that we threaten with our wrong judgements and rules will take over, buying control or in the courts.

As the shop owners say they sell lrg dia shafts to all walks not to just target shooters. What right do we have to say that those archers can't shoot targets with us even if they find a place to fit in.

This is my point!!!!!!! Why do we punish those, not even involved yet , for the acts of those that need controling.

If we are going to control shotgun archery we must not control the size of the barrel but the concept.

NFAA can only get stronger with strong clubs, good decisions, and more voices heard.

Or we can just sit back and watch the takeover of promoters, throw-away ranges, and targets, with ALLLLL the shoot $$$$$ going into someones pocket and not back to the clubs and archers with yr round ranges.... We are loosing them every day. Any new local ranges close to you ??

THAT IS THE POINT NOT WHAT Mr ARCHERY SAID TO HURT OUR FEELINGS 

Archers only strength is in their unity and" self control " which is an archers greatest tool.

Listen to the wining "I want to use a shotgun shaft, just not THAT BIG so we'll vote for 16 ga and out law 12 & 10 ga shotgun archery shafts. Yes it is stupid THINK ABOUT IT . And you had better start now. 

THI IS THE WAKE UP CALL--ONE OF MANY, TO MANY.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> The Apple Lobby rears it's head once again Enjoy your Newton:wink:


I left them in the Yugo


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Hey, _*they*_ shaved a billion in yearly expenses. Kinda makes Easton with his 3 mill look like a punter now, doesn't it. Maybe archery needs to look elsewhere for a tyrant, ooops, benefactor.



I thought the correct term was benevolent dictator............


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Grey Eagle said:


> I thought the correct term was benevolent dictator............


No I'm pretty sure it's tyrant. A benevolent dictator actually affect positive changes for the constituents. The tyrant is out for himself while convincing you he's "working for the common good".


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*I suppose you're right*



Doc said:


> When using toxic cleaning products please follow the instructions and use adequate ventilation:nod:


Point taken. Please disregard the first paragraph of my last post.


----------



## Grey Eagle (May 23, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> No I'm pretty sure it's tyrant. A benevolent dictator actually affect positive changes for the constituents. *The tyrant is out for himself while convincing you he's "working for the common good*".


What was the question again


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> No I'm pretty sure it's tyrant. A benevolent dictator actually affect positive changes for the constituents. The tyrant is out for himself while convincing you he's "working for the common good".


No disrespect intended HUT......But everyone keeps referring back to the TYRANT "EASTON".
I shoot for GT and in NO way conected to EASTON in anyway other than I like some of their NOCKS.
1.If there was NO agenda for an arrow size restriction before said meetings in 08 VEGAS why did OUR IFAA NFAA national rep ask IFAA members their personal opinion well in advance of said meeting.
2.Why was said ITEM "arrow restriction" brought to the floor?
3.Why was an arrow COMMITTEE formed?
4.Why was a NAA official appointed to lead said COMMITTEE?
5.Was there in some way a HIDDEN agenda?
I could go on but I in NO way want a "PRIVATE SCHOOL" archery org or orgs! PERIOD what next WHITE PANTS on the line at NATS boy DIVOT would be effected:wink: Along with several good old boy archers who keep our sport alive. YOU go DIVOT!!!!

In closing My arguement :wink: There is alot of behind the scenes INFO that is missing.
And I think im gonna get with OUR State National rep to see if he has had any other priminetions as of lately LOTTERY maybe Come on Rock give me some winning #s


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

C Doyle 88 said:


> As the shop owners say they sell lrg dia shafts to all walks not to just target shooters. What right do we have to say that those archers can't shoot targets with us even if they find a place to fit in.
> 
> This is my point!!!!!!! Why do we punish those, not even involved yet , for the acts of those that need controling.


You must try to understand, there is good reasoning to the arrow size restriction and to drawing the line at the 9.3 mark. As the diameter of the arrow increases there is an increasing advantage given to shooters who can draw higher poundage bows with longer draw lengths. Restricting the arrow diameter to a size that the average shooter can easily fit into levels the playing field and places greater emphasis on skill rather than equipment and size advantages. That's the point of Gillingham showing up at a competition with long ridiculously large diameter arrows that no one else can buy. Gold Tip is highlighting two facts by this demonstration; They obviously can make but not mass produce such an arrow, and even if they did they could only benefit someone of Gillingham's obviously large physical size. 

Was this an attempt by Gold Tip to "manipulate" the NFAA to do what is best for Gold Tip? Undoubtedly so, but this seems more like a request for help from a little guy trying to survive as opposed to a muscle move by a large, multi-faceted conglomerate, to squeeze out their weaker competition.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*I dissagree*



AlChick said:


> You must try to understand, there is good reasoning to the arrow size restriction and to drawing the line at the 9.3 mark. As the diameter of the arrow increases there is an increasing advantage given to shooters who can draw higher poundage bows with longer draw lengths. Restricting the arrow diameter to a size that the average shooter can easily fit into levels the playing field and places greater emphasis on skill rather than equipment and size advantages. That's the point of Gillingham showing up at a competition with long ridiculously large diameter arrows that no one else can buy. Gold Tip is highlighting two facts by this demonstration; They obviously can make but not mass produce such an arrow, and even if they did they could only benefit someone of Gillingham's obviously large physical size.
> 
> Was this an attempt by Gold Tip to "manipulate" the NFAA to do what is best for Gold Tip? Undoubtedly so, but this seems more like a request for help from a little guy trying to survive as opposed to a muscle move by a large, multi-faceted conglomerate, to squeeze out their weaker competition.


This rulling had nothing to do with Goldtip. I talk with my state director who was there. It was overwhelming excepted by the vote. Had nothing to do with any arrow manufactuer but whats best for archery and NFAA
DB


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

AlChick said:


> You must try to understand, there is good reasoning to the arrow size restriction and to drawing the line at the 9.3 mark. As the diameter of the arrow increases there is an increasing advantage given to shooters who can draw higher poundage bows with longer draw lengths. Restricting the arrow diameter to a size that the average shooter can easily fit into levels the playing field and places greater emphasis on skill rather than equipment and size advantages. That's the point of Gillingham showing up at a competition with long ridiculously large diameter arrows that no one else can buy. Gold Tip is highlighting two facts by this demonstration; They obviously can make but not mass produce such an arrow, and even if they did they could only benefit someone of Gillingham's obviously large physical size.
> 
> Was this an attempt by Gold Tip to "manipulate" the NFAA to do what is best for Gold Tip? Undoubtedly so, but this seems more like a request for help from a little guy trying to survive as opposed to a muscle move by a large, multi-faceted conglomerate, to squeeze out their weaker competition.


And by No means do I feel Tim's Arrow was to muscle a 9.3 restriction but a CAP or Restriction of current arrow size 27s to stop the arrow wars period.
Not that GT couldnt manufacture a 23s but I just dont believe He or They were SHOOTING for 9.3 standard JMO
Regardless someone somewhere was holding the bow the wrong way that SMARTED:wink:


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

Daniel Boone said:


> This rulling had nothing to do with Goldtip. I talk with my state director who was there. It was overwhelming excepted by the vote. Had nothing to do with any arrow manufactuer but whats best for archery and NFAA
> DB


DB TO THE RESCUE SWEETTTTT


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*You missed my point*



Daniel Boone said:


> This rulling had nothing to do with Goldtip. I talk with my state director who was there. It was overwhelming excepted by the vote. Had nothing to do with any arrow manufactuer but whats best for archery and NFAA
> DB


DB, I am certain you are correct. Gold Tip was not directly involved in this meeting nor do I imagine was it discussed. I merely point out that it is very unusual for a manufacturer to give a uniquely new product to its top shooter without a plan to market it to the masses next. The only explanation for such an action can be that they were trying to make a point and force the NFAA to act, as they did, by considering and voting for an arrow size restriction.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Any standard would do.*



xxSPOTTSxx said:


> And by No means do I feel Tim's Arrow was to muscle a 9.3 restriction but a CAP or Restriction of current arrow size 27s to stop the arrow wars period.
> Not that GT couldnt manufacture a 23s but I just dont believe He or They were SHOOTING for 9.3 standard JMO
> Regardless someone somewhere was holding the bow the wrong way that SMARTED:wink:


I can't say what standard GT was hoping for, but I think it's fairly obvious that they were politicing for a standard to be set. That's my point.


----------



## KH400 (Jan 17, 2008)

Hutnicks said:


> All Right, at least one person gets it. Manufacturers exist to serve the customer NOT the other way around. :thumbs_up


I going to technically disagree...manufacturers, in fact, all businesses, exist to make money. If they aren't in it to make money, they go away. HOW they make money..._that's_ where service to the customer comes in. Easton made a calculated business decision to push the issue. Time will tell if it was a wise business decision. Personally, I think it was short-sighted.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

KH400 said:


> I going to technically disagree...manufacturers, in fact, all businesses, exist to make money. If they aren't in it to make money, they go away. HOW they make money..._that's_ where service to the customer comes in. Easton made a calculated business decision to push the issue. Time will tell if it was a wise business decision. Personally, I think it was short-sighted.


You are exactly right, but when you say "Time will tell..." that seems a bit vague. Whether or not this was a bad decision on Easton's part is entirely related to what we as consumers make of it. If we continue as before and ignore that it happened then it was a good decision. If we collectively and purposefully award greater market share to Easton's competitors then it was a bad decision.


----------



## KH400 (Jan 17, 2008)

AlChick said:


> You are exactly right, but when you say "Time will tell..." that seems a bit vague. Whether or not this was a bad decision on Easton's part is entirely related to what we as consumers make of it. If we continue as before and ignore that it happened then it was a good decision. If we collectively and purposefully award greater market share to Easton's competitors then it was a bad decision.


Oh, have no fear...I've sent Easton a letter already (since there is no email address on their website) and I will be speaking with my spending in the future. Time will tell if enough of us are angry enough to act or if more of us just don't care. That's all I'm saying. They are banking on our apathy and fear. I ain't makin' no deposits.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Imagine that*

I went out to the Easton Archery website and verified for myself what I had read previously, that Easton does not post an email address. I think that alone speaks volumes about Easton's interest in customer feedback. They did, however, post a phone number so I dialed it and asked for Customer Service. I told the person who answered that as an Easton customer I was disappointed in the way Easton handled matters at the recent NFAA meeting in Vegas. She referred my call to someone in management (probably and executive secretary) and I repeated my reason for contacting them. Throughout the conversation I remained cordial and well modulated while remaining firm about my belief that I resented the way they pushed my organization around by threatening to retract their money. The response that I received was that the top management was in Vegas and that she could not respond because she was not aware of this matter. She did, however, take my phone number and offered to have someone call me when management returned.

I urge everyone who feels that what happened in Vegas was wrong to call 801-539-1400 and tell Easton how you feel. Thousands of calls from concerned citizens literally stopped the US Senate from passing the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill several weeks back. Certainly hundreds of calls from polite but concerned customers can move Easton off their position too. If you want change, act. A flood of calls is the surest and quickest way to make our voice be heard. It's such an easy thing to do.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

AlChick said:


> I went out to the Easton Archery website and verified for myself what I had read previously, that Easton does not post an email address. I think that alone speaks volumes about Easton's interest in customer feedback. They did, however, post a phone number so I dialed it and asked for Customer Service. I told the person who answered that as an Easton customer I was disappointed in the way Easton handled matters at the recent NFAA meeting in Vegas. She referred my call to someone in management (probably and executive secretary) and I repeated my reason for contacting them. Throughout the conversation I remained cordial and well modulated while remaining firm about my belief that I resented the way they pushed my organization around by threatening to retract their money. The response that I received was that the top management was in Vegas and that she could not respond because she was not aware of this matter. She did, however, take my phone number and offered to have someone call me when management returned.
> 
> I urge everyone who feels that what happened in Vegas was wrong to call 801-539-1400 and tell Easton how you feel. Thousands of calls from concerned citizens literally stopped the US Senate from passing the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill several weeks back. Certainly hundreds of calls from polite but concerned customers can move Easton off their position too. If you want change, act. A flood of calls is the surest and quickest way to make our voice be heard. It's such an easy thing to do.


Again i see the WORD CHANGE......By No means would I grab the BULL yet until there is some more CLARITY.


----------



## huntelk (Jan 11, 2004)

*wow, 15 pages!*

I'm sure ole "Click" is smiling big about all this stink he and GT started with their stunt in Iowa.

Bring'em to Vegas-hopefully you get beat like you did in Iowa:nyah:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Sponsorship is mandatory if you expect to have well organized tournaments with top payouts. It isn't Easton that is to blame in this instance, it is the organization that put all it's eggs into one basket.. I don't even blame the NFAA for waffling on this, they had no choice under the circumstances. The mistake was in allowing Easton to get a strangle hold on their figurative balls with the $3,000,000 donation. Now what the NFAA needs to do is pony up and let Easton take over the entire operation. The NFAA and it's current structure is a dinosaur, the membership has no say in the operations and to be truthful we shouldn't. The NFAA should concentrate on national level tournaments and the promotion of those tournaments. Let the state organizations and the local clubs promote the growth of archery at a local level. The local clubs can run their tournaments any way they want, it is only important to the participants. But for the national and international tournaments to grow we need standardization and even more importantly sponsorship. 

In the overall scheme of things I don't care if your local range or club wants a 9.3mm or a 1” arrow size limitation but I do care that there is some standardization in the national and international venues and not just in arrow size but in age brackets and equipment. This size issue is primarily about indoor archery, and 3-D, field and outdoor FITA/NAA will not be affected to any great extent. I want to see competitive archery grow and the tournament participation increase along with payouts and kicking sponsorship in the gonads ain't gonna do it...


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> No disrespect intended HUT......But everyone keeps referring back to the TYRANT "EASTON".
> I shoot for GT and in NO way conected to EASTON in anyway other than I like some of their NOCKS.
> 1.If there was NO agenda for an arrow size restriction before said meetings in 08 VEGAS why did OUR IFAA NFAA national rep ask IFAA members their personal opinion well in advance of said meeting.
> 2.Why was said ITEM "arrow restriction" brought to the floor?
> ...


 Your absolutely right there's more to this than meets the eye. You don't ring in an "Emergency Meeting" due to an "Oh by the way, you seem to have overlooked......." phone call. If it were done for such small reasons it would have happened after the "Prototype" monster GT demo

Methinks, as usual the fish stinks from the head down, but in this case it's a two headed fish.


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> Hey, _*they*_ shaved a billion in yearly expenses. Kinda makes Easton with his 3 mill look like a punter now, doesn't it. Maybe archery needs to look elsewhere for a tyrant, ooops, benefactor.


Look closely they are already here.

History---Savage arms in$ truble in late 80s bought out buy private investment group with billions in budget.

Now they buy Bowtec, both of which are owned by outside private $$$$$ and could be desolved with a key stroke 'delete' cause they aren't public stock.

The money is not a factor when control is the goal.

There's plenty of money available for those who would buy all the archery organizations for one control, and non profit clubs is the individules only defence, but they are getting weaker every day.

We may only be able to shoot on the front line for the QUEEN---------------------------AGAIN---------!!!!!!!


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Grey Eagle said:


> What was the question again


No question just a debate of the use of benevolent.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*I talk with my state director*

He assured me hopefully next year this will be reconsidered next year. I appreciate everthing Easton and other arrow manufactuers do for archery. 

I appreciate the state directors for voting honestly and doing whats best for all.:wink: 

Just cant please everyone.

D


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

KH400 said:


> I going to technically disagree...manufacturers, in fact, all businesses, exist to make money. If they aren't in it to make money, they go away. HOW they make money..._that's_ where service to the customer comes in. Easton made a calculated business decision to push the issue. Time will tell if it was a wise business decision. Personally, I think it was short-sighted.


No matter how you want to slice it Easton is in the archery business to make money,yes. They got there by responding to market demands (and buying and emasculating the greatest bow company on the planet). They did not create the market in any way shape or form and it sure does not belong to them, or for that matter owe them some moral debt.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*I hope you're right.*



Daniel Boone said:


> He assured me hopefully next year this will be reconsidered next year. I appreciate everthing Easton and other arrow manufactuers do for archery.
> 
> I appreciate the state directors for voting honestly and doing whats best for all.:wink:
> 
> ...


DB, I hope you are right, but I'll bet you aren't. I'll buy you dinner in Louisville next year if this same rule gets passed at the next meeting in Vegas. If not will you pony up? I know you don't know me, but either way, we'll likely end up friends when the steaks have been devoured and we're drinking our after dinner coffee.

Al


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

huntelk said:


> I'm sure ole "Click" is smiling big about all this stink he and GT started with their stunt in Iowa.
> 
> Bring'em to Vegas-hopefully you get beat like you did in Iowa:nyah:


And for Tim G to utilize a venue like Iowa and Vegas to prove there needs to be a CAP on arrow size then KUDOs to Tim...But in the same breath better look out if Timmy uses any of his GTs IM sure he can hold his own and this coming from a C. BOOOOOBOOOOWWWW fan:wink:


----------



## ARROWHNTR (Jul 31, 2003)

The purpose of Gillinghams arrows was to draw attention to this arrow size matter, and get "A" size restriction in place. Although Tim felt like 26/64 was a good size because all major manufactures have products that meet that size, all he was after was a restriction of any size!

The problem is not that GT or anyone else cant build a differnt size arrow, but where does it stop, and where is the line drawn. If GT builds a 27/64 arrow whats to stop Easton from building a 28 or 29 or 30. But the problem is if GT builds a 28/64 arrow Easton is going to push there weight around and put a restriction at 27/64, therefore costing GT thousands in tooling and engineering expenses!

The issue is not so much about what the restriction is, but there is a restriction so that one company cannot continue to have an unfair advantage in the marketplace due to the amount of money they give as a sponsor.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

I still cant see how they can cap it and say 23's will be the largest shaft when theres are already 26 and 27's out there. It isnt the NAA. If they are gonna cap it they should do it right now with the 27's. They are in production and should be the largest size we can use. I dont NAA b/c of the arrow restrictions. I can;t afford to have a 4th bow setup just to shoot a 23 series shaft.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

njshadowwalker said:


> I still cant see how they can cap it and say 23's will be the largest shaft when theres are already 26 and 27's out there. It isnt the NAA. If they are gonna cap it they should do it right now with the 27's. They are in production and should be the largest size we can use. I dont NAA b/c of the arrow restrictions. I can;t afford to have a 4th bow setup just to shoot a 23 series shaft.


HMMMMM you might be onto something wouldnt it benefit the NAA if there was a size restriction of 9.3?
Maybe shooter registration,Membership? 
Taking some upset members from the NFAA,Making them the largest archery ORG.?????NAHHHHH


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

njshadowwalker said:


> I still cant see how they can cap it and say 23's will be the largest shaft when theres are already 26 and 27's out there. It isnt the NAA. If they are gonna cap it they should do it right now with the 27's. They are in production and should be the largest size we can use. I dont NAA b/c of the arrow restrictions. I can;t afford to have a 4th bow setup just to shoot a 23 series shaft.


There's a good point! If all of competitive archery was standardized on one maximum diameter you could shoot the same bow for all indoor target competitions.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> HMMMMM you might be onto something wouldnt it benefit the NAA if there was a size restriction of 9.3?
> Maybe shooter registration,Membership?
> Taking some upset members from the NFAA,Making them the largest archery ORG.?????NAHHHHH


If the hinted at merger between the NAA and NFAA happens that will not be an issue now will it...:wink:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

AlChick said:


> There's a good point! If all of competitive archery was standardized on one maximum diameter you could shoot the same bow for all indoor target competitions.


Ya think...:wink:


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

AlChick said:


> There's a good point! If all of competitive archery was standardized on one maximum diameter you could shoot the same bow for all indoor target competitions.


Yes very true. But what do i do with the 3 dozen X jammers i have setup? And what does Goldtip and Carbon Express do with all their larger shafts? Hell what will easton do with all of their 24 and larger size shafts. Honestly...the serious shooter will change if need be but the amount of guys who shoot and go to the bigger shoots for the fun will not retool and keep shooting. Alot of the average Joe shooters wont wanna fork the money over for new gear as little as it may be. If we are gonna cap it, do it with 27's. They are in production and therefore are legal. Cap it there and go to inside X's for shootoffs like it is now. Thats where the larger shafts will KILL YOU. Then at least itll have it benefit but at the same time its set backs.

The average shooter might shoot those 2712's to pick up a handful of points, but the pro's don't have to.


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

AlChick said:


> There's a good point! If all of competitive archery was standardized on one maximum diameter you could shoot the same bow for all indoor target competitions.


That is in debate here
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=642268


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

I cant remember who it was....I wanna say maybe Larry Wise (i could be wrong) who showed up at a shoot with freaking conduit and homemade points. It took out the whole center X. Thats where the whole "any arrow in production and from a manufacturer" came from. cap it now and keep the NAA and NFAA separate. Whats next? ASA and IBO unite?

Cmon now.

BTW i shoot X jammers not 27's so im not trying to preach so i can shoot 27's. Just pisses me off that now my arrows may be rendered useless when they are finlly flying like darts


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

njshadowwalker said:


> Yes very true. But what do i do with the 3 dozen X jammers i have setup? And what does Goldtip and Carbon Express do with all their larger shafts? Hell what will easton do with all of their 24 and larger size shafts. Honestly...the serious shooter will change if need be but the amount of guys who shoot and go to the bigger shoots for the fun will not retool and keep shooting. Alot of the average Joe shooters wont wanna fork the money over for new gear as little as it may be. If we are gonna cap it, do it with 27's. They are in production and therefore are legal. Cap it there and go to inside X's for shootoffs like it is now. Thats where the larger shafts will KILL YOU. Then at least itll have it benefit but at the same time its set backs.
> 
> The average shooter might shoot those 2712's to pick up a handful of points, but the pro's don't have to.


Regarding the shooters, compared to the expense of traveling to and staying for a major NFAA shoot, a dozen aluminium arrows is a drop in the bucket. Regarding the manufacturers, they will recoup their loss by selling all those new smaller arrows that we each will need to buy.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

The NFAA split from the NAA 69 years ago... I think the merger or reuniting of the two is probably inevitable at some point. And has supposedly been spoken of in darkened cooperate offices...


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

JAVI said:


> The NFAA split from the NAA 69 years ago... I think the merger or reuniting of the two is probably inevitable at some point. And has supposedly been spoken of in darkened cooperate offices...


I may be out in LaLa Land about this, but here in Wisconsin the WFAA and the WAA recently merged and so far, all I see is benefits. Two weeks ago I shot in my first 25 meter state championship. I stood on the line with the same guys that I normally expect to see and enjoyed the challenge. Yes the targets are more colorful and the distances are funny but delivering an arrow to the center of a circle felt the same; and no, I didn't need to wear white pants. I did shoot a different bow because my regular target bow was set up for 2512s. Next year, I'll be shooting something under 9.3mm regardless of what the NFAA requires. I thought they would be X7s, but perhaps not now.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

AlChick said:


> I may be out in LaLa Land about this, but here in Wisconsin the WFAA and the WAA recently merged and so far, all I see is benefits. Two weeks ago I shot in my first 25 meter state championship. I stood on the line with the same guys that I normally expect to see and enjoyed the challenge. Yes the targets are more colorful and the distances are funny but delivering an arrow to the center of a circle felt the same; and no, I didn't need to wear white pants. I did shoot a different bow because my regular target bow was set up for 2512s. Next year, I'll be shooting something under 9.3mm regardless of what the NFAA requires. I thought they would be X7s, but perhaps not now.


But....we should not be forced to shoot a different arrow now when weve been shooting the larger shafts for a long time already. Should be cool to see how a guy with a 30" draw makes 23's fly.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

JAVI said:


> If the hinted at merger between the NAA and NFAA happens that will not be an issue now will it...:wink:


Kinda been my point JAVI in most of my post on this thread.

A little history here.
When Paul's Archery was here locally Paul the father of Rick Mckinney (Victory)
They being Paul's promoted all fathems of archery daily.
Field was huge in the 70s I suppose because it was a GIANT in the 80s
Being that I am Young 35 I started shooting in the late 70s early 80s My mother was an accomplished archer Womens Fingers Freestyle. All you heard about then was FIELD.
So where does the problem lye? Why is our being Indiana field archery at its all time low? and National attendance is down why?

We have International rounds,900 rounds,Field rds,Indoor rds Yes 3d hurt field Im sure. But in saying that its not the NFAA NAA FITA IBO ASA ETC. That has hurt our Favorite pasttime. Or field.

Its not having a 23s rule standardized in every organization so we all can shoot 1 archery setup.

It goes deeper than that. And like I have stated I do not wanna see the NFAA conform to a "PRIVATE SCHOOL " Org.

Thats what I love about the NFAA it has so much to offer just not the direction it had 20-30 yrs ago.

Back to an earlier question. Why is Indiana Field Archery on a decline. With No participation.

ONE word "PROMOTION" 
Whether it be Local My,Your,His fault or Nationally There fault It is all of our faults.

Just like my memories of PAULS ARCHERY when Field was KING.
PAULS PROMOTED IT daily all fathems.

Do we have that today in our ARCHERY SHOPS, ARCHERY ORGS.

In Indiana at STATE this year Our NASP has GROWN from 180 shooters 07'
to 480 shooters this year with them holding regional shoots next year to qualify for state.

Is that a step in the right direction sure. Its our youth creating a memory of "PAULS ARCHERY" having some direction.

Not Conforming to other Organizations standards And blameing Easton for its so called strong arming.
Or Tims Display at IOWA to prove a noble point and then take slack for it.

The problem therefore lyes within me, you, them Im only in my 2nd year as an affiliate of the IFAA but I hope in 20 yrs Ican look back and say HEY I HELPED MAKE FIELD KING AGAIN.
Like I stated in an earlier Post Im just a small spec in this world but I want my Pauls memory to return to my favorite pastime.
RESPECTFULLY MIKE


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

njshadowwalker said:


> But....we should not be forced to shoot a different arrow now when weve been shooting the larger shafts for a long time already. Should be cool to see how a guy with a 30" draw makes 23's fly.


Lots of people with longer draws already shooting 23 series... NAA has the limit for several years... :wink:


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

Yes that what separates them from the NFAA. So tell me what the difference is now if we cap it at 23? Arent the two pretty much the same? Why cap it now and not 10 years ago?


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> Kinda been my point JAVI in most of my post on this thread.
> 
> A little history here.
> When Paul's Archery was here locally Paul the father of Rick Mckinney (Victory)
> ...


Lack of promotion, television, soccer, t-ball, video games, 2 income families, bass fishing, air conditioning and many more things have contributed to the demise of field archery. The average archery shop owner couldn't even tell you what a field range is supposed to look like, let alone help you setup a bow to shoot it. The shops are about hunting and could in most cases not give a damn about target archery... If they even run a indoor league most would laugh if I showed up with my freestyle bow. I know several owners who haven't even got a clue of what a 2613 looks like or who Jeff Hopkins or Jesse Broadwater are... and if a bow is over 33 inches ATA then they don't want it on their shelf...

That's what is killing field archery... 3-D and every other type of archery except hunting..


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

njshadowwalker said:


> Yes that what separates them from the NFAA. So tell me what the difference is now if we cap it at 23? Arent the two pretty much the same? Why cap it now and not 10 years ago?


Well there is a little more difference than that.. In my opinion it should have been capped a long time ago... just as it is stupid for a 50 year old to shoot senior in the NAA, ASA and IBO but with the kids in NFAA... but the 70 - 80 year old directors don't want to change...:wink:


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> Lack of promotion, television, soccer, t-ball, video games, 2 income families, bass fishing, air conditioning and many more things have contributed to the demise of field archery. The average archery shop owner couldn't even tell you what a field range is supposed to look like, let alone help you setup a bow to shoot it. The shops are about hunting and could in most cases not give a damn about target archery... If they even run a indoor league most would laugh if I showed up with my freestyle bow. I know several owners who haven't even got a clue of what a 2613 looks like or who Jeff Hopkins or Jesse Broadwater are... and if a bow is over 33 inches ATA then they don't want it on their shelf...
> 
> That's what is killing field archery... 3-D and every other type of archery except hunting..


I work part time outta enjoyment at a local shop. When people ask if i shoot alot i say yep. They say what 3d. I say yep, 3d, field archery, indoor spots etc etc and then i hunt. They whats field archery? 

90% of the people who walk through the door come in to have arrows cut and a new sight or rest put on and setup. Most shoot 2 weeks before the season or might shoot a 3d shloot or two. Alot of guys are amazed that there are such things as 3d shoots and field shoots. And shoot a league? yeah right! Thats alot of committment to show up once a week.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> Well there is a little more difference than that.. In my opinion it should have been capped a long time ago... just as it is stupid for a 50 year old to shoot senior in the NAA, ASA and IBO but with the kids in NFAA... but the 70 - 80 year old directors don't want to change...:wink:



Yes capped before the manufactures started specifically making arrows for the venue. X jammer, Line Jammer, 30x pro etc etc...Now they are produced, they should stay. Cap it now with whats "in production" thats the fair way. If i have to change i will but thats means throwing $500 worth of new arrows and components away for nothing!


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

njshadowwalker said:


> Yes capped before the manufactures started specifically making arrows for the venue. X jammer, Line Jammer, 30x pro etc etc...Now they are produced, they should stay. Cap it now with whats "in production" thats the fair way. If i have to change i will but thats means throwing $500 worth of new arrows and components away for nothing!


Not really... the ruling would only affect sanctioned events.. local clubs and ranges could still allow whatever they want...

Plus knowing a little of the yield rates for manufacturing the larger diameter carbon arrows I don't think the manufacturers will cry if they have to stop making them...


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

JAVI said:


> Not really... the ruling would only affect sanctioned events.. local clubs and ranges could still allow whatever they want...


but why practice and setup for something you cant use in competition ?


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> but why practice and setup for something you cant use in competition ?


Question is... how many sanctioned shoots does the average shooter shoot???:wink:


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> Not really... the ruling would only affect sanctioned events.. local clubs and ranges could still allow whatever they want...
> 
> Plus knowing a little of the yield rates for manufacturing the larger diameter carbon arrows I don't think the manufacturers will cry if they have to stop making them...


Bugt wht good does that do me? I dont shoot local leagues for anything other then practice for the outdoor season. Now i shoot X jammers there but i have to shoot a different arrow for Hartford lets say or a state card shoot. So my setup is useless really.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> Question is... how many sanctioned shoots does the average shooter shoot???:wink:


I hit every NFAA shoot that i cn in my state. 15 or so i supposed indoor a year plus leagues 3 days a week. And ill shoot hartford. Then i go outdoors. I shoot ALOOOOT and i cant see shooting a 26 series shaft 3 days a week and then shootign a 23 series shaft for the rest of the shoots. Again ig local clubs allowed the x jammers and the nfaa caps it the guys who shoot the 2712's have an advantage on me b/c ill shoot "legal" arrows. Kinda rediculous.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2008)

*23 series limit could be good*

One reason that I like the Idea of a 23 series shaft (or even a 25) is that I think it may draw more participation into spots...BECAUSE.... a lot of the 3-D'rs in my area shoot a 23 series arrow (fat boy, 2312, etc) 

Instead of having to set up two or more bows, folks can take their 3-D rigs and go shoot a spot shoot without worrying about haveing to change anything in order to "feel" competitive.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

njshadowwalker said:


> Bugt wht good does that do me? I dont shoot local leagues for anything other then practice for the outdoor season. Now i shoot X jammers there but i have to shoot a different arrow for Hartford lets say or a state card shoot. So my setup is useless really.


I have 5 bows setup for different venues and I buy 6 to 10 dozen arrows a year of several sizes including 30X you're not going to get any sympathy from me... I'd gladly give up buying 30X and X-cutters... in favor of Pro22's or a 23 series arrow for indoors and 3-D... It'd save me a good bit of money..:wink:


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

JAVI said:


> Question is... how many sanctioned shoots does the average shooter shoot???:wink:


Questioned also could be what makes an archer an average shooter?????:wink:1,3 5,10?


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

njshadowwalker said:


> I hit every NFAA shoot that i cn in my state. 15 or so i supposed indoor a year plus leagues 3 days a week. And ill shoot hartford. Then i go outdoors. I shoot ALOOOOT and i cant see shooting a 26 series shaft 3 days a week and then shootign a 23 series shaft for the rest of the shoots. Again ig local clubs allowed the x jammers and the nfaa caps it the guys who shoot the 2712's have an advantage on me b/c ill shoot "legal" arrows. Kinda rediculous.


I also hit all possible...8-10 a season...sometimes more
myself and a group of friends
granted we dont shoot any field but I really want to try one this summer to see what its all about
the club in Shelbyville In is supposed to have a nice one


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> I also hit all possible...8-10 a season...sometimes more
> myself and a group of friends
> granted we dont shoot any field but I really want to try one this summer to see what its all about
> the club in Shelbyville In is supposed to have a nice one


You wont get a better round at shelbyville when the hold th State championship AMERICAN ROUND come try it youll be hooked.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

Ya just said it. You have 5 bows for different venues. So now what i have to do is set one up for local leagues and 26/27 series arrows, one up for nfaa. Hmm so i have 3 hunting bows 2 recurves the current bow and ill have to spend another $2500 for another one. No thanks! Ill just stop shooting local league's as will most guys i know who actually shoot according to the rules. Shops in my area will not tell guys they cant shot larger then 23's for league, and guys who do so already and shoot the NFAA local shoots will just stop goin if they cant shoot their hunting setups anymore. The sport for the avearge shooter will suffer and we'll have even less shooters.

Maybe ill shoot my GT Ul Pro 400's at a single spot in Hartford!


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

njshadowwalker said:


> Ya just said it. You have 5 bows for different venues. So now what i have to do is set one up for local leagues and 26/27 series arrows, one up for nfaa. Hmm so i have 3 hunting bows 2 recurves the current bow and ill have to spend another $2500 for another one. No thanks! Ill just stop shooting local league's as will most guys i know who actually shoot according to the rules. Shops in my area will not tell guys they cant shot larger then 23's for league, and guys who do so already and shoot the NFAA local shoots will just stop goin if they cant shoot their hunting setups anymore. The sport for the avearge shooter will suffer and we'll have even less shooters.
> 
> Maybe ill shoot my GT Ul Pro 400's at a single spot in Hartford!


I also shoot some local league but I don't care what the other guy is using... Sometimes I shoot my NAA bow (22's) and sometimes I shoot my NFAA bow (30X)... Sometimes I shoot my ASA bow (x-cutters) just for grins, and I've been known to shoot my field/900 bow as well (CAA's)... they all put whatever sized arrow I'm shooting in or very near the X... if they didn't I'd fix it...

Now when I go to a major indoor NFAA shoot I don't want to give up a single point so I shoot the largest arrow I can get to shoot accurately... which is a 30X but I'd have to admit if I do my part I can shoot the same scores with a 22 series... but my brain keeps telling me to use the 30X cause my competition is... make us all stop at 23's and I'll shoot 23's gladly...


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

njshadowwalker said:


> Ya just said it. You have 5 bows for different venues. So now what i have to do is set one up for local leagues and 26/27 series arrows, one up for nfaa. Hmm so i have 3 hunting bows 2 recurves the current bow and ill have to spend another $2500 for another one. No thanks! Ill just stop shooting local league's as will most guys i know who actually shoot according to the rules. Shops in my area will not tell guys they cant shot larger then 23's for league, and guys who do so already and shoot the NFAA local shoots will just stop goin if they cant shoot their hunting setups anymore. The sport for the avearge shooter will suffer and we'll have even less shooters.
> 
> Maybe ill shoot my GT Ul Pro 400's at a single spot in Hartford!


What .....Everyone wants CHANGE though:tongue::tongue::wink:


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

Again maybe your part of the country and break down of shooters differs where i am in Little Old NJ....but we will suffer pretty bad and lose alot of shooters all around. Thats where I see this as been 100% damaging to the sport as a whole.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

I Personally would like to thank ONE and everyone for a very civil 16 pg debate about the future of our NFITNAA ORG nice to be part of a good debate with no cut throating of each other for once.:wink:


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> I Personally would like to thank ONE and everyone for a very civil 16 pg debate about the future of our NFITNAA ORG nice to be part of a good debate with no cut throating of each other for once.:wink:


Thats b/c a select few have bitten there tongues for once! :wink:


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*2315's will fly*



njshadowwalker said:


> But....we should not be forced to shoot a different arrow now when weve been shooting the larger shafts for a long time already. Should be cool to see how a guy with a 30" draw makes 23's fly.


According to AA a 57 lb Apex with a 31.75" AMO draw can throw a 2317 X7 of 34" length and a 120 gr point with optimum spine


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

oh yeah 17 pages


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

njshadowwalker said:


> Again maybe your part of the country and break down of shooters differs where i am in Little Old NJ....but we will suffer pretty bad and lose alot of shooters all around. Thats where I see this as been 100% damaging to the sport as a whole.


My sarcasim wasnt directed at you NJ im in agreement with you IM not PRO 9.3 IM CON 9.3 and PRO 26s:wink:


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

AlChick said:


> According to AA a 57 lb Apex with a 31.75" AMO draw can throw a 2317 X7 of 34" length and a 120 gr point with optimum spine


According to On target im Overspined. In the real world my target says differently!


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

So, to summarize, people can bring any arrows to shoot that they want, but they have to wear a certain type of pants, or is that another organization?


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> My sarcasim wasnt directed at you NJ im in agreement with you IM not PRO 9.3 IM CON 9.3 and PRO 26s:wink:


I know....i forgot to quote old Javi:darkbeer:


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

AlChick said:


> According to AA a 57 lb Apex with a 31.75" AMO draw can throw a 2317 X7 of 34" length and a 120 gr point with optimum spine


But a 2317 would be illegal only 2315 or smaller thats where 9.3 arrow 9.4 tip comes into play.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

njshadowwalker said:


> I know....i forgot to quote old Javi:darkbeer:


And with that JAVI is very wise and we can all learn some from him.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

Well, time to reshovel the driveway! 9" today oh well. Be back lata:darkbeer:


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

njshadowwalker said:


> Ya just said it. You have 5 bows for different venues. So now what i have to do is set one up for local leagues and 26/27 series arrows, one up for nfaa. Hmm so i have 3 hunting bows 2 recurves the current bow and* ill have to spend another $2500 for another one. No thanks! Ill just stop shooting local league's as will most guys i know who actually shoot according to the rules.* Shops in my area will not tell guys they cant shot larger then 23's for league, and guys who do so already and shoot the NFAA local shoots will just stop goin if they cant shoot their hunting setups anymore. The sport for the avearge shooter will suffer and we'll have even less shooters.
> 
> Maybe ill shoot my GT Ul Pro 400's at a single spot in Hartford!


sounds like you guys are _WAY_ to competitive to be having any fun


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*When you're right your right*



xxSPOTTSxx said:


> But a 2317 would be illegal only 2315 or smaller thats where 9.3 arrow 9.4 tip comes into play.


Point taken. So that shooter is going to have to drop some draw weight or shoot a carbon arrow. There are worse things.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

Dchiefransom said:


> So, to summarize, people can bring any arrows to shoot that they want, but they have to wear a certain type of pants, or is that another organization?


LOL thats funny but alot of people will look snazzy in the white britches:wink:


----------



## KH400 (Jan 17, 2008)

Everyone seems okay with buying new arrows as long as they are bigger, but buying smaller arrows is a financial burden?  I contend that whether or not there are size restrictions, we are addicted to buying more arrows.


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> LOL thats funny but alot of people will look snazzy in the white britches:wink:


like these guys LOL


----------



## archerycharlie (Nov 4, 2002)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> I also hit all possible...8-10 a season...sometimes more
> myself and a group of friends
> granted we dont shoot any field but I really want to try one this summer to see what its all about
> the club in Shelbyville In is supposed to have a nice one




The club knowen as the blue river bowman has shut its field range down as of end of last year.

Pine hill archery club in Danville has a nice 28 target range as the state field was held there last year. pinehillarcheryclub.com

Not sure if Redkey is still haveing field shoots or not.

Iroquois archery club at Rensselaer Indiana has a 14 target range set up also.
[email protected] or [email protected] AC


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

thanx AC
hope to see ya at one:darkbeer:


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> like these guys LOL


HOLYY CRAP dont givem any Ideas M geezz 9.3 is big enuff issue at this point.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

archerycharlie said:


> The club knowen as the blue river bowman has shut its field range down as of end of last year.
> 
> Pine hill archery club in Danville has a nice 28 target range as the state field was held there last year. pinehillarcheryclub.com
> 
> ...


Gary hasnt put up schedule yet but as of last year there was a few field shoots still at redkey. He usually post on 3d shoots.:wink:


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

I have been reading this thread for 2 days now and have finally gotten to a point that I can post something. 



KH400 said:


> Everyone seems okay with buying new arrows as long as they are bigger, but buying smaller arrows is a financial burden?  I contend that whether or not there are size restrictions, we are addicted to buying more arrows.


This is a very good point. I shoot Fatboys so it dosen't matter to me but I have seen a lot of guys around here go to the proshop and buy bigger arrows and spend days trying to get them to tune to maybe pick up a couple of points on the 3D range. A dozen X-Jammers for 2 points. Seems like a might steep investment for not a lot of return.


----------



## Lonestar sr. (Feb 22, 2008)

*Emergency meeting called by NFAA*

Javi,you should alot of arrows laying around gathering dust.When was the last time you shot any tournament,let's get real with your statements


----------



## huntelk (Jan 11, 2004)

Lonestar sr. said:


> Javi,you should alot of arrows laying around gathering dust.When was the last time you shot any tournament,let's get real with your statements


Nice first post:thumbs_do


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Lonestar sr. said:


> Javi,you should alot of arrows laying around gathering dust.When was the last time you shot any tournament,let's get real with your statements


 Between Dad and his health problems I didn't shoot much last year and I haven't shot anything since I did whatever I did to my shoulder in November.. Don't change the fact they're here... or the bows I have setup... Well Jimmy Williams has one my bows and Dave W. has one of the sets of arrows.. I'm hoping to be shooting again by Paris... but I doubt I'll get to shoot many shoots this year either. I've got to get Mom and Dad moved to a smaller house and Dad in a 24 hour nursing facility soon. I've been driving back and forth to San Antonio and on the phone with lawyers, doctors, and in home care givers for what seems like forever... Maybe next year...


----------



## huntelk (Jan 11, 2004)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> And for Tim G to utilize a venue like Iowa and Vegas to prove there needs to be a CAP on arrow size then KUDOs to Tim...But in the same breath better look out if Timmy uses any of his GTs IM sure he can hold his own and this coming from a C. BOOOOOBOOOOWWWW fan:wink:


How many years has Easton been making the 26's? 15, 20....even more??

They come out with a very slightly larger (27) and all of a sudden they are out of control???....come on, wake up and smell the roses! I am not an Easton fanboy by any means, but some of you guys need to get real. There was no issue until "Click" made it one. One company (GT) decided to whine and start something that was a non-issue.

Easton has done more for the archery world than any other 3 arrow companies combined and some of you want to "give them the finger". That's a raw deal I think.

If I were voting on the board of directors, I'd say what is in comercial production as of now (.27) is it-no bigger, that is the cap.

Now let's all go shoot and let Deitmar beat us with Nano's:wink:


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

JAVI said:


> Between Dad and his health problems I didn't shoot much last year and I haven't shot anything since I did whatever I did to my shoulder in November.. Don't change the fact they're here... or the bows I have setup... Well Jimmy Williams has one my bows and Dave W. has one of the sets of arrows.. I'm hoping to be shooting again by Paris... but I doubt I'll get to shoot many shoots this year either. I've got to get Mom and Dad moved to a smaller house and Dad in a 24 hour nursing facility soon. I've been driving back and forth to San Antonio and on the phone with lawyers, doctors, and in home care givers for what seems like forever... Maybe next year...


Javi
hang in there 
you'll be back
and I don't feel you need to justify yourself to that "one post wonder"

not cool lonestar


----------



## huntelk (Jan 11, 2004)

JAVI said:


> Between Dad and his health problems I didn't shoot much last year and I haven't shot anything since I did whatever I did to my shoulder in November.. Don't change the fact they're here... or the bows I have setup... Well Jimmy Williams has one my bows and Dave W. has one of the sets of arrows.. I'm hoping to be shooting again by Paris... but I doubt I'll get to shoot many shoots this year either. I've got to get Mom and Dad moved to a smaller house and Dad in a 24 hour nursing facility soon. I've been driving back and forth to San Antonio and on the phone with lawyers, doctors, and in home care givers for what seems like forever... Maybe next year...


No need to defend yourself against a troll Javi, all of us that know _much _know you are the real deal-even if we don't agree on some topics:wink:


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

huntelk said:


> How many years has Easton been making the 26's? 15, 20....even more??
> 
> They come out with a very slightly larger (27) and all of a sudden they are out of control???....come on, wake up and smell the roses! I am not an Easton fanboy by any means, but some of you guys need to get real. There was no issue until "Click" made it one. One company (GT) decided to whine and start something that was a non-issue.
> 
> ...


Please dont read just one post and then make remarks. I say this with all confidence that you havent been reading My arguement.:wink:
Mike


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Lonestar sr. said:


> Javi,you should alot of arrows laying around gathering dust.When was the last time you shot any tournament,let's get real with your statements


Welcome to AT, should we be asking for your shooters resume as well?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

JAVI said:


> If the hinted at merger between the NAA and NFAA happens that will not be an issue now will it...:wink:


 Hmmm. One org that doesnt even let those entitled to vote participate in their board elections, yet still claims a legal board.

Another that votes but declared an "emergency" to nullify the process.

So if these two actually did vote to merge together, how would they know it?


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

huntelk said:


> How many years has Easton been making the 26's? 15, 20....even more?


About ten years or less. The 26 shaft was the catalist for FITA's decision to limit shafts to 9.3mm (23/64).


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

huntelk said:


> No need to defend yourself against a troll Javi, all of us that know _much _know you are the real deal-even if we don't agree on some topics:wink:


Naw guys he’s right I haven’t shot a field or 900 tournament in quite a while I still go to the range and shoot a round or a half round several times a summer. But I have to take my time and rest the leg a good bit so I don’t go to the shoots except to help setup and work the table if they need me. I go to some of the local 3-D shoots but not to compete, I usually just pay my fee and walk the course to practice shooting. Last year I shot several indoor SYWAT, Vegas and then the Paris Pro/Am. I did get in a bunch of shooting in the evening at the field range a mile from my house but nothing else… 

I guess I need to sell these bows including the A-7 I ordered last week for 3-D.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

Had a good thread till a one post wonder stopped in.


----------



## boojo35 (Jul 16, 2005)

Thanks for the info OBT...

Good luck Tim..... Maybe you need to develop an even FATTER shaft.... the point needs to be made.....

I am not going to run out and join the Nfaa.....

Changed my mind on what arrows to buy my daughter......


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

With all due respect, at the local club level we don't see much direct benefit from the $$$ that the manufacturers put into archery, other than Mathews NASP support.
Obviously they put money into the organizations at the upper levels, but there doesn't appear to be any "trickle down" effect.
A couple local shooters might be getting some sponsorship from different companies, but the local clubs don't seem to be seeing any support.
I'm sure I'm missing something and would appreciate some insight as to why we should be worrying about Easton and Friends getting their collective noses out of joint.
I appreciate the time folks on the NFAA board put into the meetings and such. But truth is, its hard to find any field archey shoots within 100 miles of here. Or to be more blunt, why should I renew my NFAA membership?
This is all starting to make my head hurt...where'd I leave my Head On???


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

carlosii said:


> With all due respect, at the local club level we don't see much direct benefit from the $$$ that the manufacturers put into archery, other than Mathews NASP support.
> Obviously they put money into the organizations at the upper levels, but there doesn't appear to be any "trickle down" effect.
> A couple local shooters might be getting some sponsorship from different companies, but the local clubs don't seem to be seeing any support.
> I'm sure I'm missing something and would appreciate some insight as to why we should be worrying about Easton and Friends getting their collective noses out of joint.
> ...


Well, I for one would love to see an NFAA official answer that one here.


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

carlosii said:


> With all due respect, at the local club level we don't see much direct benefit from the $$$ that the manufacturers put into archery, other than Mathews NASP support.
> Obviously they put money into the organizations at the upper levels, but there doesn't appear to be any "trickle down" effect.
> A couple local shooters might be getting some sponsorship from different companies, but the local clubs don't seem to be seeing any support.
> I'm sure I'm missing something and would appreciate some insight as to why we should be worrying about Easton and Friends getting their collective noses out of joint.
> ...


 if you ask for monentary help from the NFAA for targets to develope a 14 target field range at an existing 3D club what do you think thier answear will be??? seems this was posed once and the answear was no. so I don't know what they are spending all the money on but helping 3D clubs with field targets appartently isn't one of them.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

carlosii said:


> With all due respect, at the local club level we don't see much direct benefit from the $$$ that the manufacturers put into archery, other than Mathews NASP support.
> Obviously they put money into the organizations at the upper levels, but there doesn't appear to be any "trickle down" effect.
> A couple local shooters might be getting some sponsorship from different companies, but the local clubs don't seem to be seeing any support.
> I'm sure I'm missing something and would appreciate some insight as to why we should be worrying about Easton and Friends getting their collective noses out of joint.
> ...



the way people want to say about how manufacturers support the sport is alot like you doing your job for free because you feel the boss and company are making too much money. most companies have operating and advertising budgets. that money all comes from the big pot after all payroll, overhead and operating costs are paid FIRST. some companies have bigger pots, some dont. remember, you need to compare apples to apples, not apples to a bowling ball. money just doesnt magically appear for these events out of sheer generosity. these companies are in it for the money. i dont know many super successful companies that want to 'break even' for the year and call it a resounding success.....auto manufacturers excluded.

the nfaa does not have the responsibility of putting on and promoting the local events. that is all club and shop supported. state shoots are run under nfaa guidelines but funded and staffed by the state org and hosting clubs with some 'minor' support from the nfaa. same with sectionals. it is the national shoots that have the nfaa active in running it.

look towards and point the fingers at your local clubs and state association. it is the local, grassroots groups that will keep the major events popular. with the introduction of 3d and its paybacks (more like bribe system imo) clubs chose to go with that single format because(they said) it brought in more money. was quicker to shoot and less resource draining on the archers. it was also promoted as 'hunting practice' the clubs allowed the old guard and field shooters to get bullied off the grounds by letting the 3d supporters to not care for or allow the die-hard spotties to care for the field lanes with upkeep and maintenance. interest fell off and that was that.

lets look at a few issues that promoted 3d over field.

faster. sure it's faster to shoot one arrow instead of 4 at a target. but lets be real; how many just walk up, look, set their sight and wing one? not many i know of. its like a wait for eternity. now multiply that 3mins per person in the group, then times how many groups? it can take a while. back to the real world, in the time it takes the one group to estimate, re-evaluate, shoot and score, a group of four field shooters can be getting started or halfway thru the next target. so the faster point is moot.

cost. im not sure of the cost of excelsior anymore, but lets go with a morrell range bag, going from the LAS website, the MORRELL WILDFIRE "OUTDOOR RANGE" (TARGET) costs $94.99. with proper care and fluffing, it can last a whole season of constant use if you use the number of 50 archers per shoot. yeah, i know its an optimistic estimate. now, lets look at the cost of a MCKENZIE HD TARGETS LARGE DEER at $324.99. just the deer costs $325 complete, i dont have an idea of what the replacement sections run, but lets guess $100. after having 100 shooters every other weekend shooting at one single spot on the center section, you could have to replace it once maybe twice a year. so that $325 just became a $425 and maybe $525 deer after all the wear, tear and maintenance on just the target. makes sense to me what is cheaper for the club.

grounds care. laying out a field course will be the most work. building the bale support/hutch will be the most labor intensive. once it is mowed, pruned and staked it takes less effort to care for than your side yard. with 3d, you have to keep moving the targets to vary the course and keep it from getting stale. how long does that take? almost a full day for some clubs. as compared to putting a target on a cardboard backing, pinning the target to the bale, and leaving one or 2 spare targets...that takes oh maybe a few hours. the benefit....club members can still shoot the course for practice during the week between shoots. again, the upkeep of the lanes and range is almost nil.

paybacks. ahhhh, the biggest argument FOR shooting 3d. nothin like the pursuit of a hobby that pays ya back. field only pays the pros in the biggest shoots. lets see, a local shoot has 100 archers show up with entry of $10. payback is 80% per class. for the open class there are 20 shooters, $200 total take in for the group, making the payout for the class a total of $160. i wont go into the pay schedule. during the course of the day, there are accusations of pencil whipping, 'easy' scoring, a turned head or few on violations and of course, the ever present whining of being shorted a quarter. for the sake of argument, the open class winner got $75. not a bad check, but still, nothing that will pay the bills or fill the gas tank if he drives a truck. that purse just about paid for his weekend if it was a weekend shoot. throw in the fact that he only won one shoot out of 15. not all that much in the pocket. i doubt that many clubs will get that many shooters nowadays because of scheduling conflicts and whatnot. the nfaa only pays pros and amatures ONLY when it is advertised as a money shoot such as vegas or hartford. you need to look hard and long for local money shoots.


once clubs get back into supporting and promoting field ALONG with 3d, guys will realize that both are fun to shoot, and each having it's own positives and negatives. i dont say one is the 'better' format, but both have a place in a club. it's the club's leadership that chooses which format to support and which to deny.


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> And with that JAVI is very wise and we can all learn some from him.


Javi has helped me out with a few things. I got to spend an hr on the phone with him, one great guy


----------



## archerycharlie (Nov 4, 2002)

*Field forever*



rock monkey said:


> the way people want to say about how manufacturers support the sport is alot like you doing your job for free because you feel the boss and company are making too much money. most companies have operating and advertising budgets. that money all comes from the big pot after all payroll, overhead and operating costs are paid FIRST. some companies have bigger pots, some dont. remember, you need to compare apples to apples, not apples to a bowling ball. money just doesnt magically appear for these events out of sheer generosity. these companies are in it for the money. i dont know many super successful companies that want to 'break even' for the year and call it a resounding success.....auto manufacturers excluded.
> 
> the nfaa does not have the responsibility of putting on and promoting the local events. that is all club and shop supported. state shoots are run under nfaa guidelines but funded and staffed by the state org and hosting clubs with some 'minor' support from the nfaa. same with sectionals. it is the national shoots that have the nfaa active in running it.
> 
> ...




Yup rock monkey I agree wit ya on the clubs getting involved with the field again.
We used cardboard in a 4x4 posted target with allthread rod on the sides to clamp it down tighter now and then and lasted for years with a small roof on top and they worked great. 
We had a 14 target range here for years till the 3d took over and we tried to getem to shoot half and half but noooooooo its 3d or nuttin so we closed the whole range down and sold the 3d targets to 2 other clubs

One club that i can shoot field is 45 minutes away 2 more field ranges are 1 1/2 hr drive one way. I will support the field all i can with the money i got as after i retired a lot of traveling took a back seat so not near as much shooting now days as i would like. AC


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

huntelk said:


> How many years has Easton been making the 26's? 15, 20....even more??
> 
> Actually, No.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

archerycharlie said:


> Yup rock monkey I agree wit ya on the clubs getting involved with the field again.
> We used cardboard in a 4x4 posted target with allthread rod on the sides to clamp it down tighter now and then and lasted for years with a small roof on top and they worked great.
> We had a 14 target range here for years till the 3d took over and we tried to getem to shoot half and half but noooooooo its 3d or nuttin so we closed the whole range down and sold the 3d targets to 2 other clubs
> 
> One club that i can shoot field is 45 minutes away 2 more field ranges are 1 1/2 hr drive one way. I will support the field all i can with the money i got as after i retired a lot of traveling took a back seat so not near as much shooting now days as i would like. AC


?

Well it's not always about the money. I don't think the question was about mney for targets or whatnot. But here is a great case in point A.C. What could the NFAA have done to assist you in keeping that range open? Is there actually a plan for stimulating (re stimulating?) interest in field archery or is it a done deal that all courses will be foam critters by 2010?

I think the NFAA's largest deterrent to membership is the perception that they really do not care about the local range and shooters, and is powerless to stop people from going over to 3D.

Ask the Alabama director about it


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Honestly Asking*



Hutnicks said:


> ?
> 
> Well it's not always about the money. I don't think the question was about mney for targets or whatnot. But here is a great case in point A.C. What could the NFAA have done to assist you in keeping that range open? Is there actually a plan for stimulating (re stimulating?) interest in field archery or is it a done deal that all courses will be foam critters by 2010?
> 
> ...


I'm curious about what you think the NFAA could actually do to stimulate archery at the local level. Perhaps I'm naive because indoor and outdoor target archery has an active following in Wisconsin and here in the Southeast corner of the state we have lots of field ranges within reasonable driving distance, but I can't see how the national can be effective at keeping ranges open or stimulating local interest. I think of those as local club issues.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

AlChick said:


> I'm curious about what you think the NFAA could actually do to stimulate archery at the local level. Perhaps I'm naive because indoor and outdoor target archery has an active following in Wisconsin and here in the Southeast corner of the state we have lots of field ranges within reasonable driving distance, but I can't see how the national can be effective at keeping ranges open or stimulating local interest. I think of those as local club issues.


 I think the best method of stimulating LOCAL interest is to raise the profile of Field Archery as a whole on the national level. I don't think it's an accident that Field is thought of as a old mans game and 3D has a much higher profile among young shooters. I think raising public awareness, demonstrating how a field course is a good method of preserving land. Emphasizing life skills mastered in the pursuit of the sport. These things and many more put out at a national level can serve to raise awareness and a least get people to ask "what is field archery" Hiding and waiting for the masses to come knocking just doesn't seem to be working. There needs to be some impetus applied on a wide scale nationally in order to get people to check out the local scene which will hopefully generate membership (what is it 15,000 now? less than 300 archers per state? gods alive there are chess clubs bigger than that!) which will in turn hopefully build a more healthy national level org. 

I'm sorry but I just do not see the stimulus being put in that the sport deserves.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

Maybe easton needs to use some of it's money and influence to actually promote field archery, instead of just putting their money straight into the nfaa pockets ????

Woody


----------



## KEN-813 (Jun 26, 2002)

Woody69 said:


> Maybe easton needs to use some of it's money and influence to actually promote field archery, instead of just putting their money straight into the nfaa pockets ????
> 
> Woody


Woody do you know what the NFAA stands for ?

Last I checked its for National Field Archery Association.


Also last I checked they still have outdoor sectionals all over the country as well as Outdoor nationals.

:wink:


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

KEN-813 said:


> Woody do you know what the NFAA stands for ?
> 
> Last I checked its for National Field Archery Association.
> 
> ...


Yes, i know what it stands for !

I was responding to Hutnicks post above mine, that says not enough is being done to stimulate the growth of field archery !

Instead of throwing their weight and money around to force nfaa to do what they want, maybe easton should just use some of that money and influence to actually promote field archery themselves, because it seems that despite all the money easton dumps in the pockets of the nfaa, field archery is no better off for it ????

It was just a thought, but i guess it was a stupid one in your opinion ????

Woody


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> I think the best method of stimulating LOCAL interest is to raise the profile of Field Archery as a whole on the national level. I don't think it's an accident that Field is thought of as a old mans game and 3D has a much higher profile among young shooters. I think raising public awareness, demonstrating how a field course is a good method of preserving land. Emphasizing life skills mastered in the pursuit of the sport. These things and many more put out at a national level can serve to raise awareness and a least get people to ask "what is field archery" Hiding and waiting for the masses to come knocking just doesn't seem to be working. There needs to be some impetus applied on a wide scale nationally in order to get people to check out the local scene which will hopefully generate membership (what is it 15,000 now? less than 300 archers per state? gods alive there are chess clubs bigger than that!) which will in turn hopefully build a more healthy national level org.
> 
> I'm sorry but I just do not see the stimulus being put in that the sport deserves.


Wouldn't you say that establishing a national headquarters with permanently maintained field ranges is a pretty good start toward raising the profile of field archery nationally? Creating a museum to highlight the past, and honor men and women of good character who have been great field shooters might help to raise awarness too. Holding a high profile national field event every year might help also. Perhaps if we had some regional chairmen they could help to organize an annual sectional event in each multi-state region, and of course if we had state representatives they might take responsibility for holding state championships. Perhaps if we had all of that, then the clubs at the local level would have a reason to run local shoots so that archers could learn about field archery and have a reason to practice so that they could shoot in those state, sectional, and national events. Is that the kind of thing you had in mind?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

AlChick said:


> Wouldn't you say that establishing a national headquarters with permanently maintained field ranges is a pretty good start toward raising the profile of field archery nationally? Creating a museum to highlight the past, and honor men and women of good character who have been great field shooters might help to raise awarness too. Holding a high profile national field event every year might help also. Perhaps if we had some regional chairmen they could help to organize an annual sectional event in each multi-state region, and of course if we had state representatives they might take responsibility for holding state championships. Perhaps if we had all of that, then the clubs at the local level would have a reason to run local shoots so that archers could learn about field archery and have a reason to practice so that they could shoot in those state, sectional, and national events. Is that the kind of thing you had in mind?


Well as a matter of fact I do not.

I think that spending money on national headquarters installation of that magnitude in such a non accessible location if pure folly. It sure as hell isn't going to make the cover of Destinations Magazine.The only people who are going to be made aware of it are those who already are involved in the NFAA. 
As for a museum I think that money would have been much better spent on a professional web site service with an online virtual museum with in depth articles and information. That way folks could actually get to it to see it.

High profile for the Nationals is once again a matter of opinion. And once again I believe it is preaching to its own choir. What are the stats of new shooters coming to the NATS?

One last thought here. I keep hearing about championship this and championships that. Perhaps we should just be concerned with getting folks out to shoot a round of Field a week. Archery to many is not always about winning a national title and I am more than a little disheartened at the treatment given to those who choose not to shoot for money or a national title.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Well as a matter of fact I do not.
> 
> I think that spending money on national headquarters installation of that magnitude in such a non accessible location if pure folly. It sure as hell isn't going to make the cover of Destinations Magazine.The only people who are going to be made aware of it are those who already are involved in the NFAA.
> As for a museum I think that money would have been much better spent on a professional web site service with an online virtual museum with in depth articles and information. That way folks could actually get to it to see it.
> ...



actually, there are many shooters/archers out there that MIGHT want to experience FIELD ARCHERY on a NATIONAL LEVEL, but find it too hard to have to commit 5 work days plus 2 weekends to do just that.....

luckily for us.....we will see IF....IF next year in MECHANICSBURG IF.....i say IF...because who knows what kind of EMERGENCY MEETING will be called to change the dates.....as it stands right now....we will get to see if numbers rise above the 400 or so that last years nationals lured in......

i am willing to bet that the BUZZ or complaints about MECHANICSBURG will be TOO MANY PARTICIPANTS AND NOT ENOUGH RANGES......and that will be such a welcome whine and complaint....

until we fill the ranges and show the NFAA...they will never move to weekend FIELD ARCHERY EVENTS....

wonder when the diamond will advise (TELL) THE NFAA to get rid of the STAN OPEN and host a outdoor tourney in that BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR HQ


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> wonder when the diamond will advise (TELL) THE NFAA to get rid of the STAN OPEN and host a outdoor tourney in that BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR HQ


Well that would be a possibility if they changed the venue and format of the Stan Open to a more unpopular one...say another 20 yard shoot rather than the 40, 50, 60 yard format as year's prior...this would decrease attendance and give somebody a chance to say that shooter attendance is down and being I am for the good of the whole...why not move it to this great new HQ:zip:
Sometimes it's chess...sometimes it euchre.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> actually, there are many shooters/archers out there that MIGHT want to experience FIELD ARCHERY on a NATIONAL LEVEL, but find it too hard to have to commit 5 work days plus 2 weekends to do just that.....
> 
> luckily for us.....we will see IF....IF next year in MECHANICSBURG IF.....i say IF...because who knows what kind of EMERGENCY MEETING will be called to change the dates.....as it stands right now....we will get to see if numbers rise above the 400 or so that last years nationals lured in......
> 
> ...


 Or possibly even the venue.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Or possibly even the venue.



very true......my bad Hut...or venue....

or we could just have a jim dandy outdoor nationals with no outside influence....


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The 60/50/40 shoot format of the Stan Open, Pittsburg, and Atlantic City tournaments has been a financial loss.

2004 Atlantic City...........lost $24,344.00
2005 Pittsburgh..............lost $58,072.70
2006 Stan Open..............lost $25,959.97
2007 Stan Open..............lost $33,267.03

without sponsorship money the Stan Open would have lost more $.

Therefore, please explain why the WAF should continue with something that is not even popular enough to break even.

My personal opinion is that the 20 yard shoot in Connecticut will not do better, but I hope I am wrong.

If it does lose money, should we continue throwing away money along with the $141,643.70 that was lost in 2004 through 2007?

Or should we try something like an outdoor tournament on our own land at national headquarters where there is no opressive cost to rent a convention center?

Makes sense to me.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

FS560 said:


> The 60/50/40 shoot format of the Stan Open, Pittsburg, and Atlantic City tournaments has been a financial loss.
> 
> 2004 Atlantic City...........lost $24,344.00
> 2005 Pittsburgh..............lost $58,072.70
> ...


im in total agreement with your post....TOTAL agreement.....


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Well as a matter of fact I do not.
> 
> I think that spending money on national headquarters installation of that magnitude in such a non accessible location if pure folly. It sure as hell isn't going to make the cover of Destinations Magazine.The only people who are going to be made aware of it are those who already are involved in the NFAA.
> As for a museum I think that money would have been much better spent on a professional web site service with an online virtual museum with in depth articles and information. That way folks could actually get to it to see it.
> ...


Fair enough Hut, I respect your opinion about this. But then I need to know what you think is an example of what the national should be doing; now that you have been clear about what you feel they are doing wrong. Please be more specific than "they should be promoting field archery at the local level."


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

FS560 said:


> The 60/50/40 shoot format of the Stan Open, Pittsburg, and Atlantic City tournaments has been a financial loss.
> 
> 2004 Atlantic City...........lost $24,344.00
> 2005 Pittsburgh..............lost $58,072.70
> ...


I regret that I never got off my duff and took the opportunity to shoot the old Stan format either in Atlantic City or in Pitt. In my mind I always wanted to, but now I can't. One problem was that it was difficult for guys in my part of the country to get outside soon enough to get ourselves ready for a shoot at those distances. I wonder if that is why others didn't attend either. Perhaps holding it a bit later, say six or seven weeks after Nationals, would help?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

AlChick said:


> Fair enough Hut, I respect your opinion about this. But then I need to know what you think is an example of what the national should be doing; now that you have been clear about what you feel they are doing wrong. Please be more specific than "they should be promoting field archery at the local level."


 I'll tell you point blank that the largest issue is simply membership. An that means generating interest at the national level with whatever means necessary. Using Tom Selleck with the Go RVing campaign is a great example. Another wonderful case study appears in Peter Druckers "Managing the Non Profit Organization" and deals with how the Girl Guides revamped a dramatically flagging membership. There ARE examples of turning things around and making strides in memberships. There are also people who do this for a living and I would much rather have seen money being spent on that than some unnecessary purchase of a new headquarters in Bruce's backyard.

The way membership numbers are going the National is going to wind up being smaller than a local anyhow.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> I'll tell you point blank that the largest issue is simply membership. An that means generating interest at the national level with whatever means necessary. Using Tom Selleck with the Go RVing campaign is a great example. Another wonderful case study appears in Peter Druckers "Managing the Non Profit Organization" and deals with how the Girl Guides revamped a dramatically flagging membership. There ARE examples of turning things around and making strides in memberships. There are also people who do this for a living and I would much rather have seen money being spent on that than some unnecessary purchase of a new headquarters in Bruce's backyard.
> 
> The way membership numbers are going the National is going to wind up being smaller than a local anyhow.


I would argue that the biggest reason for declining membership/interest is lack of replacement. It's no secret that the average age of our sport is steadily increasing which is a way of saying that the present archers are all getting older and new archers are not showing up in sufficient numbers to take their places. I believe that NASP is one excellent program that is addressing this problem, but it is still too young for us to see it's full effect. I believe/hope that a few years from now we will once again see a resurgence in the sport as these youngsters show heightened interest. IMHO the weakness in the NASP program right now is the lack of a unified plan for transitioning these budding archers from the school atmosphere and Genesis bows to more conventional equipment and local archery clubs. That's where club members who are active and committed to the program will make a huge difference.

My point is, that I agree with your analysis of the problem, but I'm unconvinced that the national level is in the best place to solve it. Any movement such as this must grow from the bottom up and the greatest effort must take place at the grass roots. Just as our competitive ranks get smaller as we move from the local to the state to the regional to the national level, so too does our ability to affect change. 3-D is a newer form of archery competition and is currently enjoying more popularity. My sense is that for some it is getting old and they are showing interest in or returning to field archery and more will continue to do so. Everything ebbs and flows, but, if ,in the end, 3-D ends up attracting more archers than field I believe that it won't be because of our national organizations. It will be because it is a more attractive or accessible game for the average guy than field. That may be our real challenge. One thing we field archers can do is become more accessible ourselves. At least around my neck of the woods, the field archers in a club tend to be the elite shooters. Some see us as snobs, others as intimidating. In either case, a lot of "Joes" tend not to come around because they don't think they will fit in. We need to constantly be alert for opportunities to break down those barriers and involve new archers in our game. A favorite trick of mine is to suggest to a committed 3-D'er that he can improve his 3-D game if he shoots indoor spots with the target archers during the winter. Once they learn that they can hang in with the spotties they are often more willing to try field in the summer. There's no million dollar fix; not at the national level and not at the local level. It's really personal, and if it's going to get done we each have to take personal responsibility for dragging new field archers to the line, kicking and screaming if necessary.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

AlChick said:


> I would argue that the biggest reason for declining membership/interest is lack of replacement. It's no secret that the average age of our sport is steadily increasing which is a way of saying that the present archers are all getting older and new archers are not showing up in sufficient numbers to take their places. I believe that NASP is one excellent program that is addressing this problem, but it is still too young for us to see it's full effect. I believe/hope that a few years from now we will once again see a resurgence in the sport as these youngsters show heightened interest. IMHO the weakness in the NASP program right now is the lack of a unified plan for transitioning these budding archers from the school atmosphere and Genesis bows to more conventional equipment and local archery clubs. That's where club members who are active and committed to the program will make a huge difference.
> 
> My point is, that I agree with your analysis of the problem, but I'm unconvinced that the national level is in the best place to solve it. Any movement such as this must grow from the bottom up and the greatest effort must take place at the grass roots. Just as our competitive ranks get smaller as we move from the local to the state to the regional to the national level, so too does our ability to affect change. 3-D is a newer form of archery competition and is currently enjoying more popularity. My sense is that for some it is getting old and they are showing interest in or returning to field archery and more will continue to do so. Everything ebbs and flows, but, if ,in the end, 3-D ends up attracting more archers than field I believe that it won't be because of our national organizations. It will be because it is a more attractive or accessible game for the average guy than field. That may be our real challenge. One thing we field archers can do is become more accessible ourselves. At least around my neck of the woods, the field archers in a club tend to be the elite shooters. Some see us as snobs, others as intimidating. In either case, a lot of "Joes" tend not to come around because they don't think they will fit in. We need to constantly be alert for opportunities to break down those barriers and involve new archers in our game. A favorite trick of mine is to suggest to a committed 3-D'er that he can improve his 3-D game if he shoots indoor spots with the target archers during the winter. Once they learn that they can hang in with the spotties they are often more willing to try field in the summer. There's no million dollar fix; not at the national level and not at the local level. It's really personal, and if it's going to get done we each have to take personal responsibility for dragging new field archers to the line, kicking and screaming if necessary.


 I think your assessment of NASP is dead on. It is a terrific program for developing initial interest but is missing a follow through. A National database of clubs and events might lead to kids seeking out venues or other resources to follow through the interest. Becoming internet accessible is one of the first issues I believe needs addressing, we really need to understand that the younger generations are not geared toward phone books or drive around and hunt out a shop or range. Their first contact method is the web.

From the bottom up, of course has to happen, however that work has been done in past and has largely suffered for the lack of a cohesive organization linking the nationwide clubs to share information and resources. It is to that point that I believe the NFAA needs to improve dramatically. There really seems to be several break downs in what should be a cyclical system here.

Stimulate _*National*_ AWARENESS introduce young persons to the sport (NASP) follow through with direction to local clubs and shops (JOINT NFAA / Local effort) promote and support the new archer (Local incentive) Provide feedback to the NFAA on what is working, what maintains interest, what the new archer doesn't like about the shoots, so that a National data base can be created and maintained to see who is doing what and what is working and what is not (Local initiative, Nationally managed data) If some club in Tucumcari increased membership 20 percent in the last year We should all be able to get the data on what they were doing and the age group they were in and if they renew the next year. And all this goes back to getting good in put so that we can Stimulate National Awareness so we can introduce........

As for shooters alienating new arrivals, oh boy, Theres a book in that one Only rivaled by some cycling clubs treatment of anyone who doesnt ride a 5K carbon techo bike. On the bright side there the numbers are fast approaching the point where in theory you could populate a club with a majority of NEW BLOOD and stage an ersatz coup to put control in the hands of the next generation. Could just be that opportunity is a knockin.

(you reading this RK)


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Pinwheel 12 said:


> I think it's ludicrous for Easton to pull strongarm tactics such as this, simply no need for it. I mean really how much money is enough? What difference does it make to Easton whether they sell 23's or 27's? Really? What will we see next, 36's? 50's? 4"? Maybe a howitzer can be wheeled in so the entire target can be taken out, save time and shoot once instead of three times, I win........yay....sheesh...
> 
> The NFAA made a terrible mistake here by caving in to them too. Funding or no ya gotta have pride and dignity in your organization. $500,000 bones is nothing to sneeze at no, but with a little work and elbow grease that can be covered and the org can carry on and hold their head high instead of putting the skirt and kneepads on and in turn thus always being held under the corporate thumb from here on out..
> 
> I will not be a part of any archery organization that knuckles under to corporate manipulation and thus will not be renewing my NFAA membership. The Easton banner is also coming down in the shop today due to their apparent arrogant attitude and bullying of organizations within our sport. I for one will not support that type of BS in any way. JMHO.


i GUESS I have to jump in here. I think most of you guys are following the wrong drummer.
Easton didn't pull any strong arm tatics. I was at the meeting also. Most of the facts of OBT are true to an extent. The committee did vote 9.3.
there were some calls made from some people at easton concerning the decision.There was never any mention of pulling back any Money that was given . That was not an issue. OBT voiced his concerns at the special meeting, but to my mind I don't know how strong it was, but that is neither here or there. How ever , the blame for what ever went down is being layed at the wrong place. The NFAA keeps getting blamed for this. Now we know that the NFAA is "you", but the inference is the officers of the org. In stead of not wanting to renew your membership, get a new director, because if the directors would have had a set of you know what, the 9.3 would have stood.
It was the councils decision that it should be the directors to decide this , because we all know that they represent their state members, do they not.
If not, why not? Watch where you place the blame, be cause the same thing happened last year with the click 5. If some people would have stepped up to the plate & do what they were supposed to have done , we could have saved about 500 threads here. If you want to know what I voted for at our meeting , it was 9.3
So if you all want to jump on me for my thread ,it is your right.
I really think this whole thread should not have been posted, but that is only my opinion.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

JDES900X said:


> I can't believe you guys are ready to crucify Easton. Yet the fact remains 24, 25 and 26 series shafts have been around for a very long time. I've shot clean games with 1914's, 2014's, 2114's, 2314, 2315,2413, 2419's, 2512's, 2613's, AND 2712's. I can tell you people- It Isn't the arrow size. It is the shooter who puts them there. A good shot is a good shot and a MISS IS STILL A MISS. A loser is still a loser. The new 2712's are really no big deal. The difference on either side of the shaft compared to the 26's is what like 1/128"??? Come on. This is a major cheap shot taken at a great American archery ICON. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that the NFAA decided to wait just a little longer before acting was a prudent one. I stand by the NFAA and I stand up for Easton. The rest of you, I don't know what you stand for. That's all I have to say about it.




thank you jimmy


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

outdoorattic said:


> Caving to the pressure just made them lose a ton of credibility.
> 
> Fat shafts are for borderline shooters that need help to feel better than they really are.



Yeah right ,I'm glad cousin dave needs to feel better, & jessie , the wild bunch & a host of others.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

centerx said:


> *If you think Easton would pull their sponsorship, then you've never done much negotiation.*
> 
> I don't know what I think… But I think that it was prudent to reverse the ruling until some actual negotiations COULD be had….. Unfortunately the way the NFAA is set up .. .that rule change would go into "Law" for a year and would have to be voted on again later ….. I'm all for negotiations … Unfortunate you could not have had any before this went into effect for a year… Now they have a year to negotiate to see what would work bor BOTH parties.. Instead of a "LAW" that could not be over returned for a whole year …
> 
> ...



I may have missed it , but i don't think OBT mentioned the out come of the meeting. Yes the directors reversed the decision, BUT WE ARE TO CONTACT ALL OF THE ARROW MANUFACTURES FOR THEIR INPUT ON THIS SO WE CAN MAKE A DECISION NEXT FEB. I put this caps so maybe some one will read it.


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

brtesite said:


> I may have missed it , but i don't think OBT mentioned the out come of the meeting. Yes the directors reversed the decision, BUT WE ARE TO CONTACT ALL OF THE ARROW MANUFACTURES FOR THEIR INPUT ON THIS SO WE CAN MAKE A DECISION NEXT FEB. I put this caps so maybe some one will read it.


First Off mike I hopr ya had a good time out in Vegas. Secondly ill see ya ta the club tomorrow night. 

Why did you vote 9.3 is my only question? Why not 26/64's? Consdiering that Easton, Gold Tip, Carbon express and Victory ALL HAVE AN ARROW THAT LARGE. Easton is the only company that has a 27 size shaft i believe.

Just wondering since these shafts have been shot for years already. I agrre its up to the archer to oput that arrow in the middle regardless of size especially since my highest scores have come with small shafts. 

Thanks to you Mike for going out to Vegas and doing your part and stepping in the voice your opinion regardless of how others take it:darkbeer:


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> you want to know who flip flopped.....i think i somewhere in a previous post put it out there.....
> 
> you have to understand.....the meetings cover 3 1/2 days......and they truly are taxing and grinding meetings.....
> 
> ...


 now thats about it in a nut shell:cocktail:


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

brtesite said:


> I may have missed it , but i don't think OBT mentioned the out come of the meeting. Yes the directors reversed the decision, BUT WE ARE TO CONTACT ALL OF THE ARROW MANUFACTURES FOR THEIR INPUT ON THIS SO WE CAN MAKE A DECISION NEXT FEB. I put this caps so maybe some one will read it.


I still don't understand why the Mfg's get any say at all ???? 

Their job is simply to make equipment that complies with the rules, not to make those rules as well, and that sounds like all that is going to happen come next Feb is the Mfg's are going to tell the org's again just what size arrows are allowed !!! 

Woody


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

Woody69 said:


> I still don't understand why the Mfg's get any say at all ????


...I tend to agree Woodrow...but the only thing I have been able to glean out of this entire thread about what you ask is the reply by one of the Wildes'...and it basically said and I'm paraphrasing heere...but basically that PROfessioanl archers had been TESTING these 2712's on behalf of the NFAA "and" EASTON to determine their competition worthiness...and basically PROfessional archers gave their blessing to this new competion shaft and so they became a reality... 

...after reading that reply, maybe "someone" at the NFAA did know about this "arrow testing *FOR* the NFAA" in advance, but it sure wasn't the Voting directors...the overwhelming majority of the attending directors IMHO, got scammed, waterboarded and blindsided at the meeting by the one(or ones) who did know...or who supposedly knew about this SECRET testing PROgram...

...IMHO, their initial vote on the subject should have been sustained...but possibly the directors might have felt as though they would have had to pay their own tab for that night's surf and turf if they wouldn't have voted to reverse their earlier vote...you know, just speculating heere:wink:



Woody69 said:


> Their job is simply to make equipment that complies with the rules, not to make those rules as well, and that sounds like all that is going to happen come next Feb is the Mfg's are going to tell the org's again just what size arrows are allowed !!!
> 
> Woody


...I'd bet by February the 23/64th rule will get the nod and this ARROW WAR deal will be yet another part of ArcheryHistory:darkbeer:

...the backlash from the average archer who compete's and who has a genuine concern about this issue would be far too massive of a blow for either an arrow manufacturer or a National Target Organization to withstand...


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Rchr said:


> Reo, If they asked then they should have been told that there will be a National meeting and the subject will be put on the agenda. You have to admit that the sizes are getting larger and larger so where is it going to stop. Ridiculous.
> 
> I understand that it cost alot of money for Easton to do R&D on this arrow but it sounds like they had already developed them when they went and asked. So it was going to happen anyway.
> 
> ...




 read your saying at the bottom


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> you want to know who flip flopped.....i think i somewhere in a previous post put it out there.....
> 
> you have to understand.....the meetings cover 3 1/2 days......and they truly are taxing and grinding meetings.....
> 
> ...


Well spoken OBT, after reading this it made me think and what you have stated makes since even to me.


----------



## x-cutter (May 20, 2003)

Mike,
Answer this if you may. Bruce said that the manufacturers are to be getting fliers for their input on the arrow size. I will contend that the manufacturers have no business in making the rules for the game. That is the job of the directors. If manufacturers get involved then there is special interest involved and he with the biggest pocket book wins. I was told that Bruce made the comment that we should be more like NASCAR and make the shooters shoot what the sponsors carry. I personally believe the shooters should have the option of what brand they shoot and have the products stand on their own merits. I was told he was referring to NASCAR running all one brand of tires and that stinks of you know what. I think maybe Easton thinks that they can create another Buckmasters where no one CAN SHOOT ANYTHING BUT EASTON. If that isn't so then have them do the right thing and encourage Buckmasters to not have a brand restriction on their tournament. Let their products stand on their own merits.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2008)

*When* (yes its happening) a certain archery manufactor buys a certain archery originzation, I fear that only their products will be allowed to be used at their events.


----------



## x-cutter (May 20, 2003)

As far as the building of an organization fom the bottom up, I strongly disagree. You need to build it from the top down and put the marketing machine into play that will make the sport successful. Once you have that accomplished, you then can branch into a membership based amateur organization that will have an instructor base that will be able to facilitate an intramural school program and an introductory program(Archery in the Schools). Any other way it will fail because there is too much beauracracy and special interesr to overcome. Someone who has the experience and passion for the game will need to head it up with a good team of people to understand all the aspects that will make our sport successful.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

I'll say it again! Let's get a maximum diameter in place as soon as possible. 

Do *NOT* wait until next year after the big '08 indoor shoots are done and we've suffered through another year of BS.

Get a mail ballot together that simply says:
Shall the maximum arrow diameter be 27/64th's? Effective 11/01/08 or as soon as possible after the votes are tallied. 

I've heard that "we" want to wait until next year. Baloney, get it freaking done! It can still be on the '09 agenda. It seems like a no brainer. The arrow manufacturers may even be able to get on the same page for this! Do it now as it could become a fiasco at the next meeting and AGAIN nothing would happen! 

Do I need to make a written request for the "mail ballot"? If so who should receive it?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

x-cutter said:


> Mike,
> Answer this if you may. Bruce said that the manufacturers are to be getting fliers for their input on the arrow size. I will contend that the manufacturers have no business in making the rules for the game. That is the job of the directors. If manufacturers get involved then there is special interest involved and he with the biggest pocket book wins. I was told that Bruce made the comment that we should be more like NASCAR and make the shooters shoot what the sponsors carry. I personally believe the shooters should have the option of what brand they shoot and have the products stand on their own merits. I was told he was referring to NASCAR running all one brand of tires and that stinks of you know what. I think maybe Easton thinks that they can create another Buckmasters where no one CAN SHOOT ANYTHING BUT EASTON. If that isn't so then have them do the right thing and encourage Buckmasters to not have a brand restriction on their tournament. Let their products stand on their own merits.


I see something perhaps "hinted at" here:

1. Easton is an integral part of this game and has been for years....So, with that said, will the "other" arrow manufacturers be suffering the same fate as the "TUCKER AUTOMOBILE"???

2. WHAT IF...and I mean "what if" the "diamond" ends up owning the ASA in a few years? Does that mean that since the organization is controlled by a direct manufacturer of arrows....that only those shooting said BRAND are allowed to compete in those events? Can it come to that?

After reading the thread and speaking directly with NFAA Councilmen and Directors at Vegas....I think that perhaps a mistake may have been made with the initial vote. However, I also think that in the "emergency meeting"....there should have been a line drawn in the sand that went along with the IBO and ASA, and Lancaster's in limiting shaft size to the 0.425 imposed by them. The DIAMOND wouldn't have said anything; we'd have at least some shaft size limit, and could still go forward.

Now, we have to deal with "statements" and potentially even larger shafts being shot by a SELECTIVE FEW for sanctioned events over the coruse of at least the next year and a half before anything is done.

And then....maybe there will be a 3011, or a 4510 shaft out there and the "new line" will be drawn there...money talks.

As an NFAA member, I do feel that many of us feel slighted that we "instructed" our directors of what we wanted (I was surprised about the 9.3mm limit right away, however), they voted initially as we told them to; and then out of the blue.....the vote is overturned.

So be it....but it sure doesn't "look pretty"; and has some danders up in arms.

Sure, the PFAT SHAFT USERS didn't WIN this time....but....we opened the door wide open for anyone with the facilities, equipment, and desire to put together anything they want to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the field....or at least try it, and get away with it.

Now, that being said....look at it from a logical standpoint....it probably IS BETTER to research things...but NOT TAKE A YEAR TO DO IT....and readdress this issue again say in 30 days..>NOT 365. In addition. I know I'll want to see the DATA and also the listing of ALL the manufacturers of arrows that ARE contacted. Not just ONE manufacturer dictating what is what...but ALL OF THEM....

Personally, I thought it was too quick to just draw the line at 9.3mm this coming June...I feel that there should be a "phasing down" of shaft size over the next few years to let us all "shoot out" our fatter shafts and allow the manufacturers to get inventories down and get ready for the influx of orders for 23 diameters and down. A NO-NOTICE SCENARIO WAS NOT WISE, IMHO.

field14


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

Kstigall said:


> I'll say it again! Let's get a maximum diameter in place as soon as possible.
> 
> Do *NOT* wait until next year after the big '08 indoor shoots are done and we've suffered through another year of BS.
> 
> ...


who would this ballot be sent to. I am on board for some kind of restriction. send it to the membership or is it strictly to the directors


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

divot250 said:


> who would this ballot be sent to. I am on board for some kind of restriction. send it to the membership or is it strictly to the directors


From the way I understand the By-Laws a vote of the Directors is all that is required. This should be doable. 
I would think trying to have the entire membership vote would be costly, totally unnecessary and maybe even a nightmare.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

divot250 said:


> who would this ballot be sent to. I am on board for some kind of restriction. send it to the membership or is it strictly to the directors


I'm on board to try to get this thing done THIS YEAR....however, we all might just be peeing into a fan.

I would about bet the CASE IS CLOSED until the NFAA Meeting of 2009...which means NOTHING in place until at least June, 2009.

I can't believe a full YEAR is needed to get with the arrow manufacturers concerning R&D, inventory, etc.

IF an "emergency meeting" can be called after an adjournment to rescind a VOTE...then what the heck is going on concerning ANOTHER EMERGENCY MEETING to cover this arrow size issue?

I know...the "constitution says"....but......seems it is used like a forked tongue or something?

Petition or no petition, however....I'd wager nothing will happen the rest of this year...we'll be lucky to get an agenda item on the issue submitted in time for the next annual meeting. Sept. 30 comes awfully fast...FIVE MONTHS needed to review agenda items???? C'mon? Snails even move faster than that.

field14


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Directly from the NFAA By-Laws:

*
ARTICLE XX*
*Amendments*
The By-laws may be amended or revised by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors, as voted at the annual meeting or by mail ballot.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Kstigall said:


> Directly from the NFAA By-Laws:
> 
> *
> ARTICLE XX*
> ...



I may have a poor memory...but the last mail ballot that I remember was back in arond 1971 or so, and it concerned the release aid issue...WHAT A FIASCO that was....the "Vote" obviously turned out in favor of the release aids....but it created a rift in the NFAA that is still resounding to this very day. It also allowed other rifts to sneak into the association, BOYCOTTS have been done, all sorts of things.

Mail ballots won't really generate much of a response....only those passionately involved or those with an opinion will vote, and personally I don't think we'd get a really true cross-section of what the membership want...but rather a vote of what the passionates want and those that are associated with said "lobbyists".

Like Tim says...MAKE A RULING of this issue from the TOP DOWN...be it 0.425 for now, or be it 9.3mm....but waiting and letting this fester for another full year and a half...>NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS of the supporting clubs, indoor ranges, and membership, nor for the best interests of the NFAA/WAF being out there without any sense of direction on this issue.

field14


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

It would be better for the growth of archery as a whole to go to a standardized indoor size restriction (23).the average joe would feel more connected to people shooting arrows close to his in size (althought they would still be pounding out 28-30 x's) then he does with some guy shooting telephone poles (26-?? dia) that he has never even seen before.As freestyle archers we already have to fight the battle of what the heck do you have on that thing?? Your stabilizer is how long?? HURRY UP AND SHOOT!!! Etc.make all the indoor tourneys the same and grow the sport.IMHO


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

field14 said:


> I'm on board to try to get this thing done THIS YEAR....however, we all might just be peeing into a fan.
> 
> I would about bet the CASE IS CLOSED until the NFAA Meeting of 2009...which means NOTHING in place until at least June, 2009.
> 
> ...



see field....here is the problem.....WE.....YOU....THEY....all want to hide and cry CONSTITUTION....CONSTITUTION .....BY LAWS....BY LAWS when a agenda fits or doesnt fit what WE YOU THEY are after.....but however......if we deviate now....who's to say next time....we just toss that stuff out and do WHAT WE YOU THEY want anyway....

now look......this is just ONE of many situations that PROves that the NFAA has some tweaking to do....NOTICE i did not say broke.....but indeed the NFAA has to grow with the times...NOT STAGNATE behind some ancient ROBERTS RULES.....

WE ALL sit here and complain about what was done....or not done....that is the PROblem, you have to have 50 plus people do something that really a half dozen could most likely do in some cases and better serve the mass's.....you have to understand.....each state, is probably only getting told or DIRECTED by a very few members of what or how to vote on subjects...therefore leaving that state director in most cases to vote on what he believes makes the most sense .......i can tell you from first hand experience.....that i am spoken to about very very few of the agenda items that come up......i was spoken to last year about the hottest topic, STS and i was spoken to this year about arrow size's and restrictions.....at least ONCE on both votes i was on the prevailing side....however, on 98 % of the agenda items i never once had a conversation with any state member.....so you tell me....should i try and stay involved and focused in the meeting and vote for what i think makes the most sense.....or not

again, i think that the PRESIDENT.....should have some sort of veto power ...he does and should have daily communications that are different then most of the state directors ......such as with VENDORS, MANUFACTURES, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND STATE DIRECTORS.....i have no problem trusting and EMPOWERING our PRESIDENT.....and i think the rest of the directors should too...and in this case, he could have simply had contact with a sponsor and made a executive decision .....

but at this point.....to try and call another emergency meeting would not serve justice to anyone.....

as i have heard that 2 of the arrow manufactures have said they are in favor of the 9.3 mm arrow size....i do not know what Eastons stance is on arrow size....and at this point....i think ALL factors should be fully talked about ....and more importantly....I THINK ALL MEMBERS SHOULD BE WEARING OUT YOUR DIRECTORS WITH WHAT "YOU" WANT......and the directors should weigh heavily on WHAT YOU WANT....and take the input of the sponsors, vendors and others into account before the vote (and again, IF the PRES has to veto a vote due to conflicts-hardships of our sponsors-then allow him to do his job and veto the darn vote-while i may not like it-i would respect it and him for having to do such a thing)

but to make a arrow size restriction now in my opinion would be wrong and irresponsible .......so what if a few people are shooting larger arrows then you and me.....we have that same choice right now.....and i can tell you that there were plenty of archers out there that shot arrows smaller then 27 or 26 and had high x counts and shot some 300 rounds......

if you are a club or shop and want to make a restriction on your ranges....do it....more power to you.....

i can tell you this.....on this next arrow vote....i will ask for it to be roll call so that ALL CAN SEE THE WAY THEIR DIRECTORS VOTED


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

field14 said:


> I'm on board to try to get this thing done THIS YEAR....however, we all might just be peeing into a fan.
> 
> I would about bet the CASE IS CLOSED until the NFAA Meeting of 2009...which means NOTHING in place until at least June, 2009.
> 
> ...



I would think that they can call another emergency meeting if they can do it at Vegas.
Now, with nothing in place how long before someone comes out with a bigger arrow then the 2712 that easton has put out. Its hard for me to believe that this is gonna go on for another year and a half before something is in place.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

//www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=641217

ARTICLE IV
Membership Voting
Matters that may come before the NFAA at any time may be submitted to the membership in a vote taken by mail. Determination of matters to be submitted to the membership shall be made by the Board of Directors. A question so submitted shall be decided by the majority of the members voting and shall be binding upon the NFAA.
?????????????????????? They CAN if they want.But they wont if they know the outcome will not be what big brother or the people writting the checks wants it to be.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2008)

Its time to vote! 

There needs to be some sort of amendment that will allow each NFAA member to vote. popular vote wins!

Or

Members from each state vote...and require the director for each state, to vote as the state's ,members have voted...... delegate.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> see field....here is the problem.....WE.....YOU....THEY....all want to hide and cry CONSTITUTION....CONSTITUTION .....BY LAWS....BY LAWS when a agenda fits or doesnt fit what WE YOU THEY are after.....but however......if we deviate now....who's to say next time....we just toss that stuff out and do WHAT WE YOU THEY want anyway....
> 
> now look......this is just ONE of many situations that PROves that the NFAA has some tweaking to do....NOTICE i did not say broke.....but indeed the NFAA has to grow with the times...NOT STAGNATE behind some ancient ROBERTS RULES.....
> 
> ...


Yep,
In our discussion at Vegas, and also in several other discussions, we mentioned the above....

I also should share that the IBO and the ASA are privately owned...so the process is not so "convoluted" as it is with the NFAA/WAF. However, based upon all that I heard, saw, and caught wind of...both at the ATA show and at Vegas....I still feel the "line in the sand" CAN AND SHOULD BE DRAWN...and, for the interim of this "study" and "data gathering" should have ( or should be) set at what the IBO and ASA have done....0.425 and NO BIGGER. The "diamond" would most likely go with it....since they get their way, and that also stops any other R&D for this interim so that NOBODY ELSE makes something larger to be dealt with much later on, thus disrupting the "flow of events to follow".

Seems to me that we are offering too long of a lapse in time for "R&D" to come forward and ask for say a 3710, or a 50X or something like that to slip into the matrix between now and the forever until something supposedly can be done in 2009 to take effect June, 2009...another full TWO SERIES of WAF events without any limits in place....and people not having a clue what direction arrow sizing is taking in ONLY the NFAA...the REST OF THE WORLD is fine...at least they KNOW where things are going....for now.

field14


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

look.....from all that i gathered.....why should we go against what the membership truly wants.....supposedly 9.3mm size restriction at this point

what you are asking is actually in place......very few people are actually using 27 series arrows......some are still using 26 series......

but in all honesty.....lets call it like it is.....even those arrow manufactures with R&D in progress are halting any arrows with larger then 26 series right now.....as i think everyone is in a wait and see mood now....

and why should we penalize any shooter out there that wants to invest the time and efforts to shoot a larger size arrow.....i think all the messages have been sent...and i think that EVERYONE is now on the same page.....

i dont see the arms race continuing on from here....i sense the mood is going to come to restrictions......and right now....its only a matter of what size that comes too.....

so speak up to your directors at this point....WHAT SIZE DO YOU WANT IT TO COME TOO......


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> look.....from all that i gathered.....why should we go against what the membership truly wants.....supposedly 9.3mm size restriction at this point
> 
> what you are asking is actually in place......_very few people are actually using 27 series arrows_......some are still using 26 series......
> 
> ...


The above in RED is true....but probably because ONLY A FEW can actually get a set of the things were the components FIT...or can get 330+ grain points for them that FIT....and nocks that FIT....or bushings that FIT...

The place I shoot at got in a couple of dozen on TUESDAY before Vegas..the 150 grain points had been there for a month....Thus, only a SPECIAL FEW have the things to shoot, for now. But that was the case at Iowa and Lancasters and the Kansas City shoot too..only a special few had them.

But that is behind us...what is in store for us in the future? MAYBE people will see the lite and just elect not to venture into the land of the mega-shafts and play the game with what we have.

The Vegas shoot went off just fine...shaft size drama and all...what a shootoff it was. And if the last arrow shot by BOTH FINALISTS is any indication...egads! They both finished super strong with that last shot...capping off a very impressive display of prowess.

field14


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I still think that Easton did not throw their weight around and never even considered or threatened to withdraw the funding.

But if I am wrong on that, I would rather learn it now than in the future.

I also think the directors acted like a bunch of cowards.

My opinion a couple of months ago was that we do not need arrow size restriction and I even stated "here is one director that will never vote for arrow size restriction".

I was on the arrow committee and voted for a restriction because of membership opinion in my state. I voted for the 9.3 because it makes the most sense from a worldwide target archery standpoint.

With all the recent attention over the last month on the arrow issue, I am now of the opinion that this has the potential to rip our organization apart. We should enact the 9.3 as soon as we can do it and let the chips fall as they may, regarding manufacturers.

Although I still believe what I said in my first sentence, we were wrong to rescind our earlier legislation. It sends the message that our integrity is for sale. Once on your knees, it is difficult to ever walk upright again.

Therefore, we need to correct the result of the emergency meeting immediately.

I also think that Easton does not really care if the limit is 9.3. Otherwise, why is Easton's largest carbon arrow 9.3?

The problem with another directors meeting this year is the cost. At least $60,000 plus the cost of a meeting room.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

FS560 said:


> I still think that Easton did not throw their weight around and never even considered or threatened to withdraw the funding.
> 
> But if I am wrong on that, I would rather learn it now than in the future.
> 
> ...


Might just be worth the cash to quell the ill feeling brewing among the membership by the waffling..


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FS560 said:


> I still think that Easton did not throw their weight around and never even considered or threatened to withdraw the funding.
> 
> But if I am wrong on that, I would rather learn it now than in the future.
> 
> ...


Jim,
Is the "mail ballot" a ballot for the "membership" or does it apply to the DIRECTORS TOO? Do the diretors all have to be in the same room at the same place and time? Seems to me that several were missing from the meeting where our vote was rescinded?

Just curious....I also don't think that we need to WAIT FOR A YEAR to get off the fence on this....and go thru yet another series of meetings and discusssions, votes, and rescinded votes and more discussions....

BUT...how can it get done within say the next 30 to 45 days to impose something effective June 1...which WAS the original intent in the first place?

Does Bruce have a time limit to get with the manufacturers, or can this be done at his leisure over the course of the next 12 months, thus giving this thing time to "clear out" and settle down, and slip from the minds of reality and back into obscurity for the next go-around.

field14


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Shall there be a maximum arrow diameter of 27/64th's? This shall take effect 12/01/08. 

When I suggest a simple mail ballot on this topic the ballot would go to the _Directors_, not the general membership. This would be a unique situation that would not set a precedent. The uniqueness of the situation is that the vast majority of the Directors have already voted in the affirmative on a very similar item at a very recent annual meeting. In no way would "passing" this rule this year impede having an agenda item on implementing further arrow diameter restrictions at the '09 annual meeting.

I don't think attempting to have the entire membership vote by mail ballot is even slightly reasonable. More likely it would be a complete waste of money and effort to find out something we already know. Only a few of the Directors voted against going to 9.3 at the annual meeting. Surely no one would condemn setting a high bar of something like a max .425" diameter. For a couple of hundred bucks there would be a cap instituted before next year's big shoots. 

Creating and mailing mail ballots to Directors shouldn't be very expensive.
It seems that some just want to blow this thing off until next year. Why? 
If a manufacturer gets puckered about a mail ballot now then there is another issue that is defining the NFAA that is vastly more interesting than how big of a shaft..............we shoot. 

Why can't there be something done now on an issue that is "alive"? 
Is it because membership is involved and the "bosses" don't like it?
Does the NFAA need to first get permission from the dapper Diamond dudes and the Golden boys? 

Just do the damn ballot........It doesn't take much brass to make this  BIG decision!

There isn't a need for another meeting with all the directors in one room.................MAIL BALLOT!

 What was the final selling price of the former HQ property in California? $0,000,000? Is that too many zeros or not enough?


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

This year we have a Waffle... next year we need a Syrup Sucker to do something spectacular and we'll have breakfast...:wink:


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

FS560 said:


> ...The problem with another directors meeting this year is the cost. At least $60,000 plus the cost of a meeting room.


For $12K you could send ballots and return postage to every NFAA member.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Bobmuley said:


> For $12K you could send ballots and return postage to every NFAA member.


A conference room at the Motel 6 in Yankton big enough to hold 100 people, which is way bigger than you need, costs $60,000.00. Man somebody has got stuff way backwards. Sounds to me like there is a little too much living on the fat hog going on.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

MasterYoda said:


> Its time to vote!
> 
> There needs to be some sort of amendment that will allow each NFAA member to vote. popular vote wins!
> 
> ...


And the NFAA could do this very easily.
Mass mail to all current NFAA members. Within letter is voteing ballot.
You can vote electronically VIA NFAA website if you have no access to internet mail in ballot.
Go on majority rules hypothetically speaking 10,000 members 5001 votes have to be in.
Simple and could be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time.

And out of all the current NFAA memebers do you figure half already have internet access Mass email would be even simpliar. With a simple reply?


----------



## marko (Feb 27, 2003)

*arrow size*

I think that even if Easton was told that the 27 series arrows would be allright, then later was voted on that they wasn't should not hurt their feelings at the least. In other sports that easton builds equipment for they have exceedind the limits knowling doing it hoping to get them through but they have been stopped, and it seems funny they are still make the equipment for those sports and still backing them. But you have to have a governing body that is willing to stand up and say there has to be a limit one way or another. And as far as losing money easton would probably come out a winner in a long run since most of the archers that the rule would effect would have to turn around and buy arrows 23 series or smaller. The easiest way to vote on this issue is at the state level indoor and outdoor and state 3-d let each member vote once and what ever the vote comes out for or against big arrows your represenative should have to cast his vote that way. For if our votes don't count why are we paying to by a NFAA member, I am sure that is one of the reasons people join the NFAA or your state club so they have a say in what they think is best for archery.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Folks we need to let the "membership" mail ballot idea go. It would serve NO purpose. The Directors voted and enough still want an arrow diameter restriction. If you want something to happen we need to be reasonable. Before even considering a membership vote I'd let it wait until next year. 

The mail ballot should go to the Directors and have a non-controversial size as the maximum, like 27/64. This is would NOT stop 9.3 from being considered at the next annual meeting. The mail ballot would cost maybe $1,500 and shouldn't be difficult.......... Someone can check with the Diamond Dudes and the Golden Boys to make sure we have permission. Of course, THEY could call a truce today and appear to be pro-active!!

It would cost a lot more than $12,000 to fly every attendee to Yankton!! It would probably be cheaper to go to Vegas! Throw in 3 days of room, board and miscellaneous BS. $1,250 per attendee isn't going overboard. There may be a enough Directors at the Indoor Nationals 3/15/08 - 3/16/08 to get this thing at least temporarily settled.

27/64th's NOW!

How about it Easton.......Gold Tip....... you guys want to call a cease fire? Make a formal announcement and be a positive influence. It wouldn't take much of a compromise!


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

field14 said:


> Jim,
> Is the "mail ballot" a ballot for the "membership" or does it apply to the DIRECTORS TOO? Do the diretors all have to be in the same room at the same place and time? Seems to me that several were missing from the meeting where our vote was rescinded?
> 
> Just curious....I also don't think that we need to WAIT FOR A YEAR to get off the fence on this....and go thru yet another series of meetings and discusssions, votes, and rescinded votes and more discussions....
> ...



There can be a mail ballot of the directors or the membership. One problem with a mail ballot for either the directors or the membership is that this issue has many potential solutions. How is the question on the ballot determined?

If the ballot were to have all possible combinations, we would end up with a cluster.

Which diameter would the ballot ask the question for? 9.3, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, .425, or other.

The directors authorize a mail ballot of the membership. How do we get 50 directors scattered across the country to determine the specific question?


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

Kstigall said:


> Folks we need to let the "membership" mail ballot idea go. It would serve NO purpose. The Directors voted and enough still want an arrow diameter restriction. If you want something to happen we need to be reasonable. Before even considering a membership vote I'd let it wait until next year.
> 
> The mail ballot should go to the Directors and have a non-controversial size as the maximum, like 27/64. This is would NOT stop 9.3 from being considered at the next annual meeting. The mail ballot would cost maybe $1,500 and shouldn't be difficult.......... Someone can check with the Diamond Dudes and the Golden Boys to make sure we have permission. Of course, THEY could call a truce today and appear to be pro-active!!
> 
> ...


True to degree Im in agreement for counting out flying directors to yankton or vegas for an emergency meeting.
But if its cost effective than a mass email or mail ballot would work for the members who are suppose to tell their directors anyways.
And to add why would it even get back to the floor if you had a majority vote 1 way or the other thru mass mail.
Unless there is a secretive agenda in the works then I could see it being a waste of time.
Then again the new LOGO might read NFITNAA?:wink:


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

FS560 said:


> ...
> The directors authorize a mail ballot of the membership. How do we get 50 directors scattered across the country to determine the specific question?


The same way you get 70,000 worldwide members to look at an archery forum...Internet?

Would that work?


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

FS560 said:


> There can be a mail ballot of the directors or the membership. One problem with a mail ballot for either the directors or the membership is that this issue has many potential solutions. How is the question on the ballot determined?
> 
> If the ballot were to have all possible combinations, we would end up with a cluster.
> 
> ...


EMAIL CELL PHONES GEEZ we set here and argue out points and issues all the time.
When we sign up to be any ORG membership we are ask for an email address all the officers currently over the IFAA have email addys and ph #s its not as hard as some are claiming it to be.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

swerve said:


> A conference room at the Motel 6 in Yankton big enough to hold 100 people, which is way bigger than you need, costs $60,000.00. Man somebody has got stuff way backwards. Sounds to me like there is a little too much living on the fat hog going on.



Please reread what I said. I never said the conference room would cost $60,000.

I did say the cost would be that plus the conference room.

What about travel for 50 directors, 10 councilmen, 2 officers, and the executive secretary? That is the $60,000. Actually, only 1 officer would have to travel if the meeting were in Yankton.


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

...man does this make the ASA look like a group of ROCKET SCIENTISTS!! 

...we should never wonder why the Federal, State or Local Governments have difficulty making SIMPLE decisions...nor wonder why it COSTS so much to cater to elected officials...

...like has been said, this "can be" done quickly "and" efficiently...

...too bad it won't be...

...a better way is needed for this organization to operate in modern times...

...OBT for NFAA President:darkbeer:


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

DONDEERE said:


> ...OBT for NFAA President:darkbeer:


If a dictatorship can last for 49 years not far from us it could last at least twice that long from NC.

I second the nomination.


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

Utilize NATS set up a booth all members use membership cards and ID # to cast votes. That would even cut down on mail ballot and be even more cost effective members not in attendance would receive mail.
Regardless we are the NFAA, NOT fita or naa and need this resolved within our ORG. And to not just follow the NORM.

Plan and simple grandfather anything in 10 yrs or older in use arrow size wise and leave it at that. 27s out 26s and smaller in.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Bobmuley said:


> The same way you get 70,000 worldwide members to look at an archery forum...Internet?
> 
> Would that work?


I think any kind of email, internet, or conference call meeting would be a mess because of too many people involved.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Have an emergency meeting at the Indoor Nationals!

I bet enough Directors and/or their Representatives can or will be in the house for a quick "27/64th's........Y or N?"
I'm about positive this can easily be accomplished while following "Roberts Rules of Order" and NFAA By-Laws. I know the President Cull CAN call an emergency meeting. 

:wink: FS560, I have your vote covered. Or Monte, Vic, Kendall, Vince or Timmy can do a "hell yeah" from Virginia for a stop gap 27/64 size.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

FS560 said:


> I think any kind of email, internet, or conference call meeting would be a mess because of too many people involved.


As of right now there's been 745 posts (someone with more internet powers than me could tell you how many users, I'm gonna guess its at least 100) and 15,716 viewers of this thread. Alot of interest. Yes, it is somewhat "messy", but its not infeasible and its alot more affordable than a formal meeting or alot of other meeting venues. 

Maybe try it out within one Councilman's region first and see where it goes from there.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Kstigall said:


> Have an emergency meeting at the Indoor Nationals!
> 
> I bet enough Directors and/or their Representatives can or will be in the house for a quick "27/64th's........Y or N?"
> I'm about positive this can easily be accomplished while following "Roberts Rules of Order" and NFAA By-Laws. I know the President Cull CAN call an emergency meeting.
> ...


0.425" max diameter. This gives some room for "manufacturing variances" in the 27/64 diameter. Of course, WHY does it have to be the new 27's....because EASTON says so...or so did the IBO and the ASA....that is.

But a simple YES OR NO on the 0.425 would at least get the line drawn in the sand...and then..the EFFECTIVE DATE of June 1, 2008. 

This does not PERMANENTLY cast the 27's as the largest diameter forever....but at least gets a limit set effective June `1, 2008 and this arms race doesn't run rampant and something new and bigger sneaks in just under the gun...but AFTER the deadline for "agenda items" has passed....and we have the SAME FIASCO next February that we just had...and MORE WAFFLING.

What needs to be done to get the ball rolling, or is it already rolling? or does it have a FLAT TIRE and will NEVER roll, fly, walk, crawl, or move?

field14


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> But if its cost effective than a mass email or mail ballot would work for the members who are suppose to tell their directors anyways.


NFAA is an organization of states. In many states, the state organization is run by club directors and the state members do not directly dictate to the NFAA director.

At the time of the first and only referendum to the members in 1971, NFAA had been an organization of states for only about 5 years. Now, however, we have been an organization of states for about 42 years.

In any event, the states, through their directors, would have to agree to a referendum to the membership.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

FS560 said:


> Please reread what I said. I never said the conference room would cost $60,000.
> 
> I did say the cost would be that plus the conference room.
> 
> What about travel for 50 directors, 10 councilmen, 2 officers, and the executive secretary? That is the $60,000. Actually, only 1 officer would have to travel if the meeting were in Yankton.


well if the issue is as important as it appears to be on this web site. Maybe the directors could cover the cost of a plane ticket for the continued existence of the NFAA. If they would have stuck by their guns, the meeting wouldn't be neccessary.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Give it up... the directors ain't calling for a member vote... and this thing ain't going nowhere..:wink:


----------



## xxSPOTTSxx (Mar 4, 2007)

FS560 said:


> NFAA is an organization of states. In many states, the state organization is run by club directors and the state members do not directly dictate to the NFAA director.
> 
> At the time of the first and only referendum to the members in 1971, NFAA had been an organization of states for only about 5 years. Now, however, we have been an organization of states for about 42 years.
> 
> In any event, the states, through their directors, would have to agree to a referendum to the membership.


So in laymens terms some MEMBERS (the majority) get a vote in some states and in some states the directors are the only ones that count on the vote.
So pretty much the 50 in vegas vote their way? regardless of how the mass feels?
Unless state members attend annual state meeting to express to their state officers and NFAA rep their position?


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

JAVI said:


> Give it up... the directors ain't calling for a member vote... and this thing ain't going nowhere..:wink:


I know that. Just a Eutopian dream. :embara:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Bobmuley said:


> I know that. Just a Eutopian dream. :embara:


More like a Hamster in his wheel...:tongue:


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

*Enough of this crap*



DONDEERE said:


> ...man does this make the ASA look like a group of ROCKET SCIENTISTS!!
> 
> ...we should never wonder why the Federal, State or Local Governments have difficulty making SIMPLE decisions...nor wonder why it COSTS so much to cater to elected officials...
> 
> ...


Yes they are, very smart!!!!!

But only as efficient as CANCER, because when the host dies the so goes the malignancy.

So don't compare the two, because when the local non profit clubs are gone, archery as an International sport will DIE !!!!!!

Why do those big $$$$$ events looooose money, and WHO payed that bill.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

JAVI said:


> More like a Hamster in his wheel...:tongue:


Or a Machevellian nightmare:grin:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

*Hotel Called Today*

Anyone lose this???


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Anyone lose this???


or it got bent into the shape of the "E" or a "diamond" shape....

field14


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

xxSPOTTSxx said:


> So in laymens terms some MEMBERS (the majority) get a vote in some states and in some states the directors are the only ones that count on the vote.
> JQ comment - In many states, the state association is run by the clubs and the club members control the state through the club director not the NFAA director.
> So pretty much the 50 in vegas vote their way? regardless of how the mass feels?
> JQ comment - No. Many states direct their NFAA director on exactly how to vote on the agenda items at the NFAA meeting.
> ...


I inserted my comments in red above.


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

After reading every post in this thread.



I see some saying a limit should have been set and it appears that most are now settling with a 27/64 diameter.

Why 27?

How many companies make a 27/64 shaft?

Why not settle with what is common(26/64)?


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

So what have we learned 

Easton contributes a lot …. And want's input.. Or at least some courtesy

NFAA members want input… and most contribute very little

Gold Tip wants to Be like Easton without the self proclaimed unfair business practices however will field it's own employees with an unfair advantage 

The NFAA is an organization really to convoluted by it's business structure to produce real change and when it tries to work on the fringes to illicit real change the membership claims unfair business practices

Most are now considering $80.00 2716 designed to catch the outside line as a "ridicules" arrow shaft and are now demanding change

Nobody apparently considers $350.00 nano sized shafts designed to stay inside the lines as unfair or ridicules…

Most will support a 9.3 change….. But will use what ever shaft there neighbor is using until then

The NFAA does not like it's members to hear some closed door discussions… Despite the fact that those are the exact conversations state reps should be having with their "neighbors"

People will gladly feed from the hands of corporations….. Then quickly bite the same hand 

Nobody thinks we should model the NFAA after NASCAR, GOLF, NFL or any other SUCCESSFUL organization

Did I miss anything??


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

centerx said:


> So what have we learned
> 
> Easton contributes a lot …. And want's input.. Or at least some courtesy
> 
> ...


 Waiting for someone to bring that point up

And no your summary is perfect:thumbs_up They can now delete the rest of the thread and we can go from here:wink:


----------



## JohnR (Apr 5, 2007)

*Easton 9912 X-7 or schedule 40 sewer pipe!*

I think what all this boils down to is, NOT evening the playing field BUT...spoil sports and sore loosers!!!!

It does not matter what equipment you use or the arrow size... IF your equipment is tuned properly and you execute the shot correctly (or consistantly) every time...you'll be the winner! At the tourney or within yourself. PERIOD!!!


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Hutnicks said:


> Waiting for someone to bring that point up
> 
> And no your summary is perfect:thumbs_up They can now delete the rest of the thread and we can go from here:wink:


After that post CenterX, I heaved a huge sigh of relief. Almost like the one I had when I learned who shot JR. Could this possibly be the END. NOT


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

JohnR said:


> I think what all this boils down to is, NOT evening the playing field BUT...spoil sports and sore loosers!!!!
> 
> It does not matter what equipment you use or the arrow size... IF your equipment is tuned properly and you execute the shot correctly (or consistantly) every time...you'll be the winner! At the tourney or within yourself. PERIOD!!!


Good point... but not accurate!

If Cuz was shooting his X-10 ProTours at Vegas he would not have won the tournament.:tongue:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> After reading every post in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mostly because then, you still remain at THREE standards in archery IF you go with the 26's

You would have:

1. NAA/FITA at the 9.3mm.

2. IBO/ASA at 27 (0.425)

3. the NFAA/WAF at 26/64.

At least by putting the limit at "27" you get back to TWO standards...for awhile, with the possibility of down-sizing over time to the WORLD STANDARD of "9.3mm".

As far a Dave NOT winning unless he had the 27's....if you go ONLY by impact point...perhaps not...but since nearly ALL of them on the line were shooting 27's in the shootoffs...and the 'x-counts' varied immensely....now many of THE OTHERS wouldn't have even made the shootoffs without the AID of the 27's.

BUT...if you base it on common sense...which tells you that the shot MIGHT have been CLOSER to the middle if the shaft wasn't so stiff...NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE...but only goes by impact point. The shot may well have been CLOSER TO THE MIDDLE TOO...due to the nuances of a stiff shaft!

Dave has won his fair share of FITA events, NAA events, and those limited to the 23 diameter (9.3mm) too....as has Tim Gillingham. At least THEY compete WORLD WIDE...and not just in a select FEW venues like so many other PROfessional shooters....

The shaft does NOT make the shooter...the shooter MAKES the shaft work FOR THEM...or they don't make the shootoff.

We all know that if we shot this tournament again in the same format and line setup this coming weekend...we may well end up with a completely different number of finalists and a completely different top 10 as well....SOME would drop points that didn't, others that dropped a point or two wouldn't, and etc, etc.

Those that shot 29X....weren't in the shootoff....Reo comes to mind...due to a minor glitch on Friday...and on and on and on....

We wouldn't even be discussing this issue concerning CUZ...if one of the "fair-haired and popular" guys had won...but THEY were not in the final two...those fair-haired boys, that is....you know, those than can do no wrong in the eyes of some....while others are crucified for anything and everything from nose picking to whatever.....

field14


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

field14 said:


> WV Has Been said:
> 
> 
> > After reading every post in this thread.
> ...


I think you missed my point.

Common was refering to an arrow size that every manufactor currently has.



You mentioned hitting closer to center with a shaft that was not so stiff. I shot a 27.5" 2613 with a 150 grain point, in Vegas, and every arrow hit where it was pointed. I have never been convinced that an arrow has to flex a certain amount to be more accurate out of a center-shot riser with a release-aide.:wink: 

Maybe thats why I was watching the shoot-off and not playing. I just dont have the right combo.:tongue:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> field14 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you missed my point.
> ...


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> WV Has Been said:
> 
> 
> > field14 said:
> ...


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

Somebody drive a stake through this things heart...for the sake of humanity.. please!!!


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

No TTT. This one may go like "Mathews the anti-christ" one did on another forum. that was a good one.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Bees said:


> No TTT. This one may go like "Mathews the anti-christ" one did on another forum. that was a good one.


sounds like entertaining reading.

where was that?

is Easton the new anti-christ now?

I probably should not have said that.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

FS560 said:


> sounds like entertaining reading.
> 
> where was that?
> 
> ...


After that...

I think I'd stay in the house with the blinds drawn for a while..:wink:


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

FS560 said:


> sounds like entertaining reading.
> 
> where was that?
> 
> ...


If you hear a helicopter...but dont see one....run in a zig-zag pattern
makes you a harder target:wink:


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

perhaps triple black helicopters.....would that be blackhawks?

I guess it could be worse.....like having an A10 running you down. That would be more sudden death than pancreatic cancer.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> If you hear a helicopter...but dont see one....run in a zig-zag pattern
> makes you a harder target:wink:


 :wink: I wanna' see that! :becky:


----------



## Goldeneagle (Oct 24, 2002)

This makes me PROUD to be a CHEWIE!!!!!


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> If you hear a helicopter...but dont see one....run in a zig-zag pattern
> makes you a harder target:wink:


RUN


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Goldeneagle said:


> This makes me PROUD to be a CHEWIE!!!!!


Yeah right, your time will come


----------



## Goldeneagle (Oct 24, 2002)

Oops, forgot the smiley face. I really hope ya'll get everything worked out.


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

I think that choppers ammo is bigger than 9.3mm
I CALL FOUL !!!


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> I think that choppers ammo is bigger than 9.3mm
> I CALL FOUL !!!


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Now I'm angry!*

I exchanged email with my state director who was also a member of the arrow standard committee in Vegas. He also says that Easton didn't threatened anything and I believe him. He says that he voted for the 9.3 mm rule and I am sure he was wholeheartedly in favor of it. His reason for why he voted to rescind the new rule sounds suspiciously like the "company spin", however. He said he and others felt that this rule deserved more discussion and more careful consideration than it received since it was the result of a 15 signature petition and not an item on the regular agenda. That explanation would seem more genuine if the multi-member committee that gave this item hours of consideration had come back to the meeting with that recommendation in the first place. It might also seem more genuine if the directors themselves had decided not to vote on the item because it was too important an issue to be introduced to the agenda by a 15 signature petition. 

Instead, the committee and the directors readily embraced the action right up to the moment, after the regular session, where they decided to rescind it because it needed more discussion. One can only wonder what transpired to change their minds so quickly. It seems unlikely that the source of their new doubt was present at the regular meeting when they voted for the measure so we can only conclude that it was someone or some group (perhaps one with a diamond logo) that was not entitled to be at the meeting but did offer their input once the meeting had concluded.

Why do I rise to stir this pot once again? It is because, after further review, it would seem that our organization and our director's voting decisions are influenced by entities, ie. archery manufacturers, which are not constitutionally granted a seat at this table. Furthermore it appears that these entities may exert more influence on our directors' votes than we do. I believe that those of us who are dues paying members of the NFAA need to tell our leaders that we feel this is not right and that while no one objects to manufacturers expressing opinions, those opinions ought not be given greater consideration than the constituency that a director represents. 

This entire episode reflects poorly on our leadership and bodes ill for the future strength of our organization. An organization that does not honor its constitutional obligation to faithfully represent its membership cannot expect its membership to remain faithfully interested or engaged in its future. I honestly believe that this and other recent actions have demonstrated that NFAA leadership lacks respect for its membership and, if this continues they should no longer enjoy our support.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I exchanged email with my state director who was also a member of the arrow standard committee in Vegas. He also says that Easton didn't threatened anything and I believe him. He says that he voted for the 9.3 mm rule and I am sure he was wholeheartedly in favor of it. His reason for why he voted to rescind the new rule sounds suspiciously like the "company spin", however. He said he and others felt that this rule deserved more discussion and more careful consideration than it received since it was the result of a 15 signature petition and not an item on the regular agenda. That explanation would seem more genuine if the multi-member committee that gave this item hours of consideration had come back to the meeting with that recommendation in the first place. It might also seem more genuine if the directors themselves had decided not to vote on the item because it was too important an issue to be introduced to the agenda by a 15 signature petition.
> 
> Instead, the committee and the directors readily embraced the action right up to the moment, after the regular session, where they decided to rescind it because it needed more discussion. One can only wonder what transpired to change their minds so quickly. It seems unlikely that the source of their new doubt was present at the regular meeting when they voted for the measure so we can only conclude that it was someone or some group (perhaps one with a diamond logo) that was not entitled to be at the meeting but did offer their input once the meeting had concluded.
> 
> ...



now Al Chick......i hate to say it...but your director is sounding more and more like a company man everytime he speaks....

he sure didnt mind engaging in all those STS 15 line sig items....

and i did not know that we werent supposed to take 15 sig items as real agenda items until a year latter

wow is all im gonna say.....and to think...he's a JOE


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I exchanged email with my state director who was also a member of the arrow standard committee in Vegas. He also says that Easton didn't threatened anything and I believe him. He says that he voted for the 9.3 mm rule and I am sure he was wholeheartedly in favor of it. His reason for why he voted to rescind the new rule sounds suspiciously like the "company spin", however. He said he and others felt that this rule deserved more discussion and more careful consideration than it received since it was the result of a 15 signature petition and not an item on the regular agenda. That explanation would seem more genuine if the multi-member committee that gave this item hours of consideration had come back to the meeting with that recommendation in the first place. It might also seem more genuine if the directors themselves had decided not to vote on the item because it was too important an issue to be introduced to the agenda by a 15 signature petition.
> 
> Instead, the committee and the directors readily embraced the action right up to the moment, after the regular session, where they decided to rescind it because it needed more discussion. One can only wonder what transpired to change their minds so quickly. It seems unlikely that the source of their new doubt was present at the regular meeting when they voted for the measure so we can only conclude that it was someone or some group (perhaps one with a diamond logo) that was not entitled to be at the meeting but did offer their input once the meeting had concluded.
> 
> ...


where you been.....there way ahead of you on this part of your post:wink:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

To add to this is a quote from the ASA site: It was posted by the owner of ASA...right after the ATA show in January: NOTE that the NFAA is mentioned as indicated in RED. I know that the "agreement" by the NFAA wasn't quite finalized...however.....it seems to me that the directors and/or the NFAA don't give a squat about what they went along with at this meeting either, and reniged on that too!

Effective immediately, the following rule will be in force for all levels of ASA competition. _There has been agreement that these standards will be adopted by the ASA, IBO and *NFAA for the 2008 season*._

NEW RULE: Arrows of any type may be used provided they subscribe to the accepted principle and meaning of the word arrow as used in target archery, have not been altered from the manufacturer's original specifications (except cut to size), and that these arrows do not cause undue damage to the 3-D targets. An arrow consists of a shaft with a field or glue-in point, nock, fletching and, if desired, cresting. The maximum diameter of arrow shafts will not exceed .422"; the field or glue-in point for these arrows may have a maximum diameter of .425".

As a point of reference the Easton 2712 has a diameter of .420"
"""

Here's the link to the above quotation:

http://asaarchery.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=e023cca9277a781f049d4595fa96fb9f&topic=5589.0

So, WHY wasn't at least the 0.425 "agreed upon" undertaken by the NFAA??

What gives, and WHY do we supposedly need another YEAR to year and a half to have any resolution?

field14


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Rhetorical question eh… Field :wink:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

field14 said:


> To add to this is a quote from the ASA site: It was posted by the owner of ASA...right after the ATA show in January: NOTE that the NFAA is mentioned as indicated in RED. I know that the "agreement" by the NFAA wasn't quite finalized...however.....it seems to me that the directors and/or the NFAA don't give a squat about what they went along with at this meeting either, and reniged on that too!
> 
> Effective immediately, the following rule will be in force for all levels of ASA competition. _There has been agreement that these standards will be adopted by the ASA, IBO and *NFAA for the 2008 season*._
> 
> ...



field.....you are acting like the dumbest smart guy i know right now

why heck, why dont we go to CART to see what NASCAR, IRL, NHRA, and Formula One will be using or doing....

like ASA can actually make that call for NFAA or IBO......for that matter....will they even keep it for themselfs.....


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> field.....you are acting like the dumbest smart guy i know right now
> 
> why heck, why dont we go to CART to see what NASCAR, IRL, NHRA, and Formula One will be using or doing....
> 
> like ASA can actually make that call for NFAA or IBO......for that matter....will they even keep it for themselfs.....


OOOOH yeah baby. Lay a hit of Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA all over Archery. Easton'll be merging with Depends when he gets nailed for a 500 meg fine for interference and violating the integrity of the sport. Bernie for pres, hell no, Omnipote I say!!!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> OOOOH yeah baby. Lay a hit of Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA all over Archery. Easton'll be merging with Depends when he gets nailed for a 500 meg fine for interference and violating the integrity of the sport. Bernie for pres, hell no, Omnipote I say!!!



does any of it ever really get paid......i mean really


----------



## EROS (Feb 15, 2004)

and the wheels on the bus go round and round


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> does any of it ever really get paid......i mean really


Well, I _*think*_ Ron Dennis actually bought Bernie a beer one day, does that count?


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

Where is this gonna end. it just seems that no one is going to do anything, it just boggles my mind that this can't get done.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

divot250 said:


> Where is this gonna end. it just seems that no one is going to do anything, it just boggles my mind that this can't get done.


Well the org can't do anything because the mfg won't let them !

The mfg won't do anything because it wants the advantage over the competition in arrow size !

And it seems the Archers don't have the Gonads to do it themselves !

So around and around and around we go !!!

Woody


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

divot250 said:


> Where is this gonna end. it just seems that no one is going to do anything, it just boggles my mind that this can't get done.


That's not true... I'm doing what I think is the best, I'm withholding my membership fees... if all who feel the same about the circumstances do the same I'm certain Bruce will see the effect... if no one else does it then at least I've voiced my opinion.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I saw, on Archery-forum, a message by GT at Easton on Feb 21 stating that he had been in Greg Easton's office and that Greg knew nothing about the issue.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> field.....you are acting like the dumbest smart guy i know right now
> 
> why heck, why dont we go to CART to see what NASCAR, IRL, NHRA, and Formula One will be using or doing....
> 
> like ASA can actually make that call for NFAA or IBO......for that matter....will they even keep it for themselfs.....


OBT,
I was simply pointing out that at that ATA meeting, the NFAA had agreed "in principle" to go along with or rule even stricter with the 0.425 arrow size....I have this on pretty reliable sources as well...as almost directly from the horse's mouths.

The IBO and ASA knew that the NFAA couldn't make an "official" change like this, BUT...the NFAA people did go as far to "agree in principle" to this impending change. Then, of course, the NFAA ends up doing NOTHING....and making themselves the only archery org on the planet without SOME ruling or restriction on arrows....

field14


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

MOPARLVR4406 said:


> If you hear a helicopter...but dont see one....run in a zig-zag pattern
> makes you a harder target:wink:


i hear they are carrying larger bullets now for cases like this. makes it easier to hit the target.:tongue:


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Call the NFAA (800) 811-2331*



JAVI said:


> That's not true... I'm doing what I think is the best, I'm withholding my membership fees... if all who feel the same about the circumstances do the same I'm certain Bruce will see the effect... if no one else does it then at least I've voiced my opinion.


Unfortunately, Javi, everyone can't do that because that would eliminate their ability to compete at the national level. I do think I'm back to the idea of a phone-in campaign to make our point that the NFAA should be representing its members not its sponsors. Whether you agreed with it or not, the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill got stopped cold in its tracks because millions of Americans called Washington. Calling in is one of the best and most direct ways to get your message heard. Trust me, Bruce can make the translation between one disgruntled caller and one less member. He just needs to feel how many of us there are before he's going to care. I'm changing my avatar back to the caller again, only this time it will say call the NFAA.


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

Woody69 said:


> Well the org can't do anything because the mfg won't let them !
> 
> The mfg won't do anything because it wants the advantage over the competition in arrow size !
> 
> ...


If we all lived in the fita world everything by your standards would be fine, but over here its divided. I currently shot the 30X pros from gold tip. and come next indoor season I will probably be shooting a 23 series arrow.


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

JAVI said:


> That's not true... I'm doing what I think is the best, I'm withholding my membership fees... if all who feel the same about the circumstances do the same I'm certain Bruce will see the effect... if no one else does it then at least I've voiced my opinion.


Why is it so hard to put a size restriction. put it at the .422 and then have another vote later on. But do it before next indoor season. Someone is going to come out with a bigger arrow then the 2712.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

AlChick said:


> Unfortunately, Javi, everyone can't do that because that would eliminate their ability to compete at the national level. I do think I'm back to the idea of a phone-in campaign to make our point that the NFAA should be representing its members not its sponsors. Whether you agreed with it or not, the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill got stopped cold in its tracks because millions of Americans called Washington. Calling in is one of the best and most direct ways to get your message heard. Trust me, Bruce can make the translation between one disgruntled caller and one less member. He just needs to feel how many of us there are before he's going to care. I'm changing my avatar back to the caller again, only this time it will say call the NFAA.


Only two tournaments... all others are open to anyone with the entry fee including Vegas or in the case of the ASA you have to be a member and pay the pro fees anyway.. And how long before Bruce got the message when only a handful showed up for the Nationals..


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*You could scale up.*



JAVI said:


> Only two tournaments... all others are open to anyone with the entry fee including Vegas or in the case of the ASA you have to be a member and pay the pro fees anyway..


Fair enough, but why not try the less drastic measure first? If that doesn't have any effect then you can always withhold your fees. At that point you'd have no other choice.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> Easton contributes a lot …. And want's input.. Or at least some courtesy
> 
> NFAA members want input… and most contribute very little


A VERY dangerous dichotomy.

Are you tacitly approving of a philosophy of operations that caters to the largest wallet in an organization?
Or worse yet, are you advocating that the entire voice of an organization's rank and file membership can be righteously drowned out by the shout of an outside coporation's wallet?

Woe to that organization, say I.

The NFAA has set membership dues in a specific amount, payable by those wishing to join and have a voice in an organization that promotes and subscribes to those things the membership holds dear.
Upon paying the full amount of that membership fee, a member in good standing MUST have EQUAL voice to all other members.

The moment monetary contribution quantity becomes a voting criteria, all is lost and the organization becomes a sinking wreck, headed to the bottom of the corruptive sea.

A VERY bad paradigm has been posed here....


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

divot250 said:


> Why is it so hard to put a size restriction. put it at the .422 and then have another vote later on. But do it before next indoor season. Someone is going to come out with a bigger arrow then the 2712.


It all depends on who is more important to the leadership, the membership or the corporate contributor. 

In this case it seem to be crystal clear... The leadership follows the cash.... and the membership gets to suck hind teat...:wink:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

AlChick said:


> Fair enough, but why not try the less drastic measure first? If that doesn't have any effect then you can always withhold your fees. At that point you'd have no other choice.


Because once paid you lose the ability to withhold for one year... withhold now and explain why...:wink:


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

hammerheadpc said:


> A VERY dangerous dichotomy.
> 
> Are you tacitly approving of a philosophy of operations that caters to the largest wallet in an organization?
> Or worse yet, are you advocating that the entire voice of an organization's rank and file membership can be righteously drowned out by the shout of an outside coporation's wallet?
> ...


Kinda like any other governing body huh?


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Out of curiosity......

Why can't the NFAA Board be called into an emergency meeting ....again.... via a teleconference and vote in a 27 limit so at least some limit will be in place and halt the talks I heard of companies gearing up for 28-diameter arrows in retaliation to the no-limit decision? Then, via appropriate channels, agenda items can be submitted which in theory can be discussed by the members with their individual State Boards/Directors and a decision can be made next Feb whether to further limit sizes, phase-in size limits, or status quo on a 27 limit. I believe the Board can be convened outside of its regularly scheduled Feb annual meeting and any decision can be enacted as law within 30 days of publication in Archery. Possibly even call for an emergency meeting at Louisville to get the ball rolling and figure out the logistics of either a teleconference meeting, electronic vote, or even a good ol' fashioned mail vote of the Directors....if allowed per NFAA By-Laws of course.

I've already expressed my opinion to several at Vegas. Imo the Directors acted too hastily and without direction from their membership in the first place (sorry Joe, et.al.). Since the item was brought up via committee and a 15-signature it was never on the public agenda that was available to be discussed at State meetings prior to the Feb Annual Board meeting in the first place. So me thinks just a little personal bias may have been instilled by the 50 rather than hearing even what the competing membership may have wanted. I would think something as big as an arrow size limit, especially one where the limit was rolled back to an arrow smaller than alot of indoor archers currently use, should have been brought to the membership first for discussion via an actual agenda item. If the Board felt strongly about putting a limit on things where they currently stood (i.e. 27) prior to an actual agenda item, then fine. And working with all manufacturers first to set a limit smaller than sizes currently being manufactured for public consumption would have seemed a good place to start. A little different now than back in the mid-90's when FITA for example implemented the 23 limit. Back then I don't believe there were any commercially available arrows larger than a 23 in production other than Easton and note, they seemed to be on board back then with the change. 24's and 25's were still relatively new for indoor spot shooting back then so it was easier for FITA to implement the change. Now we have not only 24's and 25's but 26's, 27's, Linejammers, Xcutters, 30X's, etc., which have been around for several years of use. To suddenly in one fell swoop make all those arrow sizes illegal for NFAA comps after they've been around for years seems awfully ill-advised, imo. If anything, work with the arrow manufacturers and put in a phase-in period, i.e. 27 limit now and then have the limit drop to 23 (if that is what the membership wants) in 2, 3, or 4 years from now. Gives the manufacturers time to sell off old stuff for a few years and gear down production of the sizes that will no longer allowed down the road, will allow some companies to gear up to produce a 9.3mm shaft, and will as importantly allow the archers who are already currently using larger diameter arrows a chance to shoot them for a couple more years if they wish and can work on replacing them with 23-diameter arrows as they need replacing.

Just a few, probably misguided, thoughts on the topic...........

>>-------->


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

JAVI said:


> That's not true... I'm doing what I think is the best, I'm withholding my membership fees... if all who feel the same about the circumstances do the same I'm certain Bruce will see the effect... if no one else does it then at least I've voiced my opinion.





JAVI said:


> Only two tournaments... all others are open to anyone with the entry fee including Vegas or in the case of the ASA you have to be a member and pay the pro fees anyway.. And how long before Bruce got the message when only a handful showed up for the Nationals..


My state; soon to be down to 15 active clubs (was 23 in year 2003 - our club is dropping the NFAA effective March 31, 2008, so minus off another 6 to 13 members.). Of the IAA member clubs; 3 can host a Championship Field, 1 can host a Championship Outdoor, 5 might be able to host a Championship Indoor. Actually, 1 of the 3 that can host a Championship Field is the 1 that can host the Championship Outdoor, so 7 clubs, only 3 in any year, can host a IAA event, leaving 8 clubs out in the "cold." Amendment below*.
Our IAA Board has seen fit to say; If you can't host a paper event, tough." by eliminating the Championship 3D. However, we can have a 2 "fun" 3Ds where the average attendance is like 8. (Northern Board member Walt Erickson threw a fit when he had only 3 IAA members show up at his.) *So 2 + 3 = 5 clubs can host something for the entire year. I think clubs with a 14 lane field course are allowed to have Spring Openers. I went to Galesburg's Spring Opener 2 years ago and was 1 of 3 that showed up - one was the President of the club. Galesburg has not bid for a IAA event since. 
Guessing, and guessing really good, half of the present 16 clubs are insured through ASA. 

With the above I would think the NFAA better be looking and looking hard.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Jeff if the NFAA decided to follow your plan, I'd be happy to support it.. 

It isn't the arrow size limit that I'm in disagreement with (although I am in total support of the 9.3mm limit), but rather the method used to alter the process to suit one contributor... That must be nipped in the bud...:wink:


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

CHPro said:


> Out of curiosity......
> 
> Why can't the NFAA Board be called into an emergency meeting ....again.... via a teleconference and vote in a 27 limit so at least some limit will be in place and halt the talks I heard of companies gearing up for 28-diameter arrows in retaliation to the no-limit decision? Then, via appropriate channels, agenda items can be submitted which in theory can be discussed by the members with their individual State Boards/Directors and a decision can be made next Feb whether to further limit sizes, phase-in size limits, or status quo on a 27 limit. I believe the Board can be convened outside of its regularly scheduled Feb annual meeting and any decision can be enacted as law within 30 days of publication in Archery. Possibly even call for an emergency meeting at Louisville to get the ball rolling and figure out the logistics of either a teleconference meeting, electronic vote, or even a good ol' fashioned mail vote of the Directors....if allowed per NFAA By-Laws of course.
> 
> ...


This is the type of wise and thoughtful response I'd expect from you, but my question is why would we expect the national to do this? Clearly, they are not interested in responding to the membership or its opinions. These guys seem to be making decisions on their own for their own reasons.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*Are you tacitly approving of a philosophy of operations that caters to the largest wallet in an organization?
Or worse yet, are you advocating that the entire voice of an organization's rank and file membership can be righteously drowned out by the shout of an outside corporation's wallet?*

All I'm saying is wake up and smell the money…………… Membership AND sponsor money that is 

Since sponsors are only "relevant" on the competition level let's face it ….. Most NFAA members could care less.. Most don't travel and Most have also never held an office trying to make a difference or in fact organized or ran a local shoot ….. Membership in this organization does not give you a vote at least I have never been able to vote on any of the agenda items at the annual meeting…. I have expressed opinions but I could do that if I was or was not a member

National events need sponsors.. They need them for there financial contributions and for the "environment" the produce by setting up shop that draws attnedees… Members that DESIRE to ATTEND these events are willing to forgo concessions in order to have a great experience… If you don't want that experience then have the Orgs stay the course of it's (let's face it non voting membership) However , I can ASSURE you should sponsored leave in sufficient droves…. The participating membership will be sufficiently enraged while the non participating membership could care less 

Now I would prefer to have a size limit but I would PREFER to do it in the context that keeps sponsors happy.. I really DOUBT and NO PROOF has been presented that EASTON really gives a Rats Butt about arrow size down the line… However as CHPRO had CORRECTLY pointed out a sudden moratorium on a large cross section of manufacturers shaft sizes would hurt those Manufacturers, Archers and Dealers with worthless and unusable inventory in 5 months…. NOT the way for the NFAA to strengthen ties. 

Yes, I have No doubt that Easton acted in selfish interest in order to not take a financial loss of existing inventory and to keep it's dealerships profitable and happy. NO I doubt East gives a Crap if they are selling 2315 and smaller 4 years from now …. I say thank you to Easton for pointing out an OBVIOUS flaw in the original ruling and thank you NFAA for having the wisdom to reverse it … ITS DONE 

However growing forward it seems we have a little negotiating and research to do ….. I'm sure both orgs will act in the same wisdom that has already been displayed… If not then you can start the Pity Party… throwing either establishment under the bus at this point and time is just pitiful


----------



## MOPARLVR4406 (Apr 5, 2006)

:thumbs_up:icon_salut::set1_applaud:
VOICE OF REASON
well put


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

Center,
Point taken and understood.

In the end, the NFAA membership DOES have a voice. And it is the deepest and most powerful voice of all.

If the overwhelming majority of our members decide individually, for themselves, to refuse to buy or use any arrow above 9.3/2314, then it shall be a self-enforcing "vote" if you will.

The NFAA/EFAA can not *force *anyone to shoot 27s. The rank and file membership can enact the 23 limit right now, this weekend.

If there is not enough integrity among the membership to observe this rule they so want enforced, without having a formal enforcement mechanism in place, then shame on them and they should just shut the bleep up.

So who's going to stand up for what they think is right and put down their 26's and 27's and begin to shoot a max of 23's this weekend, regardless of what other archers are doing?

Can you (global usage of "you" here) make a personal stand as an individual? Can you put your Xs where your mouth is?

What diameter shaft are those who want the 23 limit shooting in this weekend's Mid-Atlantics?

I'm shooting 16s.

:brave:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> So who's going to stand up for what they think is right and put down their 26's and 27's and begin to shoot a max of 23's this weekend, regardless of what other archers are doing?


I did. I took 2314s to Vegas. I put them in the quiver as I was walking out to the car to head for Vegas. I sighted them in on Thursday before competition. That is now my indoor arrow the rest of this year and I hope for good. I am not opposed to shooting my biggest arrow I have which is 2512, but not this year. If it gets outlawed, then maybe I will never shoot them again for NFAA.

I just want a limit, even if it is a size 26 or 27. I want the org to do something and be an org of proactive leadership, not an org frightened of change. I believe that indeed the directorship and the council are frightened of change.

Right now, it is an old, plodding dinosaur that is unable or unwilling to shift to a new paradigm. It is too deep in its rut to climb out with much of the current leadership in place today.

A aged dinosaur that is oblivious to its changing environment.


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

I did...I couldn't change in time for Vegas, but while there I picked up some CT 23 Hippos, just finished (for now) setting them up to shoot through my bow. Gonna be 23 or less for me...


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*If the overwhelming majority of our members decide individually, for themselves, to refuse to buy or use any arrow above 9.3/2314, then it shall be a self-enforcing "vote" if you will.*

Undoubtedly…. Let's face it the Current fat shaft rage ONLY exist because we supported it … Don't support it and it goes away.. To penalize a VERY good sponsor and the NFAA for giving us EXACTLY what we wanted is foolish.. To penalize dealers for stocking EXACTLY what we asked for is also foolish…. 

Now we want something else… but as typical the majority of the membership will NOT put in the "WORK" to make change in this case it's WORK to be just as competitive with smaller shaft then the other competitors that refuse to give up the fat ones

There is definitely some backroom politics in place . However I won't pretend to know the nature of these politics. What I do know is that the current Vote was wise .. The NFAA listened to it's shooters.. Sponsors chimed in VERY solid concerns and the NFAA agreed and reversed the decision…… That's how it's supposed to work in my opinion….. Now the politics will shake out and I THINK will work out in the long run … Neither Org had anything to gain by alienating the masses………… They both get my support ……. For now 

What will I shoot …….. 2613's for now … I want to get my money worth out of the 2 dozen I have .. More of a monetary decision then a competitive one. If I needed new shafts NOW 23's it would be … However I also think once a solid plan for a new Max standard is in place there may be another "arms race" to build the best shaft in that class.. Which means holding out for now may pay further dividends..


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

centerx said:


> *Are you tacitly approving of a philosophy of operations that caters to the largest wallet in an organization?
> Or worse yet, are you advocating that the entire voice of an organization's rank and file membership can be righteously drowned out by the shout of an outside corporation's wallet?*
> 
> All I'm saying is wake up and smell the money…………… Membership AND sponsor money that is
> ...



All sounds fairly logical to a degree.......

however, when you use the words sponsors, donors, vendors or anything like that....

just what are they.....and what does their MONEY entitle them too???

do real sponsors or donors become either-a sponsor or donor because they want to CONTROL or take over the party they are sponsoring or donating too???

and as a org, do we post levels of sponsorships that will enable you to VETO certain membership votes???

because CenterX the members did vote, whether you feel you did or not only you can say....as you are the only person who can determine how much you involve yourself with your states director and direct him to vote with your and your states voice

after the meeting 2 other arrow companys were said to have been pleased with the 9,3mm arrow restriction.....

at the meeting there were some archery shops/dealers of arrows and they all seem to say the same thing....about inventory anyway....that they didnt have a stock of arrows of any size....let alone the new arrows.....most said that when the indoors/outdoor target seasons begin, before hand the local archers will come in and order arrows-hence special orders 

and since the vegas meeting, ive called 12 different shops ....12 different states by the way....and NONE had stock of any so called target arrows....

so i doubt that stock is any issue at all.....more of a excuse today.....

i am more confused today about this arrow business then ever.....because if any of the arrow companys wouldnt be for this, i would think it would have been CE or Goldtip, and both have said they have no problem or issue with a 9.3mm cap or limit

and i as i sat in the meetings all week long and was presented numbers....i cant help but appreciate the very large and generous donation/donations given to the NFAA by the Easton Sports Foundation.....even the sketch of the new Easton Training Facility looks very upscale and appears to be a useful facility, if you can tell by sketches... 

now i also was told that during the next so many years the Foundation was going to donate $150k towards scholarship funds.....again, i have yet to see anybody matching such a generous move.....i just hope the proposed income that the Training Center generates will cover that portion of the donation. So you freakcurvers, fill that training center up and dont forget to pay your fee's:tongue:

after sitting through the meetings and coming home and crunching some numbers....as well as digesting some info given....i am not sure that we havent lost momentum on the whole property sale and relocation business.....it appears that we gotten ahead of ourselfs on such a move, and now have gone way to corporate and therefore dependant on outside agencys.....

and dependacy on anything tends to lead to hardships and hard feelings down the road...

i hope everyone has a big enough BINKY to work it out

welcome to the newNFAA


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I backed away from 30X GoldTips, but being honest, it was mostly because I couldn't get them to WORK the way I thought that they should. They just weren't doing the job...or probably, more exactly, "I" wasn't doing the proper job and my form, in its present condition couldn't and wouldn't "handle" the fat shafts.

My scores and x-count went WAY UP by switching over to correctly spined arrows...GT 35/55's and GT UL Pro 500's...both work just fine...with higher scores and x-counts...so why should I bother to mess anymore with fat shafts?

Of course, years ago when I was shooting my best...I was using correctly spined arrows and shooting against people using 2512's...and beating most of them. I didn't win every tournament, but I sure won enough and beat other people with my knitting needles...to give me much more satisfaction.

Frankly, I don't care if we set the limit in the USA at a 26/64th diameter...but strongly feel, as I've said before that a LIMIT IS NEEDED. If we wait a year...we will have someone putting out an even larger shaft right after the deadline for the submission of NFAA agenda items comes along the end of September....and we'll be right back here again next year in the same balywix we are in right now.

Submitting an agenda item by Sept 30 does no good if someone, or some manufacturer at or prior to the the Utah Open, or the Iowa shoot comes forth with a shaft even larger than the 2712...or bigger even than GT's mega-shaft used at the Iowa Pro-Am...

We'd be moving up farther with fat shafts...cuz afterall, the manuf. spent all that money in R&D to come up with the next generation of super fat arrows...and on and on and on.....

They are smart enough to wait until after the dealine for NFAA agenda items has passed before releasing the "new stuff"....cuz they know the NFAA won't operate without an "official" agenda item, and a 15 signature item holds no weight at all...nor does a vote on a "15 signature item."

field14


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Out of curiosity......
> 
> Why can't the NFAA Board be called into an emergency meeting ....again.... via a teleconference and vote in a 27 limit so at least some limit will be in place and halt the talks I heard of companies gearing up for 28-diameter arrows in retaliation to the no-limit decision? Then, via appropriate channels, agenda items can be submitted which in theory can be discussed by the members with their individual State Boards/Directors and a decision can be made next Feb whether to further limit sizes, phase-in size limits, or status quo on a 27 limit. I believe the Board can be convened outside of its regularly scheduled Feb annual meeting and any decision can be enacted as law within 30 days of publication in Archery. Possibly even call for an emergency meeting at Louisville to get the ball rolling and figure out the logistics of either a teleconference meeting, electronic vote, or even a good ol' fashioned mail vote of the Directors....if allowed per NFAA By-Laws of course.
> 
> ...


chpro, while i wont try to know your state or its org....i do know that my own state that has way less members or even involvment then what i believe your state to have or be.....

did know that arrow size and restriction discussions most likely would be brought up....

i really have to question anyone that is so called involved in target archery not to have at the very least expected that.....

i call BS on any director that says they didnt know in advance...there were emails circulated among the rank and file.....as well as talk and talks of deals already taken place by other orgs.....

matter fact, right here on AT it was reported and debated pretty hard about the NFAA already entering into such a pre meeting deal.....i believe you posted on that very thread yourself.....

so if other directors, council members, officers of the NFAA only see or hear of things in archery at at state or local level.....perhaps there is a reason archery will stay fragmented and never on the same page.....

we surely shouldnt come to AT and expect on one hand directors or any org officers to make decisions that impact NATIONALLY OR WORLDLY if we allow them to bury their heads in the sand all year except during the directors meetings....

im sorry, but for anyone on AT to post that they didnt know of arrow restriction topics or the possibility of that topic being a heated one....i have to again call total BS

but....regardless....this isnt the first time a heated topic came to the table as 15 sig line item, nor will it be the last....thats the nature of the beast.....why

because members who get on this and other threads of topics of interest....only do so as reactive measures.....hardly does anyone enter any of the AGENDA ITEMS that are brought before the board....most....MOST i say are brought on by a director, council or to begin with.....

bottom line....its all of YOU who elect your directors to speak for you......if you dont have confidence in the director you have at hand.....dont send that director to the meeting....send a director that you feel can use and exercise some common sense...because almost all directors dont have this big voice from its membership DIRECTING them .....


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

One question?

Some are saying that the restriction imposed in the meeting was hasty and should have been discussed with the manufactures.

*Did the manufactures consult our Org prior to approving the build of a larger diameter arrow?*

I would say the money that tournament archery gives the manufactures far out weighs what the manufactures give tournament archery.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> One question?
> 
> Some are saying that the restriction imposed in the meeting was hasty and should have been discussed with the manufactures.
> 
> ...


bingo.....822 posts later....the dumbest smart guy i know nails it

sorry has been.....your actually a genius....or is that what you drink:wink:


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Mike, must confess I was unable to attend my State's meeting this year. However, that ATA "meeting" to discuss arrow size wasn't mentioned until after the WI State meeting and probably after several other states' meetings as well. Hence, while there may have been some discussions at the State level, I'd be willing to guess many states' members were not give the opportunity to chime in their opinion to their respective Director ahead of time. At least on the issue of going to 23. One state in particular already did chime in on that other thread stating their Director was specifically asking about a 26 limit. So, where did 23 suddenly come from. I fully expected a 15-sig item to come at the meeting, but thought the Directors would have used some common sense and voted in a 26 or 27 limit to start with and then opened up discussion on whether or not to take the limit lower.



> bingo.....822 posts later....the dumbest smart guy i know nails it


Say what??? NFAA had no size limit and discussions regarding a size limit didn't even hit the streets so to speak until a certain GT rep pulled his big, custom-made carbons out again in what, Dec/Jan. I certainly didn't hear much of any complaints in Oct/Nov when the diamond introduced their new sizes. In fact, there was such a demand that most of the complaining I heard was due to archers not being able to get them fast enough. I thought both of you had a little business sense :tongue:! Seems the diamond felt there was a demand already in place amongst it's consumers, our NFAA members, and filled that demand. Isn't that how business is supposed to operate? At least that's what they taught me in biz school, but that was so long ago now maybe the rules have changed! :tongue:

You guys are all too funny!!! Have a good weekend, I'm off to shoot my 2312's or 2315's, haven't decided which yet, lol .

>>-------->


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Say what??? NFAA had no size limit and discussions regarding a size limit didn't even hit the streets so to speak until a certain GT rep pulled his big, custom-made carbons out again in what, Dec/Jan. I certainly didn't hear much of any complaints in Oct/Nov when the diamond introduced their new sizes. In fact, there was such a demand that most of the complaining I heard was due to archers not being able to get them fast enough. I thought both of you had a little business sense :tongue:! Seems the diamond felt there was a demand already in place amongst it's consumers, our NFAA members, and filled that demand. Isn't that how business is supposed to operate? At least that's what they taught me in biz school, but that was so long ago now maybe the rules have changed! :tongue:
> 
> You guys are all too funny!!! Have a good weekend, I'm off to shoot my 2312's or 2315's, haven't decided which yet, lol .
> 
> >>-------->


*Smart business would be to consult the regulating Orgs prior to going out on a limb.*


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Mike, must confess I was unable to attend my State's meeting this year. However, that ATA "meeting" to discuss arrow size wasn't mentioned until after the WI State meeting and probably after several other states' meetings as well. Hence, while there may have been some discussions at the State level, I'd be willing to guess many states' members were not give the opportunity to chime in their opinion to their respective Director ahead of time. At least on the issue of going to 23. One state in particular already did chime in on that other thread stating their Director was specifically asking about a 26 limit. So, where did 23 suddenly come from. I fully expected a 15-sig item to come at the meeting, but thought the Directors would have used some common sense and voted in a 26 or 27 limit to start with and then opened up discussion on whether or not to take the limit lower.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your right...i just dont get it....:tongue:

bottom line....if your state or any other state only communicates to a director at a meeting....then lets be real....how much direction is any director going to get....

some things are indeed common knowledge and some common sense.....

and world standards probably dont play into either

at least you have arrows you can choose to go play with this weekend....im still waiting for my 2315'S to arrive......

Jeff.....why is it you are implying 23's have no common sense....yet 2 of the 3 major arrow companys have said that they think that is indeed a great call???? Do you represent a certain brand or arrow owned company that dont see it ONE way:wink:

bottom line.....ive said it before....ill say it again...the system we work within is a hard system to keep everyone happy.....you, me, and any other NfAA member is going to have to elect and trust who we do to speak broadly for us....because no way no how will all states and members ever get on the same page all the time....


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

WV Has Been said:


> One question?
> 
> Some are saying that the restriction imposed in the meeting was hasty and should have been discussed with the manufactures.
> 
> ...


Excellent point!!

I think that whole story is an excuse. Consult???? Why??? A sponser gives money to a sport for name brand exposure, advertising. They also would do it to help grow the sport so they continue to have a customer base for their products.

If the arrow companies gave it some real thought, they would realize a limit is a good thing for all of them.

If a sponser is giving money in order to have a say in a membership controlled org, then they just need to flat out buy it or create their own.

Like I said before, if you let the industry lead the sport, you lose the integrity of the game. Every sport has limits. Why? To protect the integrity of the game or sport.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> *Smart business would be to consult the regulating Orgs prior to going out on a limb.*


well now...that would depend....on just what you have been told or promised:wink:

the funny thing is...its not like any of the sponsors or donors are BRAND NEW to the NFAA.....they know by now how change takes place within that org.....heck, these sponsors and donors and vendors have all had employee's, staff shooters in place on these orgs for years to speak and sway votes.....

at the least.....nobody is more then a phone call away from good conversation


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> I certainly didn't hear much of any complaints in Oct/Nov when the diamond introduced their new sizes. In fact, there was such a demand that most of the complaining I heard was due to archers not being able to get them fast enough. I thought both of you had a little business sense ! Seems the diamond felt there was a demand already in place amongst it's consumers, our NFAA members, and filled that demand. Isn't that how business is supposed to operate? At least that's what they taught me in biz school, but that was so long ago now maybe the rules have changed!


You are correct here Jeff.

The problem is that the NFAA has ignored the need for some limits in the game. Arrows is the main area. The rule was that any size arrow in production for consumers is legal. What kind of rule is that????????

All that does is give the arrow companies free reign to scheme up any type of arrow they want and exploit the market out there. No one wants to lose out against their competition because of equipment. This then turns into a runaway race to capture the competitive archer market. Archers keep going to the largest newest sizes because their competition is going to do it. This eventually degrades integrity of the sport.

The NFAA needed a real limit long ago. 

You are right that alot of members don't always know what the agendas are and therefore don't know to voice their opinions to their director who may or may not listen anyways.

This part of the NFAA needs a serious overhauling!! The NFAA needs a better decision making process or enforce the one they have instead of caving in to outside interests. The directors and councilmen need to be better representatives of the members and the members need to get more involved in their org!!

It is important that an org like the NFAA acts independently of any industry for the good of the sport. The industry wants to make money and they will do what they do to insure they make profits.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

At some point the orgs and the manufacturers need to realize that without limits, technology will keep improving and replacing the element of skill needed. When that happens, the sport dies. If no real skill is needed, there is no challenge. If there is no challenge, there is no participation.

Think about it...

If technology advanced to the point everyone could shoot a Vegas 300 25X or higher everytime regardless of skill, what do you think would happen????

The skilled archers would stop shooting and find something else that requires the things needed to excel in the sport they choose. If no one had to work or practice on their game, the sport overall would lose its appeal. Why would I want to compete in a sport where anyone could come off the street and compete with archers at the highest level just by buying equipment???? Where is the attraction? Why would anyone watch it as well???

Would anyone like that?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

The Swami said:


> You are correct here Jeff.
> 
> The problem is that the NFAA has ignored the need for some limits in the game. Arrows is the main area. The rule was that any size arrow in production for consumers is legal. What kind of rule is that????????
> 
> ...


In EVERY state I've been a member in (that was 9 at last count), in ALL cases, the members were made WELL AWARE of what the agenda items were for the upcoming NFAA annual meeting and ASKED...and in some cases, even begged and "coerced" into giving their director guidance in how to vote. I've always been one for being PROactive and wanting things done; but evidently, MOST members couldn't care less...about any of the agenda items....unless they strike into their "PROtected turf" or area of special interest. Therefore, if an agenda item treads on their PROtected turf or close to their personal interest...they'll respond (MAYBE), and if not...they do NOTHING...but they sure will complain and pee and moan AFTER THE FACT, when it is too late!

So FEW really get involved...they go with the status quo...and are as guilty of being sticks in the mud as the very directors they tend to run down. For those of us, however that DO TAKE ACTION and DO TRY TO GET THINGS DONE....it becomes almost anti-climactic...since VERY LITTLE seems to come down in the way of things being PROACTIVE or...if there is action....it goes, and ends up getting convoluted, or worse yet IGNORED, or OVERTURNED by special intersests....

However, for the members to say they aren't informed about those Agenda items....that is pretty much bunk, or so it has been in my experience of over 40 years in the NFAA....Might not get ACTION....but by golly, I've ALWAYS known what the main agenda items were.

NOW....that being said...seeing or hearing FEEDBACK on how the votes went, WHY the agenda items were tabled, WHAT WAS WRONG with them, or anything like that is NON-EXISTENT in the NFAA...Stuff is tabled, set as no-action, or lost forever....and the sumitters, or people interested never hear from it again...EVER. It is like it goes into the vacuum of space and is gone forever. No idea how to bring it up again to make it more viable or anything...NO FEEDBACK...just gone into oblivion. It is like if "they" don't tell those submitters what was wrong with their proposal(s), then "they" or the association most likely won't have to deal with them again and the PROposal will just go away into oblivion. The association does NOT invite CHANGE...they will resist it at every available opportunity.

THAT lack of communication with the organization really torques me off....I'd like to know the reasoning of WHY each and every agenda item was or was not passed....we as members, IMHO also have that right too.

But it doesn't happen.

field14


----------



## Mike2787 (Jul 16, 2002)

I call BS on all of this BS. I don't know who or why or what for. I don't know if I'm for or against it but I do know that I'm not for any manufacturer putting the pressure on an organization to change it's rule to suit said manufacturer. 

If the Diamond was so interested in the NFAA and the welfare of us compound archers, why don't they pressure FITA into allowing compounds in the Olympics and why do I feel that the new NFAA/Easton training center in Yankton will soon become the next Olympic training center for recurve archers?


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

field14 said:


> In EVERY state I've been a member in (that was 9 at last count), in ALL cases, the members were made WELL AWARE of what the agenda items were for the upcoming NFAA annual meeting and ASKED...and in some cases, even begged and "coerced" into giving their director guidance in how to vote. I've always been one for being PROactive and wanting things done; but evidently, MOST members couldn't care less...about any of the agenda items....unless they strike into their "PROtected turf" or area of special interest. Therefore, if an agenda item treads on their PROtected turf or close to their personal interest...they'll respond (MAYBE), and if not...they do NOTHING...but they sure will complain and pee and moan AFTER THE FACT, when it is too late!
> 
> So FEW really get involved...they go with the status quo...and are as guilty of being sticks in the mud as the very directors they tend to run down. For those of us, however that DO TAKE ACTION and DO TRY TO GET THINGS DONE....it becomes almost anti-climactic...since VERY LITTLE seems to come down in the way of things being PROACTIVE or...if there is action....it goes, and ends up getting convoluted, or worse yet IGNORED, or OVERTURNED by special intersests....
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree.

I tried to get involved. People wanted something done with the constitution. I volunteered to do it and submitted an agenda item BEFORE the deadline. It never made it. I tried to do something that was needed. I wasted my time. It may not have been the biggest or most important thing that needed to be done, but I got involved. I will continue to get involved and I will be very vocal about shortcomings within the organization and I will offer solutions instead of just complaining. I will act.

The president, the councilmen and the directors need to step up. The members need to step up.

All of them need to have a vision and some common sense to get this org to be what it can be.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Mike2787 said:


> I call BS on all of this BS. I don't know who or why or what for. I don't know if I'm for or against it but I do know that I'm not for any manufacturer putting the pressure on an organization to change it's rule to suit said manufacturer.
> 
> If the Diamond was so interested in the NFAA and the welfare of us compound archers, why don't they pressure FITA into allowing compounds in the Olympics and why do I feel that the new NFAA/Easton training center in Yankton will soon become the next Olympic training center for recurve archers?


only while archery is still in the olympics....

although......we all were told that this training center is and will be open to ALL ARCHERS


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Mike2787 said:


> I call BS on all of this BS. I don't know who or why or what for. I don't know if I'm for or against it but I do know that I'm not for any manufacturer putting the pressure on an organization to change it's rule to suit said manufacturer.
> 
> If the Diamond was so interested in the NFAA and the welfare of us compound archers, why don't they pressure FITA into allowing compounds in the Olympics and why do I feel that the new NFAA/Easton training center in Yankton will soon become the next Olympic training center for recurve archers?


Amen!


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

The Swami said:


> Yes, I agree.
> 
> I tried to get involved. People wanted something done with the constitution. I volunteered to do it and submitted an agenda item BEFORE the deadline. It never made it. I tried to do something that was needed. I wasted my time. It may not have been the biggest or most important thing that needed to be done, but I got involved. I will continue to get involved and I will be very vocal about shortcomings within the organization and I will offer solutions instead of just complaining. I will act.
> 
> ...


Yep, get involved and be chastised, threatened, and even hated...but if you don't get involved, and you feel like you are deeper in the mud.

I don't imagine too many of the directors think much of me and what I represent...but that is their opinion. At least I feel like I'm trying to be PROactive and TRYING to get some changes thru the "old and cumbersome" system. If I wasn't doing this sort of thing, I wouldn't have much respect for myself to simply stand by and let things just go by the wayside. I've seen to many things in my life fall apart because of the inaction of others and lack of foresight or PROactive PROcesses.

They might not like me....but I won't go away.

field14


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

The Swami said:


> Yes, I agree.
> 
> I tried to get involved. People wanted something done with the constitution. I volunteered to do it and submitted an agenda item BEFORE the deadline. It never made it. I tried to do something that was needed. I wasted my time. It may not have been the biggest or most important thing that needed to be done, but I got involved. I will continue to get involved and I will be very vocal about shortcomings within the organization and I will offer solutions instead of just complaining. I will act.
> 
> ...


like anything out there in life....some are heard...some arent.....

some are looked at for reason and logic...others are the lack of both

we have a President in place that does alot of good......we have a council in place......and we have directors in place

the problem is.....the way the BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED....is suffocates instead of promotes healthy change....

we need to allow more decisions from less people....trust the people you elect....and let them do their job

our president for one needs some breathing room to do his job.....give him some authority without so much question and accusation.....give him veto authority over issues....bottom line, he will be fair and just.....as his job is on the line if he isnt just that....

give the council authority to organize and advise.....not sit silent as they now do in meetings....

place manufactures, vendors, donors on the board and let them speak up or hush up

make sure that all states have open elections not closed elections...so a true voice can be heard.....

change the meetings to allow for THINK TANK SESSIONS and sessions that provide genuine critic and avenues for success


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

field14 said:


> Yep, get involved and be chastised, threatened, and even hated...but if you don't get involved, and you feel like you are deeper in the mud.
> 
> I don't imagine too many of the directors think much of me and what I represent...but that is their opinion. At least I feel like I'm trying to be PROactive and TRYING to get some changes thru the "old and cumbersome" system. If I wasn't doing this sort of thing, I wouldn't have much respect for myself to simply stand by and let things just go by the wayside.  I've seen to many things in my life fall apart because of the inaction of others and lack of foresight or PROactive PROcesses.
> 
> ...



you might be surprised....it is you and others like you that give the directors and the org itself something to THINK ABOUT and either ACT upon or not....

all directors should love a member that speaks and offers advice, opinion......


----------



## Cal-Boy (Mar 28, 2003)

even if the nfaa passed an arrow size the the vegas shoot dose not have to go with it. they can do what ever they want.ukey:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> Yep, get involved and be chastised, threatened, and even hated...but if you don't get involved, and you feel like you are deeper in the mud.


I have never experienced that.

I don't make this a personal thing. 

I have no agenda against any one person. 

Anyone hates me is their problem.

I will admit I am very intolerant of short sightedness, lack of common sense and lack of intelligence and inefficiency or any lack of good reasoning. I do have faults. 

Everyone I have dealed with in the NFAA has been kind to me and fairly reasonable. I expect those in their positions to realize however if they are holding up progress, they need to get out. I think my state is in good shape, but I imagine there may be other states that are not. We all can get better if we listen to others that can help us.

There is no room for close minded, opinionated thought that benefits one's ego or status.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Cal-Boy said:


> even if the nfaa passed an arrow size the the vegas shoot dose not have to go with it. they can do what ever they want.ukey:


exactly......

anybody seen New Mexico:wink:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

OneBowTie said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> like anything out there in life....some are heard...some arent.....
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

The only way some states will change the by laws is if hades freezes over..:wink:


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*All sounds fairly logical to a degree.......

however, when you use the words sponsors, donors, vendors or anything like that....

just what are they.....and what does their MONEY entitle them too???

do real sponsors or donors become either a sponsor or donor because they want to CONTROL or take over the party they are sponsoring or donating too???

and as a org, do we post levels of sponsorships that will enable you to VETO certain membership votes???

because CenterX the members did vote, whether you feel you did or not only you can say....as you are the only person who can determine how much you involve yourself with your states director and direct him to vote with your and your states voice*


Again, I have no disillusion to the fact that much of the Inventory of these shafts are not piled high in the back room do most pro shops . However I also know of several that have 24,25,26 and yes 27's in stock .. Not to mention tips and other components. What I do know .. When the diamond gets a call about the outcome of the vote they have precocious little time to find out all the details about HOW this will affect them, the shops and there customers… and maybe .. Just Maybe the NFAA wondered about other manufactures having the same concerns ( turns out they did not ) and voted wisely??

I don't know SOME seem to have the REAL details … Do share :wink:

As far as membership Vote in the NFAA…. You know that things are rewritten , introduced and voted on during these meetings by directors . The STS issue was a prime example.. I expressed an opinion that we vote YES to a STS ruling…. When it all come said and done .. V-bars are allowed.. I really did not vote OR express an opinion on that 

I gave an opinion to vote YES to arrow limits… I was never given the opportunity to vote for such limits especially in the version provided which was 23 series ASAP which I personally would have voted NO to as a Phase in period was warranted .. and I was sure never given the opportunity to vote to rescind the original ruling 

A picture CONTINUES to be painted that practically equates Easton as committing a hostile takeover to the NFAA … The innuendo is evidence exist .. I'm a show me kind of guy… but also would not be surprised as well

Looks to me Easton has moved from a Sponsor to an Investor…Investing in facilities that WE can run in part for Olympic Development and other archery development programs, Investments in scholarships for archers, Investments in ranges …….. And yes they want there say in there Investments

Bottom line is here and now .. Do we accept Easton's Investment in the NFAA or not ..Headquarters.. Facilities.. Scholarships, National Events …. Nobody else is stepping up to the plate on this level that I can see……..This is no longer a "sponsor" type generosity and SOME realize that 


Whose the Chicken and Whose the Egg :embara:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

centerx said:


> *All sounds fairly logical to a degree.......
> 
> however, when you use the words sponsors, donors, vendors or anything like that....
> 
> ...



CenterX.....you see...what you say is very true....that agenda items are introduced.....massaged, changed, and turned into entirely different things.....ive been to 2 meetings...and i can tell you that this is the norm...not all that unusual for this type of thing to happen.....

so again, i say elect the directors that are YOUR,MINE, OUR voice of reason...and let them do the job....otherwise....get rid of them .....me included....

as for sponsor's turning into investors......that is one thing in a business venture...but a entirely different for a membership organization.....in the business world i would fully expect a investor to have all kinds of input, as a business partner....but then again, i own or have owned stocks of some companys and guess what.....i got no say so in anything.....including companys i was the managing partner....so i really do have a pretty good understanding of how business and investor relationships work.....but that type of relationship isnt what the NfAA is about or structured for.....

regardless of stocks and piles or lack of arrows....there was a vote....that is how the NFAA is structured .....belief me...they use that ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER to the benefit everytime they can....

as for the sizable donation that is going toward the NFAA HQ.....lets be clear....none of that money is actually going to the NFAA HOUSED part of HQ...this money is being used to add a new WING and outdoor facilitys.....and I AM FULLY APPRECIATIVE AND SUPPORTED OF SUCH A FACILITY....but could the NFAA have built this HQ without a extra wing.....

when this first started the NFAA was selling its current HQ and making a sizable profit and take from the sale.....which at that time made sense to take the State and City of Yankton SD up on its offerings....with very little strings attached.....
now we seem to have lost the buyer and moved forward and changed that original concept of relocation into a huge commercial endeavor that appears to have all kinds of strings attached.....i dont think that is a safe hedge for the ORG.....

speaking of the training center....i dont believe this is going to be controlled by anyone other the ESF direction, with $150k pledged to the NFAA towards scholarship funds.....then after that, i sense that this TRAINING CENTER will be its own sole entity going in whatever direction the ESF chooses......

so the bottom line....who is really investing in whom here???? and for how long....

welcome to the new NFAA


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

JAVI said:


> The only way some states will change the by laws is if hades freezes over..:wink:


this very subject seems to get lost in the shuffle...and in all reality.....this is the backbone of the org itself.....supposedly to let the members speak....

in closed elections...there are only closed voices....

i am going to look into this and see if this is a acceptable practice from the state level.....

look i dont like alot of the things that go on...but i have no problem when the majority of voices put into place anything....ill simply say THANK YOU and go about my business


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

WV Has Been said:


> One question?
> 
> Some are saying that the restriction imposed in the meeting was hasty and should have been discussed with the manufactures.
> 
> ...


*NOOOOOO....but that would be like GM asking for feedback from their customers if they wanted a faster car before they built that new engine......

BIGGER--FASTER--IS BETTER.....or so some think.....:confused2::confused2::confused2:

My question is...."Does anyone know what Easton said to the size reduction"????

Was it "No Way....and you can't stop me"!!!.....

or they were blindsided by the decision and said....

"WHOAAAA....Not right now.....not so fast..... as we have alot of inventory on shelves to sell first, then let's talk PHASE BACK DOWN TO THE 23's".....

Does anyone know for sure???? Who took the call????*
.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

You can vote for what ever director you want. Bottom line they have to make calls on the fly that will result in the best compromise so a quorum of at least 26 ( out of 50 states) will push through changes 

As you have alluded to the problem is not necessarily with the directors but the process .. You can't have 50 different people with 50 different ideas placed in there head from hundreds if not thousands different people come together and decide on anything that remotely resembles it's original intent that was passed on from the membership………….. You know kind of like the House and Senate

As far as the rest that's good to know.. It also varies differently from what I have been told as well … I wonder how the HQ , Development facilities and other endeavors will ultimately end up blending together

Anyhow call it what you want .. Investment , Sponsorship , or now what may look to be more of a Partnership it still looks like Easton has a vested Interest in the going on's of the NFAA and the NFAA of Easton………… All I'm saying is I have YET to see anything BAD come from this partnership….. However I'll be the first to call BS When and IF I see it ….. Looks like there is only the hint' of poo in the air… Nobody has stepped in anything ….. Yet … Plenty of time for the Doggie bag and pooper scooper ukey:ukey::embara:

Naturally there are going to be some growing pains but throwing people under the bus anytime a bold move is made because some don't like it will paralyze the organization into non actions just as much as the fear of making a bold move itself. It's EXACTLY why this year I STOPED participating in the politics at the state/Local level…. 15 years of bus after bus while trying to take organizations forward plain wore me out ………. When and If I EVER particpate in organizing recereational/competitive archery again it will be from ME and /or a pool of like minded individuals banding together and running it like a business 

Darned if you do Darned if you don't


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*Does anyone know for sure???? Who took the call????*

Bingo .. Somebody notified Easton .. Somebody took a response

a) Why did we contact Easton with the outcome of the vote.. 

b) What did they say when they called back

The rest is speculation

Seems like we may be leaving out the bread and butter information in order to further an agenda.. Or not ... I don't pretend to know


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

centerx said:


> *Does anyone know for sure???? Who took the call????*
> 
> Bingo .. Somebody notified Easton .. Somebody took a response
> 
> ...


*WELLLLLLLL....this meeting which consisted of several days was being run by "GOOD OLE' ROBERTS RULES"......soooooooooo where are the minutes for that day or days discussions????????????

ANYONE???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????*

.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

centerx said:


> You can vote for what ever director you want. Bottom line they have to make calls on the fly that will result in the best compromise so a quorum of at least 26 ( out of 50 states) will push through changes
> 
> As you have alluded to the problem is not necessarily with the directors but the process .. You can't have 50 different people with 50 different ideas placed in there head from hundreds if not thousands different people come together and decide on anything that remotely resembles it's original intent that was passed on from the membership………….. You know kind of like the House and Senate
> 
> ...


actually i still fail to see this DONATION, as that is how it was told to all the directors.....as now being a MERGING OF A DONATING SPORTS FOUNDATION INTO A NON PROFIT MEMBERSHIP ORG 

and actually, for 350k this gift will forever more get the name of the donor on the building......with apparent control of the portion of the building that is supposed donated to the NFAA.....so again, with a donor getting control, namesake, and a far reaching voice of the said HQ membership......excuse me if i actually see something if nothing else.....questionable

do i or would i rather the MERGER didnt happen...heavens no....but until the DONOR gets the seat and voice of the org's board....they still need to play by the rules in place......i dont think thats asking too much of any donor, no matter the size of donation....

as for calls.....i have not met a director yet that got a call, memo, email, flyer from any of the arrow manufactures that says they are asking input on arrow benefits, non benefits, possible damage or non damage....or for that matter....on size outputs or limitiations.....

and when this meeting took place.....neither had the council or President for that matter...as they hadnt relayed any info on to the board....until after the meeting adjourned...then there was some info passed along at the direction of one arrow manufacture.....

and honestly, i have no problem with rescinding and regrouping until next year....but i was smart enough to realize that the late actions or lack of...would cast a black eye on things.....

hopefully by next year...the meetings will come with better input from both manufactures and membership alike....and we all will be happy with the outcome....

and more importantly, hopefully by next year some of us will have had the opportunity to shoot at the new HQ and training facilitys


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

The men in the Black Helicopters will feed you the data you need through radio waves so that you may make an informed opinion of the problem:secret::secret:


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*
do i or would i rather the MERGER didn't happen...heavens no....but until the DONOR gets the seat and voice of the org's board....they still need to play by the rules in place......i don't think that's asking too much of any donor, no matter the size of donation....*

Unfortunately there is no seat for Easton to have the NFAA is not structured as such. So … If you want to partner and there is no seat what does one do?? How does one offer suggestions , Ideas and Improvements if they have no seat?? and if the STATES will not VOTE for a change because a few Directors will lose the Free Vegas PAss annually how exactly should Easton have input to the use of the DONATION... many donations do come with strings attached 

Again as you have alluded to the problem is structure and procedures. I think the NFAA and Easton should partner . I think Easton should have a seat on a board and I think the State director nonsense should go away. The NFAA should also have a seat on Easton's Board… Much can bee done when the Private and Public sectors combine.. Look at Mathews and NASP... Don't forget when you are talking Easton I feel ( could be wrong) you are talking Hoyt to a degree as well 

I don't give a hoot of there is an NFAA / Easton sports complex in every state and I could care less if you have to wear an Easton baseball cap before you enter.. However .. Keep in mind Easton .. Dutiful apperception only goes so far and with out archers your efforts mean nothing 

Were on the same page…. But when I hear others talk of not Joining, Boycotting , BS that BS this .. I can assure you NOTHING good comes of it

………. Gheese Archers.. Look at the BIG PICTURE and quite being so darn whiny of you shoot a fat shaft another year 

Do you smmmmmeeeelll what the Dimond is cooking :zip:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

The root problem with the NFAA lies in that it is a not an organization with a central governing head that sets rules which by agreement must be adhered to by all. 

It is instead a weak confederation of states which are free to enact their own set of rules but are able to lean on the whole for support as it suits them. 

The national rules apply only during a nationally sanctioned event (state and sectional championship). At all other times the states are free to apply whatever rules they deem fit. But surprisingly an individual isn’t free to belong to the National organization and fore the state membership.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

divot250 said:


> If we all lived in the fita world everything by your standards would be fine, but over here its divided. I currently shot the 30X pros from gold tip. and come next indoor season I will probably be shooting a 23 series arrow.


Everyone is free to decide for themselves what they shoot !

When you go to the shop to buy some new arrows, does someone force you to buy 27's........ NO, it's entirely your choice, so what's to stop everyone just buying 23's or smaller ??????

Please read post # 815 by hammerheadpc

Personally i think 9.3 mm is still to fat, i currently use arrows that are about 7.3 mm or about 19's or 20's (not sure) and if i could afford it i would shoot Nano's which are about 5.2 mm (what would they be, 16's, 17's ??) so just because Fita says i CAN use 9.3 mm doesn't mean i have to use 9.3 mm !

I just thought everyone wanted a world standard arrow size ??? 

Most of the rest of the world already uses the 9.3 mm as that standard, so it just seems logical that you guys would adopt it as well ???

Woody


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

centerx said:


> The men in the Black Helicopters will feed you the data you need through radio waves so that you may make an informed opinion of the problem:secret::secret:


*HUMMMMMMMMMMM......I thought when it is announced..."Meeting ADJOURNED".......no other business can take place until "Meeting called to ORDER" is announced......

SILLY ME!!!!!!!!!*
.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

centerx said:


> *
> do i or would i rather the MERGER didn't happen...heavens no....but until the DONOR gets the seat and voice of the org's board....they still need to play by the rules in place......i don't think that's asking too much of any donor, no matter the size of donation....*
> 
> Unfortunately there is no seat for Easton to have the NFAA is not structured as such. So … If you want to partner and there is no seat what does one do?? How does one offer suggestions , Ideas and Improvements if they have no seat?? and if the STATES will not VOTE for a change because a few Directors will lose the Free Vegas PAss annually how exactly should Easton have input to the use of the DONATION... many donations do come with strings attached
> ...


So you suggest that we shut up and live with the problem for the greater good…

Why, show me one real benefit to continued membership; especially one without a voice in the organization.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

hammerheadpc said:


> Center,
> Point taken and understood.
> 
> In the end, the NFAA membership DOES have a voice. And it is the deepest and most powerful voice of all.
> ...


YAY, there is actually someone else out there that see's it the same way i do ! :darkbeer: :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

centerx said:


> *
> do i or would i rather the MERGER didn't happen...heavens no....but until the DONOR gets the seat and voice of the org's board....they still need to play by the rules in place......i don't think that's asking too much of any donor, no matter the size of donation....*
> 
> Unfortunately there is no seat for Easton to have the NFAA is not structured as such. So … If you want to partner and there is no seat what does one do?? How does one offer suggestions , Ideas and Improvements if they have no seat?? and if the STATES will not VOTE for a change because a few Directors will lose the Free Vegas PAss annually how exactly should Easton have input to the use of the DONATION... many donations do come with strings attached
> ...


And Easton knew that right off the bat, before they ever put a cent into it, so why should they get a say or a seat now ??? 

Woody


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*The root problem with the NFAA lies in that it is a not an organization with a central governing head that sets rules which by agreement must be adhered to by all. 

It is instead a weak confederation of states which are free to enact their own set of rules but are able to lean on the whole for support as it suits them. 

The national rules apply only during a nationally sanctioned event (state and sectional championship). At all other times the states are free to apply whatever rules they deem fit. But surprisingly an individual isn’t free to belong to the National organization and fore the state membership*.

And at one time I supposed this suite them well …………. Jump forward 50 years… not so good 

THERE is not ANY ORG that can be the NRA, NASCAR or PGA of archery….. The NFAA is in a unique position to do just that.. Now .. today … If the Members would stop whining and the directors would vote for a new Org structure just maybe something good can happen

And yes … when if does it will be a hot bead of corporate smoozing… if NASCAR can have the Winston Cup … why can the NAFTA not have the Easton open??? and really .. Who wants to complain about all the new opportunities … It's like saying I don't smoke so I'm going to Boycott NASCAR.. Or cars that advertise for Drug Companies should not be allowed to race 

Cars are Cars .. Golf clubs are clubs …...and Arrows are Arrows.. Level the playing field... partner with each other and make good things happen


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*And Easton knew that right off the bat, before they ever put a cent into it, so why should they get a say or a seat now ??? *

I really have No idea what Easton wants from the NFAA and Vice versa.... However IF they are asking for a say NOW and the NFAA WANTS to hear and even adopt what they are saying...... Well it's impossible to do in it's current formatt so it's getting done another way

It smells of back room politics.... all I am saying is unfortunatley it's the only room open for business and that is a shame

The REAL question is if the Dirty Politics will eventually benefit ME/ US ... Sounds like it just might


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

I don’t give a twit about the arrows, but I do care that a majority agreed upon rule can be set aside by a single phone call.. Doesn’t that seem a bit unique if indeed we are a member driven organization. 

And if there really is a national organization, why must I belong to a state organization in which I have no vote in the election of any officer including the NFAA Director and therefore no vote in the national organization. 

Perhaps the only way to awaken the sleeping dinosaur is to refuse to fund its food source by the individual member. 

I have no problem with a partnership between Jim Easton and the NFAA, even if it transforms into a privately owned Olympic training organization. It would have no real effect on my life, I would still attend the tournaments I choose and can afford. I would still shoot my bow as I am able and I would still do my best to bring new archers into the sport. Nothing would have change…


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*So you suggest that we shut up and live with the problem for the greater good…

Why, show me one real benefit to continued membership; especially one without a voice in the organization.*

I don't know what the "Problem" is … A possible delay in arrow Restrictions?? Easton throwing money at our feet??.... Scholarships? .. Easton getting more an more aggressive in Archery and Development What is the problem??.... And I never advise shutting up :wink::embara:

The "Problem" is DECIDING if you Like What the Diamond is cooking and do you want to swallow……. If not .. No problem and I assume when what is being served is taken off the table that will be no problems as well………… I have a voracious archery appetite.. I like to be well fed.. But I don't eat crap either.. Unfortuntaly I have not even seen the Menu yet. Consequently I don't know if crap or Fine Dining is The house specialty ??? That's all I am saying nothing more :darkbeer:

What is the Benefit of belonging to the ASA / IBO / NAA … no voice in those Orgs …. You belong because you have to in order to participate and I would assume you LIKE and want to SUPPORT what the Org is doing………… If you don't like what they are doing or did not participate would you belong even if you got to vote directly??


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Correct I belong to the ASA because I must to compete. And unlike the NFAA there is no confusion as to who owns and runs the ASA. Any decision is Mike’s and I have no problem with that. If at some time I develop a problem with his rules I will cease to be a member.. 

I do not compete in the IBO so I don’t belong. 

I joined the NFAA/TFAA so I could compete but I was lead to believe that I as a member had a say in the organization, at this point it appears that isn’t the case as even the supposed representatives of the individual state organizations apparently have no say either… 

Pop up and tell me that Jim Easton is now the ruler and sole voice of the NFAA and I’d be more inclined to stay if the NEW rules were agreeable. If not I’d quietly depart and not worry about it after all it is his organization. 

But please don’t wrap a cow paddy in a slice of whole wheat and tell me how good that sirloin sandwich might taste.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*I don’t give a twit about the arrows, but I do care that a majority agreed upon rule can be set aside by a single phone call.. Doesn’t that seem a bit unique if indeed we are a member driven organization. 

And if there really is a national organization, why must I belong to a state organization in which I have no vote in the election of any officer including the NFAA Director and therefore no vote in the national organization. *

Ahhhh.. But that is the question that HAS not been answered .. The PHONE CALL

If Easton told the NFAA to pound dirt or funding will be pulled I will be the first one whittling my new Cedar arrows.. But that defies logic to me . Easton Archery is in the arrow shaft business… Why anger your consumer base … especially the Base that you are partnering with more and more 

If it was a dissatisfaction with the suddenness of the ruling and Points were brought forward that needed to be READDRESSED the REAL problem lies in the lack of foresight of the attendees that originally passed the measure NOT EASTON... I understand that the POINT is Easton should have never got involved... However what If I called my Director.. Brought up the same points and a Meeting was called???... Plus Let's face it .. We called them according to the legend.. 

Now considering the Apparent Gag order I assume the egg on face lies with the lack of thought and planning by the Directors… The way people like to pass the buck I would assume Easton would be a dollar richer if it was the other ways around… or maybe it's a black cloak conspiracy to rule archery in the free world.. What ever the reason the LEAST one that makes sense is a blackmail ploy by Easton to keep what is arguably the LOWEST volume selling shafts … $80.00 specialty shafts shot in a few thousand target archers quivers… in play 5 years from now 

As far as the National / State Organization structure…… It's the dumbest thing I have ever seen . I assume it is set up that way so the NFAA can have structure in individual states for State events ……… ukey:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

UGH, I'm not coming back to this thread until there are more pictures


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> UGH, I'm not coming back to this thread until there are more pictures


Hey Hut, here is a photo of one of your favorite players......so come on back!:wink:


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

The bottom line is the members said that they wanted arrow size restrictions our directors voted to give us what we wanted. Then some manufacture calls and the vote is changed. WHAT give me a break. For maybe 5% of Eastons sales we cower to them. If Easton doesnt like what we want I dont care they just made sure that I will never buy another Easton product. And that doesnt mean just archery products.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Big Country said:


> Hey Hut, here is a photo of one of your favorite players......so come on back!:wink:


Thanks there Mr. Big I've never seen Ob jumping for joy


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Not that this excuses the absolute lack of integrity displayed by the flip flop.

However there is a component missing here. There is no way a simple phone call torpedoes a decision like that. There must have been an agreement or understanding in place that was violated in order to cause a complete reversal of fortunes there. I would love to know what that was because it appears the State Directors were mushroomed on it as well.

Saying that the sales of arrows would hurt a corp who was already in production does not make sense. Discount em and the hunters will gobble em up soon enough and we know they are the largest market in NA.

Nope there is something more afoot here and I doubt we will ever know what it was.

That two headed fish is a stinking mighty bad right now.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I only kinow what Bruce told me Wednesday morning because I was on an airplane back to work when the cowards meeting took place.

Eric Watts of Easton called Bruce Tuesday afternoon upon getting into town and asked about the arrow thing. After being told the outcome of 9.3, he said he was disappointed that Easton had not had the opportunity to provide any input. And further that Easton does produce 12 arrow shafts just for NFAA.

Bruce said that it was stated in the committee meeting that "Jim Easton does not care". Eric then called Jim Easton, who said that no one contacted him about the issue.

The above is what Bruce told me.

My opinions on the above.

1. The comments about Jim Easton having no care about the specific restriction seemed to me to be mere speculation. I had no thought that anyone had actually contaced Jim Easton.

2. The "12 arrow shafts for NFAA" is just drivel. All but the 2712 were in production prior to the 9.3 rule by FITA and some for a very long time.

3. Bruce sat through the entire arrow committee meeting.

4. Bruce made a deal with IBO and ASA for 0.422 subject to the board of directors although he never tried to pressure us in the committee meeting.

5. The arrow committee discussed the restriction long and hard for several hours before selecting the 9.3 for, what we thought, the betterment of tournament archery worldwide. And then the board of directors voted it in by a landslide.

6. I did not hear the way the Easton thing was presented to the board at the cowards meeting.

I do have other opinions but airing them now might be devisive, at best.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

FS560 said:


> I only kinow what Bruce told me Wednesday morning because I was on an airplane back to work when the cowards meeting took place.
> 
> Eric Watts of Easton called Bruce Tuesday afternoon upon getting into town and asked about the arrow thing. After being told the outcome of 9.3, he said he was disappointed that Easton had not had the opportunity to provide any input. And further that Easton does produce 12 arrow shafts just for NFAA.
> 
> ...


Interesting.

Eric's comment that they were disappointed at not being consulted for input rings true to what I would expect a manufacturers position to be in that scenario. I can believe that, and frankly polling the manufactuers for opinions is just due dillegence. Solicit the opinion of the manufacturers and then have the BOD sift through what is sales hokum and what makes sense. Good business practice.

12 Shafts just for NFAA, I'd need hard evidence and something sweet to drink before swallowing that one.

Jim Easton Not caring. I can half believe, that it marries up well with statement 1 but completely dissolves all credibility of the 12 shaft pitch.

The IBO and ASA thing is a bit of a surprise. IF that was industry news BEFORE the Reveresal in Vegas event, and I were a manufactuer expecting a .422 decision I might get just a little testy. Expecting one standard and ending up with two as it were.

Piece by piece perhaps the truth in its entirety will emerge.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I think the 0.422 deal between IBO, ASA, and NFAA was done at the show and was all over AT, which clearly makes it industry news.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

FS560 said:


> I think the 0.422 deal between IBO, ASA, and NFAA was done at the show and was all over AT, which clearly makes it industry news.


I must have been sleeping as I didn't get that NFAA was part of that.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

My state director says he talked with the CEO of Easton after the second meeting and the next day. He says that sponsorship was never a consideration. He claims that it was all about the importance of the issue and a feeling that it should have been on the agenda in advance so everyone could have known about it and have the opportunity to discuss it. 

I have little doubt that is what was actually "said" but there seems to be more to read between the lines. This initiative started life as a 25 signature petition. Everyone knew that at the beginning. If directors felt that this was too important to decide on that basis then they could have decided to table it in the committee or again at the meeting where they passed the measure. Instead, a large majority (45 to 5) embraced this rule with enthusiasm. Clearly they believed that this was good for the sport and the time to act was now.

This, or any other rule that the directors pass is not the issue. The issue is that a 45 to 5 vote can be reversed so quickly and so easily. The issue is that whatever information changed their minds came from outside the meeting and obviously from an entity with no constitutional standing to offer said input. The issue is the realization that any single non-member entity can have so much power as to cause a reversal of a 45 to 5 decision on the spot. That is what concerns me.

My second concern is that the president/councilmen/directors respect their constituency so little that they believe that they can do this thing and then feed us this line about the issue needing more discussion. I like my director because I don't feel I have to micro-manage the way he votes. I generally trust his judgement and I want him to make decisions as his conscience dictates. On the other hand, I expect the truth and if you have to do something unpopular then do it and tell me why and don't spin it as if I'm not capable of understanding the facts of life. It's the story that stinks because it lacks credibility and smacks of condescension.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

AlChick said:


> My state director says he talked with the CEO of Easton after the second meeting and the next day. He says that sponsorship was never an issue. He claims that it was all about the importance of the issue and a feeling that it should have been on the agenda in advance so everyone could have known about it in and have the opportunity to discuss it.
> 
> I have little doubt that is what was actually "said" but there seems to be more to read between the lines. This initiative started life as a 25 signature petition. Everyone knew that at the beginning. If directors felt that this was too important to decide on that basis then they could have decided to table it in the committee or again at the meeting where they passed the measure. Instead, a large majority (45 to 5) embraced this rule with enthusiasm. Clearly they believed that this was good for the sport and the time to act was now.
> 
> ...


 Agreed, a decision made with a landslide vote _*should*_ be indicative of the stance of the organization as a whole. It should have been supported from the Head down as policy right this moment and adhered to. To do otherwise simply invalidates the org as a governing body. In many other venues a no confidence vote would be initiated and the parties who failed to enforce policy would in fact be cited for insubordination or removed from the positions.

IF in fact there were other considerations the board was not made aware of then in fact you now have 2 instances of interference in the same voting process. That should be game, set, and match for that governing body.

For your second concern, I am withholding a little as I still believe there is information missing. I would like to know where it stopped. Was pertinent information not disseminated to the directorate and council? Or is it just not flowing down to the membership. Were I to guess I would surmise that the break in information flow is at and among the top level. It would be consistent with previous actions.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> My state director says he talked with the CEO of Easton after the second meeting and the next day. He says that sponsorship was never a consideration. He claims that it was all about the importance of the issue and a feeling that it should have been on the agenda in advance so everyone could have known about it and have the opportunity to discuss it.
> 
> I have little doubt that is what was actually "said" but there seems to be more to read between the lines. This initiative started life as a 25 signature petition. Everyone knew that at the beginning. If directors felt that this was too important to decide on that basis then they could have decided to table it in the committee or again at the meeting where they passed the measure. Instead, a large majority (45 to 5) embraced this rule with enthusiasm. Clearly they believed that this was good for the sport and the time to act was now.
> 
> ...


storys are just that storys.....dont confuse the facts as anything less then...

as far as condescension, you bet....the meetings are filled with that for all kinds of issues and agenda passages or no actions.....

im sure this could have been a non issue if simply let go and acted as if nothing ever happened....and most likely it will/would be a matter of time before other passages or non actions will/would take place

i grew up learning not to bite the hand that feeds you.....but i also grew up to walk on my own two feet and learn to get off the teet.....

dependancy ......they have centers for this alright.....and they dont usually call em training centers....


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Hutnicks said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Eric's comment that they were disappointed at not being consulted for input rings true to what I would expect a manufacturers position to be in that scenario. I can believe that, and frankly polling the manufactuers for opinions is just due dillegence. Solicit the opinion of the manufacturers and then have the BOD sift through what is sales hokum and what makes sense. Good business practice.
> 
> I'm sorry but it does not make good Association sence. We are not here to worry about what Easton wants it has ZERO merrit. What has and the only thing that has merrit is what the membership wants period. What do we need to poll the manufactures for? What value does there opinion have? What is going on is the archers are getting tired of this out of hand arrow size issue. Maybe the manufactures need to listen to what the archers want we did speek loud and clear. A 45 to 5 vote from our directors seems to be pretty clear. I guess that I will have to make the 1 1/8 diameter shafts to make my point.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*It's about human respect.*

Before I retired, I was the CIO of my organization. I am well aware that the view from the top can be very different than the one seen by the rank and file. On the other hand, there is never any reason to treat others with disrespect or assume that they can't understand what you understand. They just need to be allowed to see what you see. The result is an organization that willingly moves along together in the same direction. When management acts in paternalistic ways telling their subordinates that they need to simply trust and come along, they engender neither trust nor cooperation. Instead they foment distrust and insubordination. We wouldn't be talking about this if NFAA leadership learned to embrace the daylight.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> Before I retired, I was the CIO of my organization. I am well aware that the view from the top can be very different than the one seen by the rank and file. On the other hand, there is never any reason to treat others with disrespect or assume that they can't understand what you understand. They just need to be allowed to see what you see. The result is an organization that willingly moves along together in the same direction. When management acts in paternalistic ways telling their subordinates that they need to simply trust and come along, they engender neither trust nor cooperation. Instead they foment distrust and insubordination. We wouldn't be talking about this if NFAA leadership learned to embrace the daylight.



AlChick, unfortunately, your organization and the NfAA probably dont or didnt operate the same way.....and i say that unfortunate part for the NfAA

i can factually tell you....that the organization absolutely moved along together during these meetings....just the way it was supposed to....and the end results cant help but put a element of distrust out there

as for embracing daylight, i guess you need to shine that beam for us all to see.....

each org has a structure to operate within......and the directors at this meeting from the best of my cloudy view.....operated flawlessly for the most part....

now, somewhere else in this structure, apparently guiding light was missing.....because once things happen within the structure, and you change it outside of the normal bounds of operation.......you can bet that it will leave a soiled outlook and questionable method of operation.....

im sorry for anyone that feels that this method should simply be viewed as its ok this time .....

however, again, dont confuse a story for facts or claim there is no credibility as events unfolded......

my hopes are.....that in the future, we change the method of operation to exist for a more corporate balance for both the org and its business partners


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

each org has a structure to operate within......and the directors at this meeting from the best of my cloudy view.....operated flawlessly for the most part....


Sorry Mike, but if the directors acted flawlessly then they would have stuck to their collective guns. So far no one has said that they were held at gun point (or arrow point for that matter) to reverse their previous decision.

All I'm saying is that this was a dramatic turn around, and the story that everyone involved seems to swear to doesn't match the circumstance. You keep writing in cryptic terms about the story and the facts being different but you don't elaborate. This suggests that you aren't at liberty to speak the whole truth. You say I should shine the light, there it is. The light is on but it illuminates a closed door with a sign on it saying "Keep Out, Insiders Only".


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

AlChick said:


> each org has a structure to operate within......and the directors at this meeting from the best of my cloudy view.....operated flawlessly for the most part....
> 
> 
> Sorry Mike, *but if the directors acted flawlessly then they would have stuck to their collective guns.* So far no one has said that they were held at gun point (or arrow point for that matter) to reverse their previous decision.
> ...


...ALCHICK...EXCELLENT and enLIGHTening postage...

...the "directors" who voted to reverse the original LANDSLIDE vote should be renamed WAFFLES...


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> each org has a structure to operate within......and the directors at this meeting from the best of my cloudy view.....operated flawlessly for the most part....
> 
> 
> Sorry Mike, but if the directors acted flawlessly then they would have stuck to their collective guns. So far no one has said that they were held at gun point (or arrow point for that matter) to reverse their previous decision.
> ...



Al, start at the beginning of this thread.....only read the posts ive posted on.....you will find what happened, how it happened....

i said.....meetings went great....what didnt get passed or enacted, sure got some good conversation and foundation work layed.....

lots of good debate and opinions expressed thoughtout the week.....


meeting adjourned.......

we come back for the dinner/banquet and are being individually told of the emergency meeting we are about to have....with some individuals being told one thing...others told another.....in other words being prepped for the emergency meeting that is going to take place in 15 minutes

now the bottom line, while it was never said that IF we dont do this....we will no longer have or get this.....lets just say that for the most part....implications of doom or a total collapse of the system could take place.....were quickly sweeping the room/rooms

and as ive said, NOBODY wants to have the weight of the world-in this case archery world shoved at them when you have already taken your thinking cap off and moved from director to either spectator or competitor.....

this was not the time or the place to have this thrust at you when wifes, girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, grandkids and others were a mere 75 feet away waiting for that upscale dinner celebration....

take it for what its worth....i do not hold any director accountable for the sudden and surprising change of mind or heart.....

i went to vegas to these meetings to try and help and advance archery not only in my home state, but yours and anyone elses that enjoys this sport/hobby......i went with my thinking cap on and ready to weigh in on any and all items to be discussed.......i did my homework and did indeed speak on many subjects that i had limited knowledge of and on......

i left the meeting feeling on cloud nine...as i said, i thought that the whole organization did a tremendous job operating within the structure that we have before us.....

then something happened, as described above......and for awhile there, it was enough to make me think that it was time to step away and let the system malfunction and corrupt without a fight.....

however, after a calm down period....i hold no ill will or any of the things you say against anyone or any org or company.....but now more so then ever, i see the need for change .....change that needs to be open and forthright.....and i feel that change will only come by those that do indeed solicit for it and expose the need for it....if you want to call that disrespect or lack of human compassion, i say i am not as polished as you or the many other people capable of getting that change any other way.....

if factual reporting or being the bearer of bad news offends you or anyone else, im sorry, that is not the intent or purpose of this thread....

i have posted things that i think could help this org, its members, sponsors, donors, vendors, and officers to better coexist.....so far i have yet to see that same offerings from very many people .....im not saying i have the correct answers.....i trust that smarter people such as yourself can polish things up and direct those around you to do the work or job that awaits.....

trust me, those that are posting on this thread are one thing....they are compassionate about archery....

now if you feel i have kept something secret or out...please let me know....


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

kjwhfsd said:


> I'm sorry but it does not make good Association sence. We are not here to worry about what Easton wants it has ZERO merrit. What has and the only thing that has merrit is what the membership wants period. What do we need to poll the manufactures for? What value does there opinion have? What is going on is the archers are getting tired of this out of hand arrow size issue. Maybe the manufactures need to listen to what the archers want we did speek loud and clear. A 45 to 5 vote from our directors seems to be pretty clear. I guess that I will have to make the 1 1/8 diameter shafts to make my point.


 Well in fact it does make good association sense. It is called due dilligence and gathering business intelligence. IF you are making a decision on a specific product then you owe it to the organization to get the best intel on that product you can, period. The NFAA has the rapport and ability to get that info from each and _*every*_ manufacturer. There could possibly be emerging technologies not currently in production which could have significant bearing on the decision. It's not a matter of who wants what at all, it is a matter of making _*informed*_ decisions.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

DONDEERE said:


> ...ALCHICK...EXCELLENT and enLIGHTening postage...
> 
> ...the "directors" who voted to reverse the original LANDSLIDE vote should be renamed WAFFLES...



Dondeere.....you keep coming and casting jabs at people that attend and try to do a thankless job.....yet you have yet to post simple solutions to prevent such waffles from happening again

i think that arkansas would love to have some enlightenment shed for them to do the job you want and expect from them

all the orgs, including the one you represent seem to have the same master at hand......and if y'all would have kept consistant yourselfs with scoring rings and other issues, perhaps the master at hand would see that maybe the people inside of the orgs do indeed know just alittle bit about running things smoothly.....

while other orgs out there have adopted arrow size and restrictions, i am betting that next year once again, most of the orgs will be reorganizing to select yet another standard....something at this point the NfAA will address yet again....

waffles.....crispy or golden brown.....pass the syrup


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

OBT I understand what you say but if you thought out your decision and its what the people that you represent want then why would you change your mind? I could understand if you flipped a coin and said heads restriction tails not.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Well in fact it does make good association sense. It is called due dilligence and gathering business intelligence. IF you are making a decision on a specific product then you owe it to the organization to get the best intel on that product you can, period. The NFAA has the rapport and ability to get that info from each and _*every*_ manufacturer. There could possibly be emerging technologies not currently in production which could have significant bearing on the decision. It's not a matter of who wants what at all, it is a matter of making _*informed*_ decisions.


very true.....thats why with the advent of this years meeting...perhaps in the future we might see additonal board seats offered up to get a birdseye opinion straight from the source.....

now, on the other hand....the way things are setup to be run today....the directors take direction ONLY FROM ITS MEMBERS and vote on what they want.....

there are other officers and members of the org that should due the diligence with said manufactures and vendors and pass such info along at the appropriate time to help make a blended decision for the best of its members and vendors

but let it be said....2 of the 3 large arrow manufactures were heard the day after the meetings as saying...they are in support of the 9.3mm arrow size


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Hutnicks said:


> Well in fact it does make good association sense. It is called due dilligence and gathering business intelligence. IF you are making a decision on a specific product then you owe it to the organization to get the best intel on that product you can, period. The NFAA has the rapport and ability to get that info from each and _*every*_ manufacturer. There could possibly be emerging technologies not currently in production which could have significant bearing on the decision. It's not a matter of who wants what at all, it is a matter of making _*informed*_ decisions.


Get real we are talking about restricting arrow size. You want emerging techonoilges I will make you 1 1/8 diameter arrows that weight 1400 grains you will need a new target for each round. A target butt will last 1/2 of vegas. Yes they do group pretty well.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

kjwhfsd said:


> OBT I understand what you say but if you thought out your decision and its what the people that you represent want then why would you change your mind? I could understand if you flipped a coin and said heads restriction tails not.


who said i changed my mind.....

i simply would not want to be involved with any decision that if you go against was implied could have a everlasting impact.....that impact being the implication of no longer having anything to govern or represent.....

as far as not doing what my membership asked of me....never did i vote against what they wanted.....


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> Al, start at the beginning of this thread.....only read the posts ive posted on.....you will find what happened, how it happened....
> p
> i said.....meetings went great....what didnt get passed or enacted, sure got some good conversation and foundation work layed.....
> 
> ...


 That statement tells me there is something being left out. No ofense intended here but "need to know" does not really apply here. If this was not so subtle coercion then the public should be made aware of it.

Without being there I should probably refrain from this, but I have to ask. Did anyone consider simply walking out of the room? It would have passed in absentia of course, but the entire burden of explanation would then fall upon Bruce alone. In this case I may have followed General Allenby's advise to do nothing, it's usually best.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

OneBowTie said:


> who said i changed my mind.....
> 
> i simply would not want to be involved with any decision that if you go against was implied could have a everlasting impact.....that impact being the implication of no longer having anything to govern or represent.....
> 
> as far as not doing what my membership asked of me....never did i vote against what they wanted.....


I didnt mean you didnt mean for it to come off that way. what I ment was if the vote was 45 to 5 and then it got overruled and the directors are the ones that can vote the someone must have changed there minds. 

Nothing to govern what with out easton there is no NFAA. Sory with out archers there is no Easton Archery maybe someone needs to send them that message.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> That statement tells me there is being something left out. No ofense intended here but "need to know" does not really apply here. If this was not so subtle coercion then the public should be made aware of it.
> 
> Without being there I should probably refrain from this, but I have to ask. Did anyone consider simply walking out of the room? It would have passed in absentia of course, but the entire burden of explanation would then fall upon Bruce alone. In this case I may have followed General Allenby's advise to do nothing, it's usually best.


Hut ill be the first to admit.....you and AlChick are much more educated and polished then ONE will ever be.....and with that being said, i guess you have the comfort of being able to have been home and read about what happened and digest it for a week....... then tell those that were there how we should have possibly acted...... 

i can tell you from first hand experience.....timing in alot of things determines how hard the fight will be.....and lets just say....now, being one week removed, given a weeks time and 800 plus posts later of opinions and suggestions....i bet i would have spoken differently and acted differently....

sometimes off the cuff aint all its cracked up to be


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

kjwhfsd said:


> I didnt mean you didnt mean for it to come off that way. what I ment was if the vote was 45 to 5 and then it got overruled and the directors are the ones that can vote the someone must have changed there minds.
> 
> Nothing to govern what with out easton there is no NFAA. Sory with out archers there is no Easton Archery maybe someone needs to send them that message.


read my prior post...i guess thats the best way i can describe why myself and 45 other directors acted after the fact.....

a week and 800 plus opinions later, it makes things easier to see and digest......but dealing with a blindside hit with no time to digest and discuss.....makes a no decision at a time of so called celebration the easiest thing to do...

i say if you or any other states members do not like the results....fire all of us and get in there and show us how its done.....ill fully support my replacement


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

GOT LUCKY said:


> NOOOOOO....but that would be like GM asking for feedback from their customers if they wanted a faster car before they built that new engine......


Lucky I could not disagree with you more. Your example is reversed. The Orgs are not the customer but the governing body. 

Do you think GM could build any 08 models with out meeting federal standards?


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

OneBowTie said:


> read my prior post...i guess thats the best way i can describe why myself and 45 other directors acted after the fact.....
> 
> a week and 800 plus opinions later, it makes things easier to see and digest......but dealing with a blindside hit with no time to digest and discuss.....makes a no decision at a time of so called celebration the easiest thing to do...
> 
> i say if you or any other states members do not like the results....fire all of us and get in there and show us how its done.....ill fully support my replacement


I might I know that my state directors job could be had for saying I will. But its not the directors that should be fired. Its Mr Cull that needs a kick in the


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

kjwhfsd said:


> Get real we are talking about restricting arrow size. You want emerging techonoilges I will make you 1 1/8 diameter arrows that weight 1400 grains you will need a new target for each round. A target butt will last 1/2 of vegas. Yes they do group pretty well.


 Well, one of us should


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

now if you feel i have kept something secret or out...please let me know....

The part that is left out, given your explanation above, is that someone is lying, quite frankly, and I'm not saying that it is you. I would never question your sincerity nor your deep passion for or commitment to our sport. You see, however, on the one hand we are told that no one ever said anything about any sponsor threatening anything, and on the other hand we are told that directors were made to feel like the weight of the archery world hung on their decision to reverse themselves. In light of these irreconcilable versions am I not to be suspicious? Am I mistaken in my call of foul? Do I have it wrong when I say someone without the authority to do so forced the reversal of a responsibly made and well considered decision? Did I miss the section in the NFAA Constitution that says that this is proper procedure?

We agree that the organization needs to change, but, while I don't have your view from the top, I don't agree that the president, or any individual, should have veto power. I can see where that would have taken the directors off the hook, but that's not why they got a free trip to Vegas. They were there to ask the questions and make the decisions, and rightfully so. But it's time to quit sanitizing the facts to protect the guilty. If you were pressured into a decision that you didn't want to make then lets talk about who was responsible and decide if we feel we need to do something about that. If someone holds our organization by the short hairs then it should be out on the table and we'll know where the stink is coming from. But everyone is beautiful and nobody said nuthin' to nobody, but we un-acted because we had to, just doesn't cut it. Honestly, no disrespect toward you is intended.


----------



## OklaArcher (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm sticking with 2512's, but could I use those 5 inch turkey broadheads instead of target points? That would help me get some line cutters.

:wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> Hut ill be the first to admit.....you and AlChick are much more educated and polished then ONE will ever be.....and with that being said, i guess you have the comfort of being able to have been home and read about what happened and digest it for a week....... then tell those that were there how we should have possibly acted......
> 
> i can tell you from first hand experience.....timing in alot of things determines how hard the fight will be.....and lets just say....now, being one week removed, given a weeks time and 800 plus posts later of opinions and suggestions....i bet i would have spoken differently and acted differently....
> 
> sometimes off the cuff aint all its cracked up to be


First of the your previous post. Before I'd be putting manufacturers on the board I'd do some long and hard thinking about that. As far as actually having a vote I can think if about a million reasons no and very few for yes. Consulting _*all*_ manufacturers across the board is another animal alltogether. I mean if Gold Tip had said well schucks guys we have this shaft ready for release in 8 weeks that spines out perfectly from 20 to 100 lbs with our new tips, but we can only make em in 10 millie size, and we hear CX has a similar process. Well then that just might make me rethink a 9.3 millie ruling.

Now, don't come the old sailor here, you can be every bit as polished as the best of us; I am, however neither. And personally unless it is an actual emergency I get downright mulish over principle, revisiting settled busness is about as high on my list as experimental pile surgery. While I do not know what the actual charter of the NFAA allows as far a punitive measures against the directors, there would have had to have been a very compelling reason to get me past the "should we even be doing this" phase. And I think what EVERYONE here in the "say what???" camp is trying to get their heads around, is that so far a compelling reason has yet to be disclosed.

Pardon the arrogance here I traditionally stay away from trying to speak for the crowd:embara:


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

tim9910 said:


> I'm sticking with 2512's, but could I use those 5 inch turkey broadheads instead of target points? That would help me get some line cutters.
> 
> :wink:


As long as there made and owned by easton that should be just fine, easton will have the rules altered to suit accordingly ! :wink: :tongue: :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> now if you feel i have kept something secret or out...please let me know....
> 
> The part that is left out, given your explanation above, is that someone is lying, quite frankly, and I'm not saying that it is you. I would never question your sincerity nor your deep passion for or commitment to our sport. You see, however, on the one hand we are told that no one ever said anything about any sponsor threatening anything, and on the other hand we are told that directors were made to feel like the weight of the archery world hung on their decision to reverse themselves. In light of these irreconcilable versions am I not to be suspicious? Am I mistaken in my call of foul? Do I have it wrong when I say someone without the authority to do so forced the reversal of a responsibly made and well considered decision? Did I miss the section in the NFAA Constitution that says that this is proper procedure?
> 
> We agree that the organization needs to change, but, while I don't have your view from the top, I don't agree that the president, or any individual, should have veto power. I can see where that would have taken the directors off the hook, but that's not why they got a free trip to Vegas. They were there to ask the questions and make the decisions, and rightfully so. But it's time to quit sanitizing the facts to protect the guilty. If you were pressured into a decision that you didn't want to make then lets talk about who was responsible and decide if we feel we need to do something about that. If someone holds our organization by the short hairs then it should be out on the table and we'll know where the stink is coming from. But everyone is beautiful and nobody said nuthin' to nobody, but we un-acted because we had to, just doesn't cut it. Honestly, no disrespect toward you is intended.


Al, i dont know who is lying....but listen to me and what im saying.....or said

as the directors gathered in the room.....dining room.....councilman and the president made their way around the room....and informed the directors of the emergency meeting ....and notice i have said....we the directors were never told in the words ......"if we dont-then we could face a situation"

Al, different directors were "told" "prepped" in different ways.....before we gathered in the meeting room....now i can tell you this....i was "prepped" by many different people...and the prepping got tougher and tougher as my resistance got firmer and firmer....i heard words of "pissed" "not looking good" "use your wisdom" "just try to see it from "their" view"

and again, i must ask you and the many on this thread to just try to put yourself in the position of those there.....i am telling you...after being a week removed....and having the luxury of 800 posts later....i can see how i very well would have acted different given that kind of leeway......

listen to what im saying....timing is everything when you choose your battle and battlefield.....

and for the record.....you mention "free trip".....in a consdescending tone i might add......$600 in no way shape or form covers the cost of such "vaction"...and furthermore, ive been on vactions before in my life....but they usually dont involve regimented meetings that pit one opinion against the next....in other words....this vacation isnt the picnic you make it out to be.....

and while you are probably getting a version of what happened by somebody who might be view'd as part of the old guard....vs somebody such as myself who is not viewed that way at all.....take that for what its worth.....


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> First of the your previous post. Before I'd be putting manufacturers on the board I'd do some long and hard thinking about that. As far as actually having a vote I can think if about a million reasons no and very few for yes. Consulting _*all*_ manufacturers across the board is another animal alltogether. I mean if Gold Tip had said well schucks guys we have this shaft ready for release in 8 weeks that spines out perfectly from 20 to 100 lbs with our new tips, but we can only make em in 10 millie size, and we hear CX has a similar process. Well then that just might make me rethink a 9.3 millie ruling.
> 
> Now, don't come the old sailor here, you can be every bit as polished as the best of us; I am, however neither. And personally unless it is an actual emergency I get downright mulish over principle, revisiting settled busness is about as high on my list as experimental pile surgery. While I do not know what the actual charter of the NFAA allows as far a punitive measures against the directors, there would have had to have been a very compelling reason to get me past the "should we even be doing this" phase. And I think what EVERYONE here in the "say what???" camp is trying to get their heads around, is that so far a compelling reason has yet to be disclosed.
> 
> Pardon the arrogance here I traditionally stay away from trying to speak for the crowd:embara:


Hut, the above surely makes some sense and has merit to it.....however, as far as i can tell.....that kind of inquiry most likely should be shoulder'd by someone other then the directors....as the directors arent involved with these DONORS, SPONSORS, VENDORS other then when perhaps we are buying their product.....there are other people within the org that deal with the financial selling of packages, and the negotiations while taking or recieving DONATIONS, GRANTS, OR LIKEWISE.....

so respectfully, i must say NO the directors shouldnt be the people to contact those companys and solicit input.....just as being a director, not once have i been contacted as to my opinion of any of their products to enhance or better the memberships archery experience while at a NFAA function.....

now as soon as the meetings were over, i reported here on AT what i thought were some of the news worthy passages of new rules or such......

and likewise.....as soon as the other meeting was over, i reported here on AT for what i again thought was news worthy....

now as for the implications of those that now are having a hard time understanding what happened....i can not help that....i think i have been very clear of exactly what i saw transpire....

and if the membership feels that the directors are at fault, i say get rid of the directors and get new blood in there.....honestly, that might be the best thing that can happen for the membership....and current set of directors

i can tell you i certainly would probably enjoy archery from the outside looking in....vs from the inside looking out:wink:

polish.....wax on....wax off


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> Hut, the above surely makes some sense and has merit to it.....however, as far as i can tell.....that kind of inquiry most likely should be shoulder'd by someone other then the directors....as the directors arent involved with these DONORS, SPONSORS, VENDORS other then when perhaps we are buying their product.....there are other people within the org that deal with the financial selling of packages, and the negotiations while taking or recieving DONATIONS, GRANTS, OR LIKEWISE.....
> 
> so respectfully, i must say NO the directors shouldnt be the people to contact those companys and solicit input.....just as being a director, not once have i been contacted as to my opinion of any of their products to enhance or better the memberships archery experience while at a NFAA function.....
> 
> ...


 I didn't mean to imply the directors should be out pounding asphalt getting the vendor info. I would think that an ad hoc committee (cannot believe I am recommending that) formed of members from around the country and preferably with no immediate affiliations to the manufactuers solicit the info and prepare a report to the board. Who _*wouldn't*_ volunteer to call up an arrow manufacturer on behalf of the NFAA and get the skinny?

I do not think the directors are under attack here per se. I sincerely think that the stress here is caused due to not being able to understand where the FAILURE here occurred. And a FAILURE it certainly was. I have borne witness to some pretty unfathomable corporate behavior in my time, and it is my opinion here that the magnitude of this cock up has everyone utterly baffled. We HAD a decision, over, voted on, done deal, print the new rulebooks and were a shootin boys! But no, whats this? it was all a b-movie dream sequence and there is no ruling after all. Of course people are not going to understand and you, amigo by virtue of an altruistic AT presence are hereby appointed the man on the spot bequeathed the sacred charge of Explaining the Unexplainable. And I do feel this one is unexplainable, after 900 posts (maybe it will self destruct at 911) the simple conclusion that I have come to is there is no explanation for this. It is an org in the throes of schizophrenia acting in an manner incomprehensible to all but itself.

There will be no reasoning here as there is no reason itself. I now know it is not a question of why or how or who, and honestly wouldn't want to know. It is only the act that counts here _*that*_ I _*know*_ happened, and will happen again.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> I didn't mean to imply the directors should be out pounding asphalt getting the vendor info. I would think that an ad hoc committee (cannot believe I am recommending that) formed of members from around the country and preferably with no immediate affiliations to the manufactuers solicit the info and prepare a report to the board. Who _*wouldn't*_ volunteer to call up an arrow manufacturer on behalf of the NFAA and get the skinny?
> 
> I do not think the directors are under attack here per se. I sincerely think that the stress here is caused due to not being able to understand where the FAILURE here occurred. And a FAILURE it certainly was. I have borne witness to some pretty unfathomable corporate behavior in my time, and it is my opinion here that the magnitude of this cock up has everyone utterly baffled. We HAD a decision, over, voted on, done deal, print the new rulebooks and were a shootin boys! But no, whats this? it was all a b-movie dream sequence and there is no ruling after all. Of course people are not going to understand and you, amigo by virtue of an altruistic AT presence are hereby appointed the man on the spot bequeathed the sacred charge of Explaining the Unexplainable. And I do feel this one is unexplainable, after 900 posts (maybe it will self destruct at 911) the simple conclusion that I have come to is there is no explanation for this. It is an org in the throes of schizophrenia acting in an manner incomprehensible to all but itself.
> 
> There will be no reasoning here as there is no reason itself. I now know it is not a question of why or how or who, and honestly wouldn't want to know. It is only the act that counts here _*that*_ I _*know*_ happened, and will happen again.


did you mean waffle:tongue:

in the words of chris tucker.....What the hail did he just say


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> Al, i dont know who is lying....but listen to me and what im saying.....or said
> 
> as the directors gathered in the room.....dining room.....councilman and the president made their way around the room....and informed the directors of the emergency meeting ....and notice i have said....we the directors were never told in the words ......"if we dont-then we could face a situation"
> 
> ...


It seems that someONE's undies are bunched. I thought I had implied that present company was excepted although looking back I can see how my comment might have sounded condescending to you. Please consider this a sincere apology. 

At least now my perhaps thick shelled brain has finally reached clarity about the fact that the directors were manipulated and coerced to rescind their vote. So it would seem a note to my Great Lakes Section Counselman is in order to find out if he was there and what he knew about this travesty. I feel like Woodward running around Washington asking "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Is it OK if I call my informant "Straight Arrow" instead of "Deep Throat"? Somehow, I feel uncomfortable with that name.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I know the "concept " is to get off the teet NOW … Draw the lines in the sand … and In fact again.. I don't disagree and going forward such should be the case. However NOW and ALL THE SUDDEN through what looks to me to be a potential lack of foresight there was a problem and the problem was solved However another problem remains. The membership wants a 9.3 arrow rule. I FULLY expect the directors and Easton to come to a plan on this desire :wink:

What should have been done??… I can't believe that 1 of 50 could NOT have even come up with the thought to TABLE the decision pertaining to the change and in some method reconvene as soon as a plan could be worked out to vote in the plans implementation….. But then since we only allow them to Gather all 50 ONCE A YEAR… that become problematic. However the "plan" could have been mailed out to all 50 and a mail in vote on the PLAN could have happened as well

Bottom line is that the Directors voted to overturn based on a FEAR that nobody really had the answer To .. What was the Potential Problem that the Fear mongers were spreading… Did Easton want in on he discussions.. A phase in period?? .. No Action?? …… Nobody thought to ask What the Problem was before overturning the Vote ??............ That's …….. Odd … Or people know and are not saying:zip::zip::secret::zip::secret:


Of Course the Other two manufacturers did not care … One wanted it and BOTH do not have as much collected shafts out on the market. Easton Is the Biggest Sponsor with the Biggest product base affected………….. Playing it off as 2 out of 3 wanted to play ball is TRUE but for different reasons then wanting to do Right by the Membership.. They are agreeing because it levels the CORPORATE competitive playing field:wink:

Easton may ARGUABLY be holding the membership Hostage but GOLD TIP is doing the same.. Reps have admitted they will continue to field Ridicules sized shafts until a ruling is made …. Bottom line.. We are being used … might as well go to the highest bidder :embara::embara:


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

*What!*

I'm sorry, but unless I have been misled, the directors were out of step with the question that was posed to the body in the first place. My understanding was that the question that was supposed to be asked of the membership was if we would support a 26/64 limit... That was the question that was asked here in RI.

It was after the 23/64 limit was decided that the calls started coming in from many different sources, not just Easton, with concerns about existing inventory. I happen to agree with and share that concern.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Just amazing - 908 replies and 17,990 viewings here and the ASA site for their new arrow restriction/rule has 8 replies, 1825 viewings and no real complaints for the .422" diameter limit. Amazing.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Message sent*

I sent an email to my councilman asking him to explain what went on in Vegas. I am waiting for his reply. Perhaps it would be a good idea for some of you to do the same. If nothing else, the Council will get the clear idea that the membership holds them accountable for their actions. Since they represent us, that is how it is supposed to be; and if they have acted properly, asking the question should be offensive to no one.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I sent an email to my councilman asking him to explain what went on in Vegas. I am waiting for his reply. Perhaps it would be a good idea for some of you to do the same. If nothing else, the Council will get the clear idea that the membership holds them accountable for their actions. Since they represent us, that is how it is supposed to be; and if they have acted properly, asking the question should be offensive to no one.



Good idea, Al. However, the COUNCILMEN did NOT make this vote...the DIRECTORS did. Therefore, I think you should also cc the DIRECTOR with the same e-mail or written letter.

Discussing it here on AT will get us nowhere...since the Directors and Councilmen might READ what is here on AT, but won't, nor should they, COMPLY with what we discuss here. So many on here are NOT paid members of the NFAA, and how are they to know who is whom?

About the ONLY way to get the directors' attention is with direct contact, and personally, I think WRITTEN and DATED direct contact is a means of showing them that you are documenting your contacts with them...which, IMHO makes them more ACCOUNTABLE should questions arise about their actions or lack thereof.

I also think that contact with the President and Vice-President of the NFAA is in order on this issue. My main question being WHY it will take a full YEAR to "study this"....and WHY they can call an emergency meeting on the issue after the meeting is adjouned....but NOT be able to call another "emergency meeting" to re-open this at the NFAA National Indoor Tournament. I just can't buy it that this needs a FULL YEAR to be discussed again....

Too many things are NOT being cleared up, and we the members might well deserve some answers...however, I do NOT blame the Directors, or the NFAA leadership for NOT giving those answers on Archery Talk or on any open forum.

However, I DO BUY IT that we members of the NFAA SHOULD (maybe must) get direct answers as to exactly why the "vote" was rescinded, how this came about, and WHAT are the intention(s) of this "further study" that is supposedly going to take a full year to resolve. What are the plan(s), if there indeed are any. The membership should receive this in writing...or published in the very next issue of Archery Magazine, as a minimum, IMHO.

Let me know what you get for a response. I'm still in the process of drafting my letter to Bruce, and of course the Sectional Councilman and State NFAA Director will get a copy of this letter.

field14


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Now Field 

You Know Directors are not going to give straight answers BECAUSE it will be on AT …. And even if they Do give straight answers each director will give a different version that will…… Yes Be on AT … In the end the confusion remains ………. Mine said that … Yours said this 

All they can do is Listen and Act …. Work out the problems and Make it happen…


The most amusing thing is that 50 gown adults were told there was a "problem" and blindly overturned there own rulings because of a "problem" … Without Knowing what the "problem" was ……..Because dinner was on the table ??:tongue:


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

The fact of the matter is , something of this size should have been on the WRITTEN agenda in the first place. It was not so rescinding it was the right thing to do . Get it on next years agenda and voted on by the MEMBERS not just the directors that THINK they know what the members want.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Spotshooter2 said:


> The fact of the matter is , something of this size should have been on the WRITTEN agenda in the first place. It was not so rescinding it was the right thing to do . Get it on next years agenda and voted on by the MEMBERS not just the directors that THINK they know what the members want.


The issue is three-fold..or more.....

First, the 2712's by Easton were in the "testing stages" by a very, very select FEW staff shooters, and were released for ordering AFTER the Sept. 30 deadline for the NFAA meeting agenda items submissions...Convenient, wasn't it....this sure MADE SURE that shaft size couldn't be an "agenda item" issue...the best it could do was a 15-signature item...and THOSE usually FAIL to be addressed.

Secondly, the other "issue" came at the Iowa Pro-Am in JANUARY, 2008....a little more than a month and a half before the NFAA annual meeting. This brought the issue to the forefront...ON PURPOSE....but again....it came to light way past the Sept 30 deadline.

Thirdly...there was a "meeting of the minds" of the IBO, ASA, and NFAA at the ATA show...and some sort of 'tentative agreement' was reached concerning shaft size. The IBO and ASA decreed IMMEDIATELY that the largest shaft size was 0.425, thus legalizing the new 2712's by Easton and maxing it at that diameter..>THIS YEAR, IMMEDIATELY.

The NFAA...didn't ultimately go along with this "tentative agreement" at all...opting for the 9.3mm limit...rescinding it and going instead with NO LIMIT...and it opens the door for the same thing to repeat itself after Sept 30, 2008..where word has it that somewhere, somehow....there may well be 0.500 or larger shafts "R&D'd" and "tested" and released for production...thus forcing yet another go around on this issue...only the 2712's might well be knitting needles by this time.....and if the "trend" continues on NFAA voting (or rescinding), then....we'll be right back at "no limits" or...wasting another year "researching" and checking with manufacturers.

Amazing how slow the "wheels of progress" can move when the "wrench" is in the spokes from the very beginning...from those with a different agenda in mind.

Good grief...are the directors (some of them anyways) and the Councilmen (some of them anyways) ever going to hate the fieldman for the above and other comments...

But the fieldman calls the kettle black....and eats crow once in a while. I'd like nothing better to eat crow on this one, however...and have SOME KIND OF SHAFT SIZE LIMIT PUT IN PLACE.....NOW, THIS YEAR, as in 2008....and NOT 2009 or beyond...

field14:wink:


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

Field , no matter what you say , it should be voted on by the MEMBERS . Just the few that voice their opinions on here isnt enough especially when you dont even know if they are members. I really dont care if there is a size ruling but let it be done by a vote of the members is all I am saying. Should the size be 9.3 mm , no to me , make it a 26 or a 27 not 9.3 just so we align with the NAA but whatever make it by a vote of the masses not a vote of the few.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

field14 said:


> Good idea, Al. However, the COUNCILMEN did NOT make this vote...the DIRECTORS did. Therefore, I think you should also cc the DIRECTOR with the same e-mail or written letter.
> 
> Discussing it here on AT will get us nowhere...since the Directors and Councilmen might READ what is here on AT, but won't, nor should they, COMPLY with what we discuss here. So many on here are NOT paid members of the NFAA, and how are they to know who is whom?
> 
> ...


 14, the meeting was called because most of the directors were present. I don't belive the directors would want a mail ballot meeting, & to have an in person meeting prior to the feb meeting would be cost prohibitive.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

brtesite said:


> 14, the meeting was called because most of the directors were present. I don't belive the directors would want a mail ballot meeting, & to have an in person meeting prior to the feb meeting would be cost prohibitive.


BUT...on the other hand....how many directors attend the NATIONAL INDOOR tournament, OR the other WAF shoot BEFORE June 1?

Seems that it just doesn't NEED to take a full year to year and a half for this supposed "research" and take a chance that yet another manuf. or even the diamond themselves are already planning something even larger..and releasing it AFTER the Sept 30, 2008 deadline for submission of agenda items for consideration at the National meeting.

That scenario would render useless any "officially" written and submitted agenda item due to "lack of viable and current information"....offered yet one more excuse for leaving things alone with NO LIMITS....or qualify it for "more study" thus taking another full year without action.

This "game" could go on forever....with the NFAA still being the only one out there without some size restriction in place.

Semantics, game playing, arm twisting, call it whatever...but I do know that you can see my point...it is time to get off the pot, IMHO.

Cost prohibitive as opposed to having some "sanctioned events" lost due to lack of a size restriction???...and this being caused, not by the MAJORITY of the NFAA membership...but by only a select FEW that do whatever, for whatever, whyever......to keep the "arms race" going for the foreseeable and unforseeable future....

I still cannot see the NEED for a full year "study" to get the "stuff" together to make a ruling....and, since I would surmise that the 9.3mm rule was discussed....and discussed at length. 

I would suggest:
Now, that, along with the "input" (for lack of a better description) from Bruce of the "data from the manufacturers" and the manuf. inputs that definitely should NOT take a full year to get together (more like less than 30 days, IMHO)...

WHY do we have THE NEED for a "full-fledged face-to face, mano a mano meeting" anyways....

Give 'em the FACTS OF THE MATTER, give 'em the manufacturers' inputs, give them a month or so to contact their constituents (we, the members) and get their instructions...and then VOTE via e-mail or letter; collate the results and get off the pot and make a ruling....FOR NOW, for 2008....

If it is 9.3mm, then fine. If it is 26/64", then fine. If it is 0.425" max diameter, then fine...but there is no reason for NOT having a ruling and get on board as the members apparently had spoken (or whatever) to the directors prior to the original vote anyways...

I certainly agree that the NFAA cannot and should not take everything posted on AT as the "gospel" due to the fact that there are so many that are on AT that are not NFAA paid members...and as such, should not, and cannot really have a vote with their directors. At the same time, the initial vote on the 9.3mm rule was 42-6 FOR the restriction...and that should still hold water....

AGAIN..a YEAR is not needed...and "cost prohibitive" for an UPDATE OF INFORMATION to re-cast votes and make a decision...doesn't hold water....Having them mano a mano doesn't hold water either. Not for "updated information" that can be gotten in a matter of hours of time well spent.

field14


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Field , no matter what you say , it should be voted on by the MEMBERS . Just the few that voice their opinions on here isnt enough especially when you dont even know if they are members. I really dont care if there is a size ruling but let it be done by a vote of the members is all I am saying. Should the size be 9.3 mm , no to me , make it a 26 or a 27 not 9.3 just so we align with the NAA but whatever make it by a vote of the masses not a vote of the few.


The NFAA system is in place to have the members "voice" their opinions...it is called CONTACT YOUR DIRECTOR and give them the guidance and what you want them to do.

The last time the NFAA used a mail ballot, that I can remember was in 1971...and it was HORRIFIC...and IMHO, was way more "far-reaching" than an arrow size restriction. It dealt with the legalization of the compound bow and the release-aid for NFAA competition. It also turned out to be a huge can of worms.

Not even the target change of 1976 generated a "vote of the membership"...and it was every bit as far-reaching and important of a decision as the compound/release issue....yet the VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP was NOT undertaken! We'll never know all the politicing involved in that can of worms...but we all know that it changed field archery and the participation levels drastically....to the DOWNWARD SPIRAL.

Arrow size restrictions are in place in every organization BUT the NFAA/WAF...and only because an OFFICIAL VOTE of the members (thru the directors) was strong-armed OUT and rescinded...for whatever reason. It isn't like this is earth shattering by any means...but it will impact things very soon if allowed to remain as WIDE OPEN WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS for any length of time....

field14


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

field14 said:


> Good idea, Al. However, the COUNCILMEN did NOT make this vote...the DIRECTORS did. Therefore, I think you should also cc the DIRECTOR with the same e-mail or written letter.field14


I wrote my state director first and got his version of the story which was that no one threatened anyone. He says the directors felt that this item was too important to decide after being brought by a 15 signature petition and so they rescinded their vote to allow for further discussion. It could be just me, but the version we got from OBT seems more credible. I believe him when he says that he felt coerced (my word , not his) into voting the right way. In my mind, that takes the directors off the hook and that is why I want to know what my councilman knows. It seems the councilmen were given something to say to the directors when they "prepped" (OBT's word) them for the emergency meeting. I want to know what they were told and what they said. In any case, calling our councilmen is a reminder to us all that they are supposed to represent and account to us. There's really nothing we can do about what happened except to send the clear message to those involved that it better not happen again. The best way to send that message is to make them account for their actions and that goes for the president on down.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I wrote my state director first and got his version of the story which was that no one threatened anyone. He says the directors felt _that this item was too important to decide after being brought by a 15 signature petition and so they rescinded their vote to allow for further discussion._ It could be just me, but the version we got from OBT seems more credible. I believe him when he says that he felt coerced (my word , not his) into voting the right way. In my mind, that takes the directors off the hook and that is why I want to know what my councilman knows. It seems the councilmen were given something to say to the directors when they "prepped" (OBT's word) them for the emergency meeting. I want to know what they were told and what they said. In any case, calling our councilmen is a reminder to us all that they are supposed to represent and account to us. There's really nothing we can do about what happened except to send the clear message to those involved that it better not happen again. The best way to send that message is to make them account for their actions and that goes for the president on down.


See the red highlight above. WHY THEN...is it that the new PRO Chairman was able to bring not one, two, three, but FOUR 15-signature items to the floor and reap "IMPORTANCE" to those to get ALL FOUR PASSED???

I'll tell you why...because there was INTEREST, and there wasn't a high dollar DINNER waiting in the other room, only a simple NO VOTE away....The meeting was NOT ADJOURNED yet for the case of those FOUR 15-signature items...that affected the SMALLEST DIVISION of the NFAA...but yet was able to be presented in a rank of IMPORTANCE....15-signatures or not...because the party involved was PASSIONATE about them PASSING, no if's and's or buts...about them.

Now we sit and wait another year, run the risk of BIGGER AND FATTER SHAFTS coming around the bend...maybe even AFTER the agend item deadline...and in hopes the issue will just die...or can be avoided all together.

We need to be informed of EXACTLY what transpired...we are paying members and deserve that courtesy, IMHO...either by open letter...or in the Archery Magazine...the MEMBERSHIP deserves, and perhaps should DEMAND an explanation...and SOUND reasoning as to why it will take a YEAR before anything can or will be done....simply outrageous, IMHO.

But..as the old adage says..,."A watched pot never brews"...but in this case...if we don't watch the pot....someone will just put out the fire....

What I also would like to know is if the "minutes" of that entire National meeting are available as PUBLIC RECORD...or are those "secret" too?

field14


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I wrote my state director first and got his version of the story which was that no one threatened anyone. He says the directors felt that this item was too important to decide after being brought by a 15 signature petition and so they rescinded their vote to allow for further discussion. It could be just me, but the version we got from OBT seems more credible. I believe him when he says that he felt coerced (my word , not his) into voting the right way. In my mind, that takes the directors off the hook and that is why I want to know what my councilman knows. It seems the councilmen were given something to say to the directors when they "prepped" (OBT's word) them for the emergency meeting. I want to know what they were told and what they said. In any case, calling our councilmen is a reminder to us all that they are supposed to represent and account to us. There's really nothing we can do about what happened except to send the clear message to those involved that it better not happen again. The best way to send that message is to make them account for their actions and that goes for the president on down.


 I don't think that any of the council prepped any one. There was no time . I got the word @ 5:30 that there was a council meeting . By the time i got to it, it was 5:50 The dinner was @ 6:00. I still didn't get dressed yet. All I had time for was to say there was a meeting in the other rm. I didn't prep any of my directors.
As for OBT feeling he was coersed, that was his feeling . I don't know if any one else felt the same way. Every one has there own spin on it. 
I think that a lot of people are blowing this out of proportion & we have the pot stirers also. We have lived with out a size limit forever, I don't think that a little more time to get this straightened out is a bad thing. 

Funny thing that if there is a contraversy, every one wants to hang some . 
don't hear to much of when things are done to make things good for the NFAA or the WAF. 
How the pro rep worked on a bunch of things to straighten out some of their problems, or how we tried to accomadate some shooters for the 7:30 line with practice in the back rm. Then I have to hear that the spotlights werent
turned on & chewed out about it by some jerk because I didn't know where the switch was.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

field14 said:


> See the red highlight above. WHY THEN...is it that the new PRO Chairman was able to bring not one, two, three, but FOUR 15-signature items to the floor and reap "IMPORTANCE" to those to get ALL FOUR PASSED???
> 
> I'll tell you why...because there was INTEREST, and there wasn't a high dollar DINNER waiting in the other room, only a simple NO VOTE away....The meeting was NOT ADJOURNED yet for the case of those FOUR 15-signature items...that affected the SMALLEST DIVISION of the NFAA...but yet was able to be presented in a rank of IMPORTANCE....15-signatures or not...because the party involved was PASSIONATE about them PASSING, no if's and's or buts...about them.
> 
> ...


 yes tom , the minutes are public record. Ask your director when he gets them
don't know what you are refering to about the pro rep. I think she did a fine job.


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

centerx said:


> Easton Is the Biggest Sponsor with the Biggest product base.


Any idea the $$$ amount Easton Sponsors? 

Lets not count the $350K Easton Foundation money. 


I know that the total Sponsor and Booth space money from all the events does not encompass the $240K mark.


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

brtesite said:


> I don't think that any of the council prepped any one. There was no time . I got the word @ 5:30 that there was a council meeting . By the time i got to it, it was 5:50 The dinner was @ 6:00. I still didn't get dressed yet. All I had time for was to say there was a meeting in the other rm. I didn't prep any of my directors.
> As for OBT feeling he was coersed, that was his feeling . I don't know if any one else felt the same way. Every one has there own spin on it.
> I think that a lot of people are blowing this out of proportion & we have the pot stirers also. We have lived with out a size limit forever, I don't think that a little more time to get this straightened out is a bad thing.
> 
> ...


Mike what needs ironed out the directors made a decision to go with a 9.3 mm limit.

In you own words why was the Emergency Meeting called?

Who did not like the limit?

Why did they not like the limit?


----------



## tfogleson (Oct 8, 2007)

where would we be with out the net ???


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Sorry, I can't help myself....



WV Has Been said:


> In you own words why was the Emergency Meeting called?
> 
> *Somebody dumped the original game plan of .422" - .422" was shortly adopted by the ASA after the "gentleman's agreement at the ATA show.*
> 
> ...


Please forgive me. This Thread should have a stake driven through it's heart pages ago.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

brtesite said:


> yes tom , the minutes are public record. Ask your director when he gets them
> don't know what you are refering to about the pro rep. I think she did a fine job.



Mike,,
Absolutely, the new Pro Chairperson indeed DID do an outstanding job.

The point I was making is that those FOUR "15-signature" items were PASSED and not rescinded...due to better politicing, better preparation, and ducks being lined into the proper "rows"...which shows outstanding preparation...something obviously in need in the association!

Now, in the case of the arrow size thing being "excused" and/or as mentioned earlier...not "serious enough because it was "only" a 15-signature item instead of a "true agenda item" " so it needed 'more study'....doesn't hold water...

If FOUR others were serious enough...then it is obvious that something or many somethings were out of a row in the arrow size thingy...and we members have yet to hear the entire story...and probably never will.....

because that 42-6 vote was completely tossed aside, after probably several hours of debate and discussion...in a matter...according to what you are saying above, in LESS THAN 10 MINUTES time...prior to a big feed.

How can, a major item that had a 42-6 vote be so radically turned around in a manner of minutes.....and no details of the "new vote" overturning it be lost in the shuffle?

In addition, the other "problem" is not holding water as to why it will take a year of "research" and approaching manufacturers to re-open the issue? The "too expensive" to get directors together doesn't float....and still no response to the suggestions earlier on concerning bringing this up in an "emergency format"...OBVIOUSLY..."emergency formats" are ALLOWED...since it was used to overturn the vote and rescind the limit....but now it is of "little importance" or something like that...and doesn't deserve the attention.

I'm only saying that waiting until next February only gives more time for the 27 diameters to be exceeded, and opens the door for "it" to be done after the Sept 30 dead line...thus making an official agenda item useless should the fatter arrows be "released" and in use AFTER Sept 30, 2008.

PROACTIVE, Mike, PROACTIVE....it happened in January, 2008...WAY too late for a "proper" agenda item...don't you think it can and perhaps WILL happen again? OR...are you simply "hoping" that it won't and will go away all by itself?

\
OR....is there some deep, dark secret agreement by the manuf. of arrows to NOT EXCEED the 27 shaft diameter that we don't know about?

field14


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

field14 said:


> Mike,,
> Absolutely, the new Pro Chairperson indeed DID do an outstanding job.
> 
> The point I was making is that those FOUR "15-signature" items were PASSED and not rescinded...due to better politicing, better preparation, and ducks being lined into the proper "rows"...which shows outstanding preparation...something obviously in need in the association!
> ...



all 15 sig are just as important as regular agendas. they hold the same weight .

get off of the secret dark info you keep harping on. 
I think that at least 20k to get the directors together for a meeting would be a little much , don't you?
as for the directors over turning it, that was their call.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Why do they have to get together 

The answer is simple … Get 2 people that voted against … 2 people that voted for and the president to do the necessary due diligence work with all parties involved

Have those 5 present the GROPUPS findings over the phone with 9 other directors in that region… Get the vote of those 9 and submit the tally..

Why would we need to gather over 1 topic is the question??

Why do I have a hard time believing that 50 people overturned a ruling without knowing what the problem was …. Some felt pressure others didn’t….. Well if some DID what was the problem that they felt they HAD to overturn the ruling… if others felt no problem why did they???

Then 50 gown adults can’t figure out how to put ONE item that the membership wants into affect before June without racking up a $20,000.00 bill??


Let me be the first to continue to say THANK YOU for the work that goes on …


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

just as some on here now want to call for another meeting.....and the reason ......now all of a sudden THEY want some vote for another arrow restriction....

sorry, as its been pointed out...this subject needs so much more conversation....and it needs to be done right for the next trip down deju vu lane....

all yall have a year now to talk it over...as you should....with your directors of no reason:tongue:

cant wait to see or hear how this next meeting shakes out.....

hey brtesite....there was a thread talking about all those wonderful things that happened at the meeting....but i guess you couldnt find such a thread do to the police work you doing here:tongue:

dont know that i was coerced....but i was prepped, reprepped, and prepped again......

and for the record....im shooting Diamond made 2315 arrows right now....and they fly terrific


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> just as some on here now want to call for another meeting.....and the reason ......now all of a sudden THEY want some vote for another arrow restriction....
> 
> sorry, as its been pointed out...this subject needs so much more conversation....and it needs to be done right for the next trip down deju vu lane....
> 
> ...


Just like all good bog and paint jobs OBT, it's all in the "prep" work before the final coat of crap...errr, i mean paint goes on !!!! :wink: :tongue: :wink:

Woody


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> just as some on here now want to call for another meeting.....and the reason ......now all of a sudden THEY want some vote for another arrow restriction....
> 
> sorry, as its been pointed out...this subject needs so much more conversation....and it needs to be done right for the next trip down deju vu lane....
> 
> ...


 Never figured you for a preppie. Those Red and White shirts coming in button down now?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Never figured you for a preppie. Those Red and White shirts coming in button down now?


that Red Hat is doing wonders to keep the glare down.......

if anybody happens to find any Diamonds on the ground....they must have fell out of my pocket ...please return to rightful owner:wink:

hey, can anybody tell me how the diamond arrows designed for outdoors, preperably longer distances fly


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Never figured you for a preppie. Those Red and White shirts coming in button down now?



Hey Hut, blue diamonds and blue ovals............he sure is a changed man!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Big Country said:


> Hey Hut, blue diamonds and blue ovals............he sure is a changed man!



make no mistake about this

my arse has diamonds attached at the quiver....but....you'll not see my butt plopped down in a oval....for any reason...i dont care how many recalls they have:tongue:


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> that Red Hat is doing wonders to keep the glare down.......
> 
> if anybody happens to find any Diamonds on the ground....they must have fell out of my pocket ...please return to rightful owner:wink:
> 
> hey, can anybody tell me how the diamond arrows designed for outdoors, preperably longer distances fly


It is a great product. You will have no problems with flight. 


Refresh my memory who called for the emergency meeting????? :tongue: 

Brtesite must have missed my post.


----------



## 60Xbulldog60X (Mar 12, 2005)

WV Has Been said:


> It is a great product. You will have no problems with flight.
> 
> 
> Refresh my memory who called for the emergency meeting????? :tongue:
> ...


What are you doing up at this hour Has Been? You are no longer in Vegas my friend.:wink:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> It is a great product. You will have no problems with flight.
> 
> 
> Refresh my memory who called for the emergency meeting????? :tongue:
> ...


i can tell you this......the directors didnt call for the emergency meeting.....

i can tell you this that the council had a emergency meeting ....then in that meeting decided to call for a emergency meeting for the directors.....

so to refesh your memory.......i wonder why any emergency meeting would be called in the first place????????

i did not miss your point

there is only ONE reason such a meeting would be called...and it sure wasnt to get the same vote it produced in the regularly scheduled meetings.....

so for ALChick- just ask these questions to whomever...and see if the responses and answers jive.....

has been.....im telling ya....nothing gets by you...NOTHING I SAY...not even a blown arrow call....you see it all brother.....


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

excuse me all.....after all i am just a director....and i must be ONE of those directors that does as directed

i voted during my first trip of meetings as i was directed.....

and during the second trip to THE MEETING i voted as directed......prepped......but not coerced:wink:

and in spite of it all....after 900 posts and a week to see things CLEARER......

i am glad that this has been put on hold until next year....perhaps all of us will get on the same page and have another darn near landslide vote.....

and through it all.....the diamond banner was still there.....

bottom line.....just give me some diamonds.....and ill be a happy man


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Big Country said:


> Hey Hut, blue diamonds and blue ovals............he sure is a changed man!


Ch-ch-ch-ch=ch changes, don't want to be a richer man Isn't blue diamond a cheese?


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

60Xbulldog60X said:


> What are you doing up at this hour Has Been? You are no longer in Vegas my friend.:wink:


Just got home from the Archery Club. Trying to keep up with the young guns of todays archery kingdom. You know how it is your old like me.:zip::wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> make no mistake about this
> 
> my arse has diamonds attached at the quiver....but....you'll not see my butt plopped down in a oval....for any reason...i dont care how many recalls they have:tongue:


 Now I know you have completely flipped out, aint been a quiver worth wearing made, yet! They go to him folks white haired aliens with the interrogator have reprogrammed the boy and sent him back east, next stop Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Shoulda known when he picked up a _*Mystic*_ he was in the grip of the passion fruit.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Ch-ch-ch-ch=ch changes, don't want to be a richer man Isn't blue diamond a cheese?



i do have to admit....my college room mate was named Diamond Vic.....

ok all yall......here is a wonderful Diamond tribute

NEIL DIAMOND Lyrics

LOVE ON THE ROCKS



Love on the rocks
Ain't no surprise.
Just pour me a drink
And I'll tell you some lies.
Got nothing to lose

So you just sing the blues
All the time.

Gave you me heart

Gave you my soul.
You left me alone here
With nothing to hold.
Yesterday's gone -
Now all I want is a smile.

First they say they want you

How they really need you

Suddenly you find you're out there
Walking in a storm.
And when they know they have you

Nothing you can do or say

You've got to leave just get away
We all know the songs.

You need what you need

You can say what you want

Not much you can do
When the feeling is gone.
May be blue skies above
But it's cold
When your love's on the rocks.

First the say they want you
. . .

Love on the rocks
Ain't no big surprise.
Just pour me a drink
And I'll tell you some lies.
Yesterday's gone
And now all I want
Is a smile.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Now I know you have completely flipped out, aint been a quiver worth wearing made, yet! They go to him folks white haired aliens with the interrogator have reprogrammed the boy and sent him back east, next stop Mystery Science Theater 3000.
> 
> Shoulda known when he picked up a _*Mystic*_ he was in the grip of the passion fruit.



ok before they start rioting over there in the merit section......i aint wearing one of them pleather quivers....

i got me one of those HEAVY duty super duper one way rivoting quivers.....

genuine pure cowhide leather.......FIST ful of dollars....PROvided by lucy in the sky with DIAMONDS


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> excuse me all.....after all i am just a director....and i must be ONE of those directors that does as directed
> 
> i voted during my first trip of meetings as i was directed.....
> 
> ...



I wish I felt the same way.

I fail to understand: 
*What happened. 
How it happened. 
When it happened. 
Who made it happen. 
Why it happened. 
Will it happen again.*


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> i do have to admit....my college room mate was named Diamond Vic.....
> 
> ok all yall......here is a wonderful Diamond tribute


Oh Well then. In the spirit of following the prepped line and blind adherence to the icon allow me to retort with another great Neil Diamond song.

I thought love was only true in fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for me.
Love was out to get me
Thats the way it seemed.
Disappointment haunted all my dreams.

Then I saw her face, now Im a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
Im in love, Im a believer!
I couldnt leave her if I tried.

I thought love was more or less a given thing,
Seems the more I gave the less I got.
Whats the use in tryin?
All you get is pain.
When I needed sunshine I got rain.

Then I saw her face, now Im a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
Im in love, Im a believer!
I couldnt leave her if I tried.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

OneBowTie said:


> i do have to admit....my college room mate was named Diamond Vic.....
> 
> ok all yall......here is a wonderful Diamond tribute
> 
> ...


How 'bout a little "Sweet Caroline" for the munchkin???


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> I wish I felt the same way.
> 
> I fail to understand:
> *What happened.
> ...


who cares......at least if things happen...it means somebody somewhere cares......

look at it this way.....if you read this thread by some.....apparently nobody new anything about arrows or size of arrows being a issue.....

so now...with the what has to be the absolute best possible scenerio to insight and bring attention to all those that had been sleeping....we now have a great proactive move....that is causing a much needed reaction.....therefore we will get it right.....next year....

im telling ya....yall dont give enough credit when its due....


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> ok before they start rioting over there in the merit section......i aint wearing one of them pleather quivers....
> 
> i got me one of those HEAVY duty super duper one way rivoting quivers.....
> 
> genuine pure cowhide leather.......FIST ful of dollars....PROvided by lucy in the sky with DIAMONDS


Well there ya go. Get hold of one of these and you can have yourself an ENSEMBLE


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> excuse me all.....after all i am just a director....and i must be ONE of those directors that does as directed
> 
> i voted during my first trip of meetings as i was directed.....
> 
> ...



Has the line from the song changed from "Diamonds are a girl's best friend" to.....Diamonds are the NFAA's best friend"....?????

One other thing....since this is PUBLIC RECORD...if you can get the minutes.....I'd be interested to know the vote when the limit was rescinded...

It was 42-6 to give a 9.3mm size restriction.... What was the vote to rescind it? Just curious.

Prepped, re-prepped, etc etc....perhaps a "massage" was in order....as it seems several directors got some "message" and flipped the switch the other direction.

Still can't buy a FULL YEAR to "reconsider" this....but I guess, no matter how may petitions, how much discussion, how many letters are written...the 'by-laws' will be used in such a fashion to thwart ANY CHANCES of having any "re-re-consideration meeting" on the issue before a year is up...if even then. I can see the writing on the wall that even a petition signed by 5,000 or more PAID NFAA members wouldn't jolt this thing loose. We are wasting wind, time, effort, words, and server space even trying....peeing into the perverbial fan, IOW.....

After all, diamonds are really nothing but hardened and expensive CARBON anyways....

As far as "diamonds" go being on, in, or near my quiver....not likely for a long, long time. found a product as good, if not better....and they fly just fine, for less money, and a better fit of the components.:wink::tongue:

They don't "buffalo" people either.

field14:tongue::wink:


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

field14 said:


> One other thing....since this is PUBLIC RECORD...if you can get the minutes.....I'd be interested to know the vote when the limit was rescinded...
> 
> It was 42-6 to give a 9.3mm size restriction.... What was the vote to rescind it? Just curious.


The vote for the 9.3 was such a landslide show of hands that I do not remember a roll call having been taken. In any event, the total weighted ballot for the meeting was 55 votes. The 42 to 6 and 45 to 5 votes spoken about are probably not accurate even if my memory is faulty and a roll call was taken.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> I wish I felt the same way.
> 
> I fail to understand:
> *What happened. the council was pressured and they helped pressure the directors.
> ...


In response to those who have said that there was no pressure to rescind, I say that if my friend Mike Hindmarsh says he felt pressure, then that is good enough for me and the pressure felt by many of the directors was probably hellacious. Some of those people may have been convinced to believe that archery would cease to exist as they knew it.


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

*Good Monday Morning Ya'Allll......Had your second cup of coffee yet??????

Well, I am going to try and put a positive spin on all of this and just let the recordbooks and minutes reflect the past........of which........we can not change......

OBVIOUSLY......by now......the arrow manufacturers know what we the archers want.......

What is the best way to accomplish it??????*


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

GOT LUCKY said:


> *Good Monday Morning Ya'Allll......Had your second cup of coffee yet??????
> 
> Well, I am going to try and put a positive spin on all of this and just let the recordbooks and minutes reflect the past........of which........we can not change......
> 
> ...


Oh gee, thanks for picking the scab off this one.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

GOT LUCKY said:


> *Good Monday Morning Ya'Allll......Had your second cup of coffee yet??????
> 
> Well, I am going to try and put a positive spin on all of this and just let the recordbooks and minutes reflect the past........of which........we can not change......
> 
> ...


DO NOT BUY any shafts larger than 2712's if they come out...if other manuf. make a shaft the SAME SIZE as the 2712, it is our choice to purchase them or not...However, ANYTHING LARGER..we simply DO NOT PURCHASE.

The better thing, of course is to not buy the 27's either and to put our phfat shafts away after the Indoor Nationals of 2008 and convert DOWN IN SIZE...but that isn't likely to happen, now is it?

Too many shooters wanna use the excuse that they "can't afford to give their opposition points" by NOT shooting phfat shafts...BUT...if NOBODY shoots anything the size of a 27 for competition....then we have effectively eliminated the larger diameters ourselves, haven't we?

Since hedes will freeze over before our leadership "Re-looks" or "re-opens" the fat shaft issue for a full YEAR...we are stuck with the inaction and waffling and might as well get on with the competition....OUR not being able to REALLY DO ANYTHING about it is exactly what was and is wanted...

THEY win, and we suffer.....for another year or more. Can't change it that way, can't get it changed that way...so the next best option...DO NOT COOPERATE WITH THE UNLIMITED SHAFT SIZE...>DO NOT BUY THEM. THAT, too, is what the leadership wants...that way, they can say, "Why vote in a size restriction? The members aren't buying them, so this issue is a "dead issue". JUST WHAT THEY WANT THERE TOO...Not having to deal with it.

Sort of a catch-22, isn't it? Darned if you do, darned if you don't.....

I'm positive about one thing...THIS shooter....won't shoot fat shafts...I'm using my correctly spined GT's and will continue to do so. I won't use "diamond shafts" in my bows, and will continue NOT TO....and I won't cooperate with purchasing even fatter shafts...even if GT puts larger ones onto the market. One person...but at least I won't feel like I'm buckling in to the arms race. POSITIVELY.

field14


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

*Field.....

I think the arrow manufacturers got the message and would be foolish to go out on that limb to invest in a larger shaft size knowing how the masses feel about it.......

I just would like to have some type of "PHASE DOWN" proposal presented before everyone puts their "BIGGINS" away and goes outdoors with their "SLIMJIMS"......

Hutty....I'm just trying to put a little ointment on this for a faster and complete heal before next year's Indoor Season rolls around......:wink:*
.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

GOT LUCKY said:


> *Field.....
> 
> I think the arrow manufacturers got the message and would be foolish to go out on that limb to invest in a larger shaft size knowing how the masses feel about it.......
> 
> ...


Personally, I absolutely AGREE wholeheartedly with the "phase down" to the 9.3mm shaft limit! I think that the first vote taking things down by THIS June 1 to 9.3mm is was CAUSED the furor...and the resultant do nothing for a year problem!

BUT...the opportunity was there during the rescinding vote to put in the 27 shaft size LIMIT...effective June 1, and NOBODY seized upon it at that meeting....creating the vacuum and going against the "genteleman's agreement" with the IBO and ASA that had already put in the 0.425 shaft size limit...effective IMMEDIATELY.

The opportunity to stop this at "27" was passed upon. 

Hopefully, you are correct in that the manuf "see" what direction things are going to go...and will stop this madness at the 27 diameter...BUT...you can also bet yourself that some "lobbying" by the diamond will take place to PREVENT any across the board 9.33mm shaft size limit...even with a scale-down over a period of a few years.

Gotta keep the WAF/NFAA UNIQUE, you know...the ONLY place in the world where LOGS prevail.....

I'll be very surprised if we ever see a scale-down to 9.3mm in the WAF/NFAA...but I've been wrong before.

field14


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*....and I won't cooperate with purchasing even fatter shafts...even if GT puts larger ones onto the market. One person...but at least I won't feel like I'm buckling in to the arms race. POSITIVELY.*


I think everybody has already catered into the arms race ….. We embrace all the technology in order to score well on the target at the other end of the shaft. Faster bows, Fiber optics, Electronics ( on sights), Mechanical heads………… If it promises to allow us to "score well" on target or animal … we buy it 

Even in arrows we have $350.00 super composite shafts designed for us to score well at long distance out doors…. And super shafts designed for us to score well at short distances indoors

While I do support a 9.3 rule … if you think about it is kind of oddly hypocritical….

The real way to prevent the arms race and justify technology is to change they way the game is played … Again Inside Out scoring does have merit and if you are worried about making the game to hard the NFAA could vote to enlarged the standardized x ring by a percentage that would even the field from a reduction of a 27 size shaft to an acc sized shaft. For example if that is a 15% reduction you can enlarge the x ring by the same. A simple change puts eveybody on the same competitive field 

Yeah I know It's revolutionary , Outside the box and controversial… Exactly what we need…. 

And I don't buy into the keeping the integrity of the "records" those records were set with equipment there predecessors did not have year after year 

Oddly enough while we tout brining a 9.3 shaft as the standard like the NAA we also NEVER Hear mentioned that the NAA also made a change and counts the baby x as the 10 ring for compounds……….. They standardized a smaller shaft size AND made the game "harder" by standardizing a smaller 10 ring

Going to I/O scoring almost seems a bargain in comparison.. No equipment fuss.. And you still get a much bigger 10 ring then the NAA allows


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

As you know by reading above, I emailed my state director and got a response. I also emailed my section's councilman and now I have his response. More than ever I am convinced that the best thing that *everyone* in the NFAA can do at this point is to contact their own leaders. 

I have known the Great Lakes Councilman (Bob McCutcheon) to be a good man and a straight shooter. I haven't agreed with him on everything in the past, but I don't expect to. I do respect him. Bob's response to my questions was that at the regular meeting, directors were told that "various arrow and target butt manufactures were "OK " with it". Apparently, that was not necessarily the case. He would not speak to what other councilmen told their directors at the banquet, but he said he told his directors only that a special meeting had been called. He said, that at that meeting, the President told the directors that they had been misinformed regarding manufacturers being OK with the restriction. (I wonder if he mentioned which manufacturers) He asked them to reconsider the restriction and rescind it to allow for more discussion and consideration. The majority voted to rescind the measure.

I believe that Bob is telling me the truth, I cannot say that I'm certain that it is the *whole* truth, but I believe that he acted honestly and he and my state director continue to have my confidence and support. 

Let me say that I do not think this disputes anything that OBT has been telling us; it simply spins it in a different direction. Perception is everything, and there is a reason that sometimes you have to be there to truly understand the difference between what was communicated and what was said.

*Having said all of that* it's time to deal with realities:

We're not likely to get any clearer picture of what was said or done.
We're not likely to get the NFAA to move on any decision about arrow size before next year's meeting.
We are not all agreed as to what the restriction should be or how it should be implemented.

*For those reasons* I believe that the very best thing we can do is to each communicate with our state director and section councilman to ask what happened in Vegas and to express our opinions regarding this rule. A large response of this kind will do three very good things:

It will put you in touch with your leaders. This is good for you and it is good for them.
It will insure that you have input into the decision for next time.
It will put our leaders on notice that we are watching and that we will hold them to account for what they do.

As a personal statement, I am joining Field14 in voluntarily observing a 9.3 mm arrow restriction. Other than that, I am convinced that a massive "contact your leaders" campaign is the *only* productive response that can come of this lengthy thread. I respectfully suggest to all that you spend any further postage on convincing each other about what you think the directors should do next year with regard to this issue.

Just in case you didn't know, your director's contact information is posted here: http://www.nfaa-archery.org/about/directors.cfm and your councilman's contact information is located here: http://www.nfaa-archery.org/about/councilmen.cfm. *Contact your leaders!*


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

AlChick said:


> As you know by reading above, I emailed my state director and got a response. I also emailed my section's councilman and now I have his response. More than ever I am convinced that the best thing that *everyone* in the NFAA can do at this point is to contact their own leaders.
> 
> I have known the Great Lakes Councilman (Bob McCutcheon) to be a good man and a straight shooter. I haven't agreed with him on everything in the past, but I don't expect to. I do respect him. Bob's response to my questions was that at the regular meeting, directors were told that "various arrow and target butt manufactures were "OK " with it". Apparently, that was not necessarily the case. He would not speak to what other councilmen told their directors at the banquet, but he said he told his directors only that a special meeting had been called. He said, that at that meeting, the President told the directors that they had been misinformed regarding manufacturers being OK with the restriction. (I wonder if he mentioned which manufacturers) He asked them to reconsider the restriction and rescind it to allow for more discussion and consideration. The majority voted to rescind the measure.
> 
> ...


What you state above goes nearly exactly in line with what Bob told me when I had a discussion with him at Vegas. 

I agree with you on the "what was COMMUNICATED" vs. "What was SAID" thing....because therein lies the problem with the "message received" by different people...and why having 50 voices can yield a myriad of different interpretations and results.

I also agree that getting this re-opened before next February is next to impossible....their minds are made up and it WILL NOT HAPPEN....even with a 5,000 signature petition asking for it to be re-opened, or even 10,000 signatures....probably won't do any good.

I'm beginning to think that the manuf. just MIGHT have seen the light...and MAYBE this thing will indeed stop at the 27 diameter being the upper limit for PRODUCTION ARROWS readily available to the PUBLIC...but I wonder about "special orders", "custom fabrications", and PROTOTYPES out being tested and used by a SELECT FEW staff members of something even larger.

The "something larger" are entirely legal and nobody an stop that; we are left wide-open.....other than shop owners and range owners putting their foot down and imposing their OWN LIMITS...and of course, SHOOTERS IMPOSING THEIR OWN LIMITS as well......

field14


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

AlChick said:


> As a personal statement, I am joining Field14 in voluntarily observing a 9.3 mm arrow restriction.
> 
> 
> > Me too. I bought some CT hippos while in Vegas...as for my director, he already knows how I feel (knew it before Vegas too...I suspected it was going to come up so I told him how I felt before he left...)


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

field14 said:


> What you state above goes nearly exactly in line with what Bob told me when I had a discussion with him at Vegas.
> 
> I agree with you on the "what was COMMUNICATED" vs. "What was SAID" thing....because therein lies the problem with the "message received" by different people...and why having 50 voices can yield a myriad of different interpretations and results.
> 
> ...


*
You saw the result of TimG shooting his JUMBOS at Vegas, therefore, I doubt anyone else is going to try anything any larger now. As well as he has been shooting, I bet he would have been in the shootoff if he would have shot 26s or 27s.....

With it so late in the Indoor Season and with so few Indoor Tournaments left, I don't think it will be an issue till this fall when it rolls around again...

I would like to see some proposals put to paper now and not wait for another "EMERGENCY" to come up again.......*


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Contact your leaders!*

Please, everyone, contact your councilman, contact your state director, tell them how you feel. Especially you guys in North Carolina, find your director, wherever he's hiding, and make sure he knows how to vote.:wink: I know he is hard to find and infinitely unapproachable, but make the effort anyway.:wink:


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

AlChick said:


> Please, everyone, contact your councilman, contact your state director, tell them how you feel. Especially you guys in North Carolina, find your director, wherever he's hiding, and make sure he knows how to vote.:wink: I know he is hard to find and infinitely unapproachable, but make the effort anyway.:wink:


Now thats funny right there...


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

No ,What's funny is that we had a shoot this weekend that had 725 paid shooters and was not a NFAA sanctioned event. I think that's more shooters than at last years Outdoor Nationals. A money class with no distinction, PRO's mixed with JOES and no Complaining. Everybody had a great time and not one protest.

You know that's not really funny, that's friggin SAD.


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

*ArticleXV; Alterations and Amendments to the Constitution*

"The constitution may be altered or amended by a 2/3 vote as represented and *voted by the Board of Directors only at the annual meeting."*

Since the restriction was legally passed and the Constitution amended at the "Annual Meeting" which then adjourned, I still question the legitimancy of changing the Constitution at a "Special Meeting".


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> and as ive said, NOBODY wants to have the weight of the world-in this case archery world shoved at them when you have already taken your thinking cap off and moved from director to either spectator or competitor.....


As I sit here and browse through this rather lengthy discussion, pondering the future, I have but one thought.........why would anyone want to take over as director and deal with all this drama anyway

I can say this though............since NOBODY wants the weight.....make me archery emperor for the day, something will get changed I am sure.....I have been accussed of being a dictator on more than one occassion in the past already:wink:, what is one more time..........

I can also say this. I spoke with Mike T for a while about this very subject in Misterslippi this past weekend. His response was that he did not care what spotty nation did and then rescinded, or did and did not rescind, nor does he care what they do in the future.........his size restriction will stay in place for the rest of the year. If he does re-consider it at all next year it will only be to consider dropping it down. In his opinion super-size shafts make for an uneven playing field, giving an advantage to those blessed with long draws..............who woulda ever thunk it......the chewies getting something done easier than spotty nation..........I gotta go buy a lotto ticket!!!!!!!!!

What will the NFAA do??????? Heck, who knows......but this thread sure is entertaining....


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Nobody looks at the big picture 

I would like a 9.3 restriction.. I also want Participants, Shoots , Sponsors , Growth and Opportunities

People SHOULD contact there respective directors reps and discuss changes including shaft restrictions… Such changes should keep the aforementioned in mind

Looks to me we did not due enough Due diligence to keep all the parties happy… Like have said before We tried.. We messed it up and I'm sure we will fix it 

Big picture people BIG PICTURE……….. While I don't think we dare encourage any bigger shafts Reducing what we already have is not really the top priority . Let's talk about New Range construction, Rising cost of 3-D targets, New Field Ranges, More tournaments in More parts of the nation, New formats to attract more people 

V-bars in Bow hunter, 9.3 shaft sizes, blahh… blahh… blahh………….. Good discussion but pathetically unimportant in the big scheme of things


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

centerx said:


> Nobody looks at the big picture
> 
> I would like a 9.3 restriction.. I also want Participants, Shoots , Sponsors , Growth and Opportunities
> 
> ...


Not really, rules define the organization and especially the tournament.. If the organization cannot figure out what the rules are, then what good is the organization? It doesn’t matter how many tournaments you hold if no one can be sure of the rules before they get there… 

New formats... what without rules? Or rules that can be changed or nullified with a single phone call...


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

centerx said:


> Nobody looks at the big picture
> 
> I would like a 9.3 restriction.. I also want Participants, Shoots , Sponsors , Growth and Opportunities
> 
> ...


1) New range construction, that would involve supplying new targets, which no-one wants to pay for because the fat arrows are going to tear them up !

2) rising cost of 3D targets, which is only going to get more expensive with the fat arrows tearing them up in no time at all !

3) New field ranges, that would involve supplying more new targets to make the new ranges, which no-one wants to pay for because the fat arrows are going to tear them up !

4) More tournaments in more parts of the nation, that would involve supplying more targets for the extra tournaments, which are just going to be torn up by the fat arrows !

5) New formats to attract new people, Once again requiring even more targets that someone has to pay for just so they can be torn up by the fat arrows !

It all looks like part of the same BIG PICTURE to me, just going round and round and round, if we stamp out the fat arrows, the targets will last a lot longer, in turn making it less expensive to supply and maintain all the extra targets for all the extra tournaments, ranges and formats ??? :darkbeer:

Woody


----------



## x-cutter (May 20, 2003)

If you are going to mail a ballot out requesting input on diameter restrictions from the membership then there should be several choices to choose from so the powers that be can get a true consensus what the membership desires. Not just a yes or no answer to the largest arrow EASTON makes.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

x-cutter said:


> If you are going to mail a ballot out requesting input on diameter restrictions from the membership then there should be several choices to choose from so the powers that be can get a true consensus what the membership desires. Not just a yes or no answer to the largest arrow EASTON makes.


Mailing out a ballot with multiple choices will just become a cluster.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

3DZapper said:


> "The constitution may be altered or amended by a 2/3 vote as represented and *voted by the Board of Directors only at the annual meeting."*
> 
> Since the restriction was legally passed and the Constitution amended at the "Annual Meeting" which then adjourned, I still question the legitimancy of changing the Constitution at a "Special Meeting".



At first I thought you were on to something here but then I noticed that it only applies to the constitution and does not apply to the bylaws.

Maybe we should change Article XV to include the bylaws. That would exclude future reinactments of the same bullying again.

Anyone agree?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

JAVI said:


> Not really, rules define the organization and especially the tournament.. If the organization cannot figure out what the rules are, then what good is the organization? It doesn’t matter how many tournaments you hold if no one can be sure of the rules before they get there…
> 
> New formats... what without rules? Or rules that can be changed or nullified with a single phone call...



does anyone actually think a new format is going to attract more of anything......

CenterX....all of those things you mention.....dont come with a bottle you rub do they

who is going to pay for new ranges....who is going to upkeep the new ranges.....who's going to get or give the land.....heck, half the people got mad when we got some land for free and a city to take on the upkeep....

javi.....your right...without any defined event...is there a event


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

Where did Brtesite go. 

He had the nads to get on here and post then does a disappearing act.

I'm glad to see a councilman on this site giving some input but don't like to see him practicing for the national dodge-ball championship.:wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> does anyone actually think a new format is going to attract more of anything......
> 
> CenterX....all of those things you mention.....dont come with a bottle you rub do they
> 
> ...


If it goes the way of this thread, Flies is a good bet!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> If it goes the way of this thread, Flies is a good bet!


so whose fishing


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> so whose fishing


Might be time to throw a net over the works after all


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Don't hold your breath*



x-cutter said:


> If you are going to mail a ballot out requesting input on diameter restrictions from the membership then there should be several choices to choose from so the powers that be can get a true consensus what the membership desires. Not just a yes or no answer to the largest arrow EASTON makes.


Who do you expect is going to send out a ballot? It doesn't actually work that way. The way the system works is that you are supposed to communicate with your state director and so are the other archers in your state. He draws a consensus opinion and then he hopefully represents that consensus when he votes. It's your job to seek him out, and it's your job to find out how he votes and hold him accountable if he fails to properly represent your collective wishes. 

...or you could do nothing and wait for an another opportunity to complain about the NFAA leadership here on AT.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> Who do you expect is going to send out a ballot? It doesn't actually work that way. The way the system works is that you are supposed to communicate with your state director and so are the other archers in your state. He draws a consensus opinion and then he hopefully represents that consensus when he votes. It's your job to seek him out, and it's your job to find out how he votes and hold him accountable if he fails to properly represent your collective wishes.
> 
> ...or you could do nothing and wait for an another opportunity to complain about the NFAA leadership here on AT.


actually....you need to not confuse complaining with necessary critic.......

you see.....as things stand....there is no open floor at these so called leadership meetings to voice or even discuss anything then rules...proposed rules....

and unless members speak up and out....there is nothing going to change...

many many good and passionate people sit i those meetings...dont get me wrong...but not all seem to want to stand up and speak on many subjects....why, maybe some have been part of the system so long that rocking the boat aint gonna happen....maybe some simply are there for enjoyment and arent into the necessary hard line stands certain issues will take addressing....

then again....we can all continue to just do what has been done and will continue to be done....up to and including watch the 5 year trend of membership losing over 1000 members.....

but hey.....if we talk about that....then it would be complaining or whinning wouldnt it:wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> actually....you need to not confuse complaining with necessary critic.......
> 
> you see.....as things stand....there is no open floor at these so called leadership meetings to voice or even discuss anything then rules...proposed rules....
> 
> ...


 Then again given that the MAJORITY of archers are not members of the NFAA, perhaps doing a little work on finding out why they _*dont*_ want to join may be more productive.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Then again given that the MAJORITY of archers are not members of the NFAA, perhaps doing a little work on finding out why they _*dont*_ want to join may be more productive.



we all know why people dont want to join....they dont want to put any money into the orgs ....they have better ways and ideas to save and use the money....

money money money...its always easier to spend when its not yours


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> actually....you need to not confuse complaining with necessary critic.......
> 
> you see.....as things stand....there is no open floor at these so called leadership meetings to voice or even discuss anything then rules...proposed rules....
> 
> ...


I'm not implying that we shouldn't talk about these things. If you hadn't brought this issue up in the first place practically no one would know what had happened and even fewer would have cared. What I am saying is that talking about it among ourselves without getting personally involved with our councilmen and directors is truely a waste of time. 

I suppose that I could be wrong, but I believe that the best way to force the "good ole boys" to be more responsive is to make them answer to the people they represent. I'll wager that they'll think twice about how they act if they thought that it might bring a rain of member calls and emails. 

More input from their constituents might also embolden some of those passionate but silent few you spoke of, to rise for comment and move to action.

I'm trying to give you support, not shut you up.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I'm not implying that we shouldn't talk about these things. If you hadn't brought this issue up in the first place practically no one would know what had happened and even fewer would have cared. What I am saying is that talking about it among ourselves without getting personally involved with our councilmen and directors is truely a waste of time.
> 
> I suppose that I could be wrong, but I believe that the best way to force the "good ole boys" to be more responsive is to make them answer to the people they represent. I'll wager that they'll think twice about how they act if they thought that it might bring a rain of member calls and emails.
> 
> I'm trying to give you support, not shut you up.


hehe:tongue:....Al, make no mistake....more directors, councilmembers, and other officers read this stuff.....

and while i dont for one minute think that what happened is the end of the world.....i also feel like you...that many are sitting back right now wishing that there was no quick communication tool to get the word out.....


and whats more surprising....the attitude by many directors up to and including your own that think what is discussed in those meetings should be kept secret until the meetings are fully dismissed.....while i on the other hand think that all members should be brought up to speed daily on the hot topics......as a matter fact.....i feel that ONE way to get change or make some accountable...would be to openly post the hot topics and how or who is on what side of them...then let all yall call your directors while they are supposedly at the meetings representing YOU, US, THEM and tell them exactly how to vote.....


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> we all know why people dont want to join....they dont want to put any money into the orgs ....they have better ways and ideas to save and use the money....
> 
> money money money...its always easier to spend when its not yours


Could be but I doubt it's the money pure and simple. People spend on things that benefit them or their families plain and simple. If there is no percieved benefit to membership then somebody needs to do a serious rethink about the product or service offered. Internal auditing of this has only resulted in a "gee what a great job were all doing" attitude and some incredibly short sighted decisions.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Could be but I doubt it's the money pure and simple. People spend on things that benefit them or their families plain and simple. If there is no percieved benefit to membership then somebody needs to do a serious rethink about the product or service offered. Internal auditing of this has only resulted in a "gee what a great job were all doing" attitude and some incredibly short sighted decisions.



your preaching to the choir on this .....no good deeds go unpunished


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> hehe:tongue:....Al, make no mistake....more directors, councilmembers, and other officers read this stuff.....
> 
> and while i dont for one minute think that what happened is the end of the world.....i also feel like you...that many are sitting back right now wishing that there was no quick communication tool to get the word out.....
> 
> ...


Clearly, my director and I disagree about the value of closed meetings. There's nothing like transparency to keep people on their best behavior. On the other hand, while I think it is my right to know what goes on in those meetings, the reason we send representatives is ostensibly because we trust them to use their best judgement. I wouldn't want to micro-manage my director. I'd rather that I get an accurate picture of what went on and then ask him afterward, "why did you vote like that?" If I got the wrong answer too many times I would work to get him replaced.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> There's nothing like transparency to keep people on their best behavior. On the other hand, while I think it is my right to know what goes on in those meetings, the reason we send representatives is ostensibly because we trust them to use their best judgement. I wouldn't want to micro-manage the directors. I'd rather that I get an accurate picture of what went on and then ask him afterward, "why did you vote like that?" If I got the wrong answer too many times I would work to get him replaced.


oh i understand what your saying...and agree to a point...

but there always seems to be ONE or two topics a year that take many twists in the road.....and alittle extra guidance from the gallery wouldnt be all bad......

im sure that for the vast majority of discussions.....any director or the whole collective bunch can vote with reasonable common sense.....but its those ONE or two topics that seem to always be voted on for what personal service would benefit.....

that aint what i call micro managing


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> oh i understand what your saying...and agree to a point...
> 
> but there always seems to be ONE or two topics a year that take many twists in the road.....and alittle extra guidance from the gallery wouldnt be all bad......
> 
> ...


You'd know better than I since I've never seen the inside of one of those meetings, and clearly I hear your frustration and feel your pain. Obviously, the technology exists to easily allow more active participation by the membership, but it would take the kind of courage that the national leadership has never shown to make such a thing happen.

It's a nice dream but it's too far from reality to get me very interested. I'd settle for more members hassling their directors when these goof-ball things take place.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> hehe:tongue:....Al, make no mistake....more directors, councilmembers, and other officers read this stuff.....
> 
> and while i dont for one minute think that what happened is the end of the world.....i also feel like you...that many are sitting back right now wishing that there was no quick communication tool to get the word out.....
> 
> ...


Well if you look at it from their point of view, and it really is hard to get your head down that far The only decision posted would have been the final one and while there would have been disappointment and grumbling there would have been nowhere near the backlash we have seen.

Their way works!.............................If your a mushroom farmer!


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> your preaching to the choir on this .....no good deeds go unpunished


I'd have been a lot more enticed to write em a cheque if they had used the relocation money to hire a sport marketing consulting group to do some serious legwork and polling for them.

A new office building you can find anywhere. New members seem to be a little more elusive.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> I'd have been a lot more enticed to write em a cheque if they had used the relocation money to hire a sport marketing consulting group to do some serious legwork and polling for them.
> 
> A new office building you can find anywhere. New members seem to be a little more elusive.


Based on what I have seen I'm hard pressed to believe that they care at all about dwindling membership. To a great extent, members, particularly openly vocal ones, are treated more like the enemy than valued correspondents. People with opinions should be embraced not ignored, they are your innovators. To the extent that I can tell, the NFAA's response to a lack of funds is "we need more sponsors", not "we need more members".


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

After watching and reading this thread for over a week...this is how I feel...:BangHead:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

AlChick said:


> Based on what I have seen I'm hard pressed to believe that they care at all about dwindling membership. To a great extent, members, particularly openly vocal ones, are treated more like the enemy than valued correspondents. People with opinions should be embraced not ignored, they are your innovators. To the extent that I can tell, the NFAA's response to a lack of funds is "we need more sponsors", not "we need more members".


 Problem here, an it is not limited to the NFAA is that archery thinks of itself as a unicorn. Oh were all so unique that no one but us knows what the devil we're doing. No outsider (or member) for that matter could possibly have knowledge that we dont. It's a sport folks and sport marketing is the in thing for this century, get a grip, admit you don't know it all and get help. More ideas the better.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

mdbowhunter said:


> After watching and reading this thread for over a week...this is how I feel...:BangHead:


Bowhunter,
Don't get frustrated, do something productive. It's very therapeutic. Call or write your councilman and director. Ask him what's going on. Tell them what you want them to get done. Let them know you're paying attention. Then get some ice for that head.


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

reylamb said:


> As I sit here and browse through this rather lengthy discussion, pondering the future, I have but one thought.........why would anyone want to take over as director and deal with all this drama anyway
> 
> I can say this though............since NOBODY wants the weight.....make me archery emperor for the day, something will get changed I am sure.....I have been accussed of being a dictator on more than one occassion in the past already:wink:, what is one more time..........
> 
> ...


...if only TYRELL was interested in starting a spottie organization...hum, I'm gonna have a real nice dream about that tonight!!...

...thanks for the postage REYLAMB...not that it will happen anytime soon...but after reading your reply...there is always HOPE:darkbeer:


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

AlChick said:


> Bowhunter,
> Don't get frustrated, do something productive. It's very therapeutic. Call or write your councilman and director. Ask him what's going on. Tell them what uyou want them to get done. Let them know you're paying attention. Then get some ice for that head.


Ice won't help. 

*IF* the the majority of the Directors voted on this issue based on the will of the NFAA members...then something is dreadfully wrong. Why should I contact my Councilman when apparently He/She doesn't have a voice either?


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

mdbowhunter said:


> Why should I contact my Councilman when apparently He/She doesn't have a voice either?


Even though councilmen don't vote, they apparently exert some influence through some back room rib poking. The point is that by asking them what is going on, and telling them what you think you are letting them know that you are paying attention to how they behave. You are also removing any excuse about not having heard from the membership and therefor not knowing what the membership wants. It only works well if we all do it, but we still have to do it one at a time. You spend your time typing messages here, spend a little typing a message to your director. What have you got to loose?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> Even though councilmen don't vote, they apparently exert some influence through some back room rib poking. The point is that by asking them what is going on, and telling them what you think you are letting them know that you are paying attention to how they behave. You are also removing any excuse about not having heard from the membership and therefor not knowing what the membership wants. It only works well if we all do it, but we still have to do it one at a time. You spend your time typing messages here, spend a little typing a message to your director. What have you got to loose?



i fully understand mdbowhunter and you alchick.....both have valid concerns and questions....

mdbowhunter.....i have to agree with al on this.....dont give up...dont take the easy way out...meaning...the excuse by saying nothing will be heard or done....

i have to go on record right here and now and say this.....im very very surprised at the whole attitude of many on this thread.....

mdbowhunter....first of all...there have been basically 2 or 3 people that were directly at that meeting post on this thread....one of them your councilman....and he more then just about anyONE has put himself out there HERE on the line with the masses.....he does not hide or shy away from any of the issues...good, bad, or indifferent concerning the NFAA......he is ONE of the good guys.....i hate to see him catch so much heat over the NFAA because he MAKES HIMSELF AVAILABLE.....people should recognize that he more then anyone is very concerned and passionate about archery to the masses.....

secondly.....i guess its all in the way we have been brought up to think or recognize things when they happen....as either right, wrong, or indifferent....

let me tell you this...I POSTED ON AT AS SOON AS THE MEETINGS WERE OVER...why..because all yall I THINK deserve to know that there was plenty of good that went on in the meetings....PLENTY....

and guess what....i also posted here on AT when this emergency meeting took place.....WHY....because in the least....I ...maybe its only ME who felt that something wasnt right .....and guess what....like i said....it appears that very few people involved with the NFAA feel that anything was wrong or went wrong....and they must feel that it was ok or perhaps indifferent.....i guess thats the difference between me, you, and them...because many on this here thread have defended the actions as "its ok, as long as i got what i wanted....or we keep getting money and sponsorships".....

well let me tell you this...NO ITS NOT OK to be bought....you are worse then those you criticize or attempt to place any blame on....

YES something was went wrong...its just not right to vote so lopsided and then have to come back in and change that...I DONT CARE WHO IT UPSET....THIS IS A MEMBERSHIP RUN ORGANIZATION.....and this is the very first time that i have heard that this type of action has taken place....

so you tell me....is it just me that finds something at the least questionable about this.....

go ahead...say i was part of the revote...your damn right i was....and i still felt something was not right about it to post about it...not let it just go swept under the carpet.....i dont care what director trys to suger coat this.....something happened.....WHY....

will this type of thing happen again....at this rate, id say yes...it will happen again...and again...why...because all of yall here have allowed it and feel that you cant do anything about it....

well let me tell you what....all of you can do something about it....vote all of us out and take charge.....do a better job and keep your members informed...of the good, bad, and indifferent....

again, i have no issues with those that feel that they had to do their job or those that feel they had to protect their business's.....

heck i shoot Diamond arrows...and quite frankly, love the way they are shooting for me indoors.....

again, take notice....brtesite is always here to face the issues of the NFAA .....good...bad...or indifferent....he is the good guy.....

next vote.....all yall can get your info directly from your directors.....cuz i have 0 interest in informing...too many of you think that if you side with somebody its going to get you something for free.....

if the NFAA or sponsors dont like that the message has been brought...oh well....perhaps its time to buy the internet and control it.....


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> if the NFAA or sponsors dont like that the message has been brought...oh well....perhaps its time to buy the internet and control it.....


Easy there OBT, don't go giving them any idea's now, or else the next thing you know there won't be any Internet anymore, it will soon be called the Eastonnet !!! :wink: :wink:

Woody


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> i fully understand mdbowhunter and you alchick.....both have valid concerns and questions....
> 
> mdbowhunter.....i have to agree with al on this.....dont give up...dont take the easy way out...meaning...the excuse by saying nothing will be heard or done....
> 
> ...


Forgive me, but I don't understand that one?????


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Forgive me, but I don't understand that one?????


It pretty easy to understand. Do you think the Diamond will send OBT 6 dozen free arrows after this thread.:zip::zip::zip:


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

WV Has Been said:


> It pretty easy to understand. Do you think the Diamond will send OBT 6 dozen free arrows after this thread.:zip::zip::zip:


Or maybe some people are thinking Easton WILL send them FREE arrows if they stand up and support the decision instead of showing any displeasure with it !

Woody


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

WV Has Been said:


> It pretty easy to understand. Do you think the Diamond will send OBT 6 dozen free arrows after this thread.:zip::zip::zip:


Entirely possible, but they'll be delivered at 300fps.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*You are right!*

As long as members remain complacent and silent the Council and Directors are not going to change, so how about a hearty unqualified at-a-boy for my call your councilman/call your director campaign? It's a start. and it won't hurt. 

Don't you feel just a little bit lonely? Don't you want to feel the love from all those NC archers out there? 

C'mon, say it with me, Call, Write.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Woody69 said:


> Or maybe some people are thinking Easton WILL send them FREE arrows if they stand up and support the decision instead of showing any displeasure with it ! Woody


Against 9.3 mm in the worst way and for 27s to start the ball rolling.

Don't send arrows. I've got my own.

Somebody kill this thread......


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

SonnyThomas said:


> Against 9.3 mm in the worst way and for 27s to start the ball rolling.
> 
> Don't send arrows. I've got my own.
> 
> Somebody kill this thread......


AGAINST just jumping right into the 9.3mm size restriction right away....

FOR the 9.3mm restriction as part of a "down-sizing" move over the course of a year or two, however.

I think the "error" made with that first vote was right there..>NO NOTICE or consideration for allowing time for this change to take effect....

Had it been a "27" for now effective June 1, with the intent to "down-size" over by say Jan. 1, 2010....I honestly think things would have been fine.

The IBO and ASA went with 27's IMMEDIATELY...and nothing was said or done (that we are aware of)...I feel the 27's were the WRONG size to go with...since the advantage lay with "the diamond" and nobody esle has them in production...BUT....

At the same time...the diamond (I don't think so) didn't raise any stink over a size restriction either...of course, it was to their ADVANTAGE...

BUT...there is a LIMIT everywhere excepting WAF/NFAA...and the association has a huge black eye over it....for the time being.

*AlChick*,
_*Could you send a "copy" or PM a copy of your "letter" or communication to your director and councilman to those posting on this thread...maybe that would get them off dead center and give them an idea of how/what to do to let their directors and councilmen know about their displeasure.*_

Some people just can't get the motor going, and need a little push in the way of something to guide them....

field14


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

Some more random thoughts.............

On the thoughts of growing the membership, good luck with that one. For a period of a few years I served on the board of a local archery club, granted primarily a 3D club, but on the board none-the-less. First as VP, then for a few years as Prez.....when I started on the board we averaged around 60 shooters per shoot. After a few years of hard work, lots of hard work by the board members, and blood in some cases, we got the average shooters up to 140+......yet we struggled to find 10 members every year to qualify as an ASA club and get the insurance. The reasons given were two-fold......a. they did not have to be a member to shoot, and if we changed that they would not join and would not shoot........b. members were expected to work, and they wanted no part of that......the reasons given for no membership in Georgia are many, but the most common are: few shooting opportunities and they don't know anything about it. I can not say for all states, but if they are like mine I see why membership is dropping out.......the ones that know about the state organization are not getting word out about the organization, and are not getting the word out about the events..........like I said, I can not speak for all states, just the one I know.

I can say this though. I guarantee the NFAA will have at least one new member sometime this year, sometime soon.........granted that member is a NOBODY in the grand scheme of things, but they will get another member anyway, whether the NFAA wants me or not......in what capacity it still muddy, but I am going to join. I can also guarantee one other thing.........I am going to join, if for no other reason that to get an agenda item written, submitted, and hopefully proposed calling for a limit on arrow restrictions to be on the agenda next year.......either 26 or 27 I am not sure, but I will get that one done..........

Many things may or may not have occurred at the annual meeting......some should have happened, some should not.......some guidance was missing in my opinion, from my seat on the sidelines that could have helped to smooth over, if not outright avoid any of this fiasco.........

While it is possible, feasible, and doable to have more membership occurr during the actual meeting...heck I am on webinars and web conferences all the time......that would be a fiasco. Can anyone imagine getting anything done in the US of A if we the people were trying to vote on all the legislation? True Democracies do not work and never get anything done. The NFAA is setup as a type of representative republic, much like the US of A.....and the only reason it works is because we choose people to represent our voices, and not trying to bring millions, or thousands in the case of the NFAA, of voices to legislative sessions....nothing would get done. So, based upon that, I see some things that can be done. The president needs veto power, just like in our .gov. If you do not like what your director did, voice your concern to him or her. If you do not like the response you get back.......vote him or her out, step up and get yourself nominated and voted in......at least get involved.

A lot of folks like making fun of us guessers, aka chewies. In some ways they are right. However, the comparisons between the ASA and the NFAA are not fair. Mike is the king of all things ASA. He makes the rules, he owns the company (enough of it anyway), and is the final authority. Everyone knows the rules (most of the time anyway) before showing up, if they don't like em they don't show up.......the NFAA does not have that ability.


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

FS560 said:


> At first I thought you were on to something here but then I noticed that it only applies to the constitution and does not apply to the bylaws.
> 
> Maybe we should change Article XV to include the bylaws. That would exclude future reinactments of the same bullying again.
> 
> Anyone agree?



Look at Article XX: "The bylaws may be amended or revised by a 2/3 vote of the board of directors as voted at the annual meeting or by mail ballot" Either way the "Annual Meeting" had been adjourned and revision is not allowed at an "Emergency Meeting". 

The board's only redress at this time seems to me to be a mail ballot of the board between now and June 1. That would give some time to get with the manufacturers and revise the rule for a gradual reduction to 9.3. If the board doen not act, the 9.3 limit, it seems, stands.

I will bring this up with my Councilman and Director this weekend at the RI States.


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

3DZapper said:


> Look at Article XX: "The bylaws may be amended or revised by a 2/3 vote of the board of directors as voted at the annual meeting or by mail ballot" Either way the "Annual Meeting" had been adjourned and revision is not allowed at an "Emergency Meeting".
> 
> The board's only redress at this time seems to me to be a mail ballot of the board between now and June 1. That would give some time to get with the manufacturers and revise the rule for a gradual reduction to 9.3. If the board doen not act, the 9.3 limit, it seems, stands.
> 
> I will bring this up with my Councilman and Director this weekend at the RI States.


Well it all sounds good in theory, but will the board play by it's own rules, or just do as it's told by someone else who has all the money ?

Woody


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*does anyone actually think a new format is going to attract more of anything.....
.
CenterX....all of those things you mention.....dont come with a bottle you rub do they 

who is going to pay for new ranges....who is going to upkeep the new ranges.....who's going to get or give the land.....heck, half the people got mad when we got some land for free and a city to take on the upkeep....

javi.....your right...without any defined event...is there a event*

Yep….. That's the point What is going to pay and who is going to play.. Those are the bigger picture questions

All I know is when something happens that others don't like I here Boycott the Diamond..... Boycott the NFAA .. It works the same in all the other orgs right down to the club level ……….. And frankly I'm tired of it 

By no means do I not encourage change In fact I encourage more then anybody can seem to handle… and of course structured rules and events are the top of any organized venue… BUT when changes to those rules don't go in your favor or in this case when the best intentions get all jacked up by a political and corporate maelstrom I have to ask what is the right way to proceeded.. Many would suggest eject the orgs leaders and boycott any and all that is making problems to what THEY want ...

Right now there are rules in place and they are the same rules that everybody can play by despite how convoluted those rules are. Nobody has a FAIR or UNFAIR advantage…. Well Ironically I guess ONE PRO has an unfair advantage but like always the PRO'S won't police there own so what do I care

What Is Odd is that the MYSTERY can't be communicated to the masses so that THE MEMBERSHIP can understand what the problem was in order to write better agenda items and be better prepared for the next go around .. THAT is the bigger picture in this case .... 

really if we go another year shooting 2712.. Well it almost seems small in comparision to the BIG PICTURE problems that exist


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

3DZapper said:


> Look at Article XX: "The bylaws may be amended or revised by a 2/3 vote of the board of directors as voted at the annual meeting or by mail ballot" Either way the "Annual Meeting" had been adjourned and revision is not allowed at an "Emergency Meeting".
> 
> The board's only redress at this time seems to me to be a mail ballot of the board between now and June 1. That would give some time to get with the manufacturers and revise the rule for a gradual reduction to 9.3. If the board doen not act, the 9.3 limit, it seems, stands.
> 
> I will bring this up with my Councilman and Director this weekend at the RI States.



If this is the case...then ALL THE COUNCILMEN and especially Bruce Cull...needs to be reined in on this issue.

But...of course....things can be "manipulated" to suit the needs of the time, too....

Will "they" acknowledge Article XX or not? wouldn't be surprised that some finagaling will be done to side-step this...and the "interpretation" by those powers at be will be different that what is CLEARLY IN WRITING and easy to understand!

All "they" have to do is make up some mail ballot quickly, send it to the directors....and voila....you have your rescinded action in a matter of days...

BUT...we should hold them accountable to doing it that way, instead of the way it came down originally?????

field14


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

centerx said:


> *does anyone actually think a new format is going to attract more of anything.....
> .
> CenterX....all of those things you mention.....dont come with a bottle you rub do they
> 
> ...


heck, i bet at your own bank we could find employees that say they dont get or understand the direction of its leadership on any given day....and what...you have 100 or less at the branch......

so its not surprising that with 13000 members, of a volunteer run organization cant have the same training and resources available to do that communications....so i think it sounds good and dandy to WANT ....but to actually expect might be quite another.....

id love to have archery ranges pop up all of the USA.....but so far, about the only way i have been able to get that to happen....is by building them myself.....

as for any archer having a advantage right now over any others.....id say that your missing his point....he doesnt want it...and has probably actually sacrificed his own game to try and get a point across to establish some arrow size restrictions....

but on the other hand....in all reality...very few archers have been able to get ahold of the diamond coveted 27 series arrows....they have mostly gone to TEAM PLAYERS or those with connections.....so is anything ever really FAIR.....

personally, after this past weekend....i think many archers are missing the boat.....i know that i watched more then a couple archers shoot a closer spine'd arrow for them...and shoot the best scores they have ever shot with that spine'd .....hence smaller diameter arrow...

i dont care what size arrows are allowed....this thread isnt really about what size it should be...but rather how it didnt come to pass......


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

field14 said:


> If this is the case...then ALL THE COUNCILMEN and especially Bruce Cull...needs to be reined in on this issue.
> 
> But...of course....things can be "manipulated" to suit the needs of the time, too....
> 
> ...


my guess is......there is a bylaw or some place in the constitution that allows for the PRESIDENT to call a emergency meeting.....

why was this meeting called ???


who wanted this emergency meeting called?????

what was the real purpose of this meeting.....

will this be the first of many future emergency meetings called IF-things go dont by design or previously agreed upon deals.....

who ....why.....where.....what....and when.....

where are the EWINGS when you need em


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> my guess is......there is a bylaw or some place in the constitution that allows for the PRESIDENT to call a emergency meeting.....
> 
> why was this meeting called ???
> 
> ...


Kristin shot JR....

Bruce shot the sheriff.....but he did not shoot the Dep-u-tee!

You got it in a nutshell...to put it bluntly...STRONGARM TACTICS....be they directly or subliminal....

Legal or not...you can bet that his rescinded vote will stand...like you said...there is probably some fragmentary thing buried deep within the Constitution that allowed this "emergency meeting"...and the subsequent "vote" to stand....MAYBE.

field14:tongue:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

field14 said:


> Kristin shot JR....
> 
> Bruce shot the sheriff.....but he did not shoot the Dep-u-tee!
> 
> ...



aint no two ways about it.....its done and over and aint gonna change...no matter who wants it to....

well...almost no matter who wants it too:tongue:

ease up and just enjoy the freedoms we do have in NFAA archery

at least we dont have any rules telling us what we can or cant shoot as far as arrows go:wink:

but can you answer the questions or not

WHO
WHY
HOW
WHERE
WHEN
WILL


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*i dont care what size arrows are allowed....this thread isnt really about what size it should be...but rather how it didnt come to pass......*

Exactly.... How did it not come to pass??... We passed it .. Sombody called Easton... Next night through pressure of potential Problems eveybody overturned there vote

Hmmmm... How excactly did that NOT come to pass All I have heard is the Easton did not make any threats.. Only expressed dissastisfaction

So what was the problem??? the only people talking state none existed but yet they overturned thier own vote anyhow and what is the dissastisfaction so that we MIGHT be able to pass mutually agreeable legislation in the future

I know the point is that it makes no diffrnece that we should not need to do a THING to please a sponsor 

But my BIG PICTURE thinking indicates that if we can work in partnerships with sponsors to mutually agreeable arrangments it's a Win/Win.... But we should NEVER cave to a sponsor so it is a Win/Loose


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

centerx said:


> *i dont care what size arrows are allowed....this thread isnt really about what size it should be...but rather how it didnt come to pass......*
> 
> Exactly.... How did it not come to pass??... We passed it .. Sombody called Easton... Next night through pressure of potential Problems eveybody overturned there vote
> 
> ...


i actually see the big picture....and trust me...i realize that sponsors...DONORS.....vendors.....and MEMBERS are all part of the piece....

i actually think that if DONORS, sponsors, vendors or anyone else wanted to make a point or have the board hear what there interests are.....they should have gone through the proper channels and done just that.....

here is the facts....it is not abnormal for the board to have guest speakers....and to hear what they have to say....and honestly, our DONORS, sponsors do indeed have a vested interest in what happens in the archery world and organizations......and they are all smart enough to know that certain things operate under certain guidelines......

i can tell you this...if any of the arrow companys really were that concerned about arrow size restrictions....they all have the phone number to the NFAA and the people that they already deal with.....if ..it really was a issue to any of them...they would have made the call and ask if they could come and speak to the board about such issue....

that didnt happen...what did happen was after the fact....

and again....we arent talking about some back yard companies here...we are talking about companys that are well versed in the doings and happenings of the NFAA....

i can almost bet you...that had ANY of the arrow companys come and addressed the board....and gave any kind of appeal for a certain process to take place.....and addressed the board to state that a hardship could/would be caused by going to small with a arrow size....i bet you the board would have gladly...GLADLY went along with the ARROW COMPANYS suggestions....

now i could be wrong....perhaps we dont have reasonable men/women on the board.....

again, i actually have no real issue whatever the size arrows are allowed...other then the fact, that on my own personal bails...at some point i would limit what can be shot at them...as i do pay for them....and im sure at some point...the commerical ranges out there will do the same.....

again, the whole point of the thread.....live and learn....

will we.....


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

Article V Section C Subsection 1.1.6 gives the President the power to call emergency meetings. It does not limit the reason(s) for those meetings. Under Roberts and Common Law upon which Roberts is based, whatever is not expressly prohibited is legal.

However, the Constitution and Bylaws specifically spells out the methods allowed to amend them. Any other attempt by fiat or whim is invalid. But, like "Click"ing, the rules will be ignored unless a loud enough protest is voiced.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

field14 said:


> If this is the case...then ALL THE COUNCILMEN and especially Bruce Cull...needs to be reined in on this issue.
> 
> But...of course....things can be "manipulated" to suit the needs of the time, too....
> 
> ...


tom it seems that every one has to have a place in life. 
me, I make a little mark as a manufacturer & an official with the NFAA.
You , I have figgured out is being a pot stirrer
The pres .by his duties may call an emergency meeting any time.
only the constitution can be changed at the annual meeting. The by laws are not the constitution & can be changed at an emergency meeting.
have you bought your latest constituion & by laws. If not, you should. there is a lot of "clear"writing in it. :wink: :cocktail::darkbeer:


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

brtesite said:


> tom it seems that every one has to have a place in life.
> me, I make a little mark as a manufacturer & an official with the NFAA.
> You , I have figgured out is being a pot stirrer
> The pres .by his duties may call an emergency meeting any time.
> ...


Seems simple enough........but oh how not-so-simple the simplest things can appear......when someone wants to see them that way:tongue:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

brtesite said:


> tom it seems that every one has to have a place in life.
> me, I make a little mark as a manufacturer & an official with the NFAA.
> You , I have figgured out is being a pot stirrer
> The pres .by his duties may call an emergency meeting any time.
> ...


oh come on brtesite.....dont under estimate who you are.....you are known worldwide.....

your a darn fine manufacture...and an even better NFAA official....

while many will pick there fights with you.....i surely appreciate you making yourself available ...as i know that if you didnt care...you'd simply shy away and and not address each and every issue you do....

brtesite....thanks ......you are not going unnoticed

and even if i dont agree with all the decisions you may be a part of....ill be your wingman anytime....


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

reylamb said:


> Seems simple enough........but oh how not-so-simple the simplest things can appear......when someone wants to see them that way:tongue:



are you politic'ing or what


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> but can you answer the questions or not
> 
> WHO
> WHY
> ...


I could speculate.......but that is only good when looking for gold, oil, or in Hillary's case the cattle market.......speculating on this issue would accomplish no good.......


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> are you politic'ing or what


The magic 8-ball says.......the future is uncertain..................still gotta get some questions answered before making any decisions on politics.........that is 4 sure....


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

brtesite said:


> tom it seems that every one has to have a place in life.
> me, I make a little mark as a manufacturer & an official with the NFAA.
> You , I have figgured out is being a pot stirrer
> The pres .by his duties may call an emergency meeting any time.
> ...


Mike, We all appreciate your service to the NFAA and respect you as an innovative manufacturer. However I suggest you read Article XX of the 2007/8 NFAA Constitution and Bylaws under which the late meeting was obliged.:wink:


http://www.nfaa-archery.org/depot/documents/435-2007514-NFAA Constitution and By-Laws.pdf


Even if had the Directors voted to eliminate Article XX from the Bylaws, the provision would continue to be valid until the June 1 effective date. I am just trying to give the President and Directors a valid reason to reopen and resolve this issue before June 1, 2009 which otherwise will be the earliest date that the issue can be resolved. Another whole indoor season.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

3DZapper said:


> Look at Article XX: "The bylaws may be amended or revised by a 2/3 vote of the board of directors as voted at the annual meeting or by mail ballot" Either way the "Annual Meeting" had been adjourned and revision is not allowed at an "Emergency Meeting".
> 
> The board's only redress at this time seems to me to be a mail ballot of the board between now and June 1. That would give some time to get with the manufacturers and revise the rule for a gradual reduction to 9.3. If the board doen not act, the 9.3 limit, it seems, stands.
> 
> I will bring this up with my Councilman and Director this weekend at the RI States.


good catch!

The issue of the content of a mail ballot and who prepares it probably is important now. We are controlled by Roberts Rules. I cannot do it right now, but hopefully someone can review Roberts Rules for mail balloting and how the contents of the ballot are determined.

Lets look at a worst case here. If the content of a mail ballot is solely up to the president, he could push through all kinds of biased legislation unless the directors communicated separately with each other.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

reylamb said:


> The magic 8-ball says.......the future is uncertain..................still gotta get some questions answered before making any decisions on politics.........that is 4 sure....



sissy.....afraid to just jump are ya.....dont worry...it aint but knee deep at the moment:tongue:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

FS560 said:


> good catch!
> 
> The issue of the content of a mail ballot and who prepares it probably is important now. We are controlled by Roberts Rules. I cannot do it right now, but hopefully someone can review Roberts Rules for mail balloting and how the contents of the ballot are determined.
> 
> Lets look at a worst case here. If the content of a mail ballot is solely up to the president, he could push through all kinds of biased legislation unless the directors communicated separately with each other.



regardless ...the meetings are done and over.....lets just get our ducks in order for the rematch next year....

no need in worrying about crossing I's and dotting T's at this point....we aint gonna have another emergency meeting to discuss the last one....are we


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Undoubtedly true… and Easton strikes me as a company the would have been PROactive in expressing concerns 

So Does anybody know if Easton was aware of the potential that a vote was in order that would have effectively and almost immediately eliminated a pretty decent share of not only their product line but a few other companies as well... especially a product line that was so well received by consumers that a voice by those consumers to suddenly have them removed from the market place would have certainly have been considered..... odd 

Seems to me that the concerns expressed AFTER the vote would have been gladly shared BEFORE the vote if they knew.. With 44 or so directors easily passing the meassure I don't think Easton was in a wait and see position if they PROactvely knew…….


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> sissy.....afraid to just jump are ya.....dont worry...it aint but knee deep at the moment:tongue:


If there is one thing I ain't......it is scared........I just wanna confirm the other swimmers have cramped up and want to get out of the pool first....no need to get them out with a gaff if they ain't ready:wink:.......so to speak...


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> regardless ...the meetings are done and over.....lets just get our ducks in order for the rematch next year....
> 
> no need in worrying about crossing I's and dotting T's at this point....we aint gonna have another emergency meeting to discuss the last one....are we[/QUOTE
> 
> OBT, You are missing the greater point. You and the other Directors can have unlimited special meetings to adress financial, personell or other operational issues before the NFAA. You may not however alter the Constitution or Bylaws at those special meetings. You are not granted that power.


----------



## Man-n-Pink (Nov 7, 2006)

WV Has Been said:


> It pretty easy to understand. Do you think the Diamond will send OBT 6 dozen free arrows after this thread.:zip::zip::zip:


I must have missed something along the way Diamonds arrows.


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

centerx said:


> Undoubtedly true… and Easton strikes me as a company the would have been PROactive in expressing concerns
> 
> So Does anybody know if Easton was aware of the potential that a vote was in order that would have effectively and almost immediately eliminated a pretty decent share of not only their product line but a few other companies as well... especially a product line that was so well received by consumers that a voice by those consumers to suddenly have them removed from the market place would have certainly have been considered..... odd
> 
> Seems to me that the concerns expressed AFTER the vote would have been gladly shared BEFORE the vote if they knew.. With 44 or so directors easily passing the meassure I don't think Easton was in a wait and see position if they PROactvely knew…….


If Easton did not know arrow restrictions were coming they had their head in the sand. Mike T announced an arrow restriction for the ASA back at the ATA show........and announced at the time that the IBO was going to a restriction at the same time.......and announced the NFAA was following along........now whether or not they knew that the NFAA would propose a 9.3 or not is anyone's guess......not that it should matter either way if the NFAA adopted 9.3 or 27xx..........and considering I would guess they have more than one staffer on the board............


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> regardless ...the meetings are done and over.....lets just get our ducks in order for the rematch next year....
> 
> no need in worrying about crossing I's and dotting T's at this point....we aint gonna have another emergency meeting to discuss the last one....are we



NO

The annual meeting is adjourned and the 9.3 stands.

The bylaws cannot be changed at the emergency meeting, the action is not legal, and the rescinding of the 9.3 rule did not happen.

Furthermore, I fully expect the NFAA administration to acknowledge that.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Again .. True 

So I have to assume that Easton did have prior knowlege to a potential restriction of 27 serries shafts... and I guess were fine with that

Then something diffrent came there way perhaps??...


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

One of the discussion points at the arrow committee meeting was about NFAA having more in common with FITA on the worldwide target stage than with IBO and ASA.

The more I think about this, the more I have to ask the following question.

Given the "0.422 deal between ASA, IBO, and NFAA, and an unauthorized one at that, were Eric Watts and Easton Aluminum unwitting pawns in the whole strongarm scheme?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

centerx said:


> Undoubtedly true… and Easton strikes me as a company the would have been PROactive in expressing concerns
> 
> So Does anybody know if Easton was aware of the potential that a vote was in order that would have effectively and almost immediately eliminated a pretty decent share of not only their product line but a few other companies as well... especially a product line that was so well received by consumers that a voice by those consumers to suddenly have them removed from the market place would have certainly have been considered..... odd
> 
> Seems to me that the concerns expressed AFTER the vote would have been gladly shared BEFORE the vote if they knew.. With 44 or so directors easily passing the meassure I don't think Easton was in a wait and see position if they PROactvely knew…….


well CenterX.....be it as it may....you might be overstating that market share with jumbo arrows...as of today...they still aint readily available anywhere....and besides...i keep hearing about how target archery is so small to the overall market share anyway....

next, i find it odd that the other 2 large arrow companys have both said that they were fine with the 9.3mm ruling...so if nothing else....this makes me really wonder why any of them would have a problem.....

and as i said.....Easton, Carbon Express, Gold Tip are no strangers to how the archery orgs work and operate....and especially Easton for that matter...they have had employee's...OWNERS....and staff on many a board or position of influence in all of the organizations.....so i aint buying that they didnt have the ability to send a rep to speak on their or the arrow industry behalf.....

not to mention....do you honestly think for ONE second that ANY of the arrow companys didnt now after the very first day the meeting adjourned and the NEW ARROW RULE was voted in.......so why didnt they send their concerns so that while session was in.....this could have been addressed....

trust me...there were enough directors on the prevailing side...it would have been very easy to get any of the COMPANY MEN to bring this back up.....

like i said....i have no real issue with any of the arrows being sized in or out....

but i definately smell a rat in the wood pile on this one...and you or anyone can continue to act like this was a total surprising move.....arrow size restriction has been a hot topic on the internet now for along time....

not too mention one of the ASA reps posting that ALL the orgs met and discussed this with a preliminary AGREEMENT OF SIZE.....so i aint buying that this came as a surprise to any arrow company.....

also....i wonder how many staff members of THE ARROW COMPANYS were in the directors room?????

lets face it...SIZE DOES MATTER...no matter what type of object or company we are sizing up.......


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

reylamb said:


> If Easton did not know arrow restrictions were coming they had their head in the sand. Mike T announced an arrow restriction for the ASA back at the ATA show........and announced at the time that the IBO was going to a restriction at the same time.......and announced the NFAA was following along........now whether or not they knew that the NFAA would propose a 9.3 or not is anyone's guess......not that it should matter either way if the NFAA adopted 9.3 or 27xx..........and considering I would guess they have more than one staffer on the board............


regardless.....more so then any other company out there.....ONE of the arrow companys has been heavily involved with shaping or unshaping archery orgs.....so to think that they werent in the loop on anything to do with bows, arrows, targets or other investing things.....has tunnel vision at the least


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

FS560 said:


> One of the discussion points at the arrow committee meeting was about NFAA having more in common with FITA on the worldwide target stage than with IBO and ASA.
> 
> The more I think about this, the more I have to ask the following question.
> 
> Given the "0.422 deal between ASA, IBO, and NFAA, and an unauthorized one at that, were Eric Watts and Easton Aluminum unwitting pawns in the whole strongarm scheme?


lets not be so naive to even for ONE second not give both of the above credit for having their hands on the pulse of the industry.....both Mr Watts and Easton are very smart and shrewd business's and people.....they aint EVER gonna be the pawns......EVER.....they pull the strings...and move the pieces.....with very calculating smarts.....


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

brtesite said:


> tom it seems that every one has to have a place in life.
> me, I make a little mark as a manufacturer & an official with the NFAA.
> You , I have figgured out is being a pot stirrer
> The pres .by his duties may call an emergency meeting any time.
> ...


Mike,
Dont' just come down on ME....cuz you think I'm the ONLY pot stirrer...take a look at this thread...READ IT...it is CLEAR that people are torqued off royally...not at the ruling...but HOW it was done, WHY it was done, and how "underhanded" it appears that it was done.

You'd better start up now....and call out about 2/3 of the people contributing to this thread a pot stirrer.

I'm PROACTIVE...and would prefer to head things off AHEAD OF TIME...BEFORE they happen..and NOT let them just happen in hopes that I won't have to deal with it or can run away and hide...declaring...no jurisdiction...when in a tight spot.

YOU are the most candid and open member of the "leadership" we have on AT...and your inputs are certainly appreciated...

However, you call ME out on "pot stirring" and imply that I'm NOT passionate about a game I've give nearly 50 years of my life to; 40 of those as an PAID UP NFAA member....I have a RIGHT to my opinion, and I have a VESTED RIGHT...to express my displeasure with things...as a fully PAID UP MEMBER of the NFAA...and by golly, I'm going to do so.

You might show us....like has been done by others the QUOTE from the CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS where is says the by-laws can be changed with an "emergency meeting" and that the Pres. can call an "emergency meeting." Give us the Article number and quote, please.

There is a lot of MUDDY writing in that constituion and by-laws...wide open to interpretation...thus many, many RIC rulings...that are NEVER kept up to date...etc etc....cuz the "clear rules" are so complicated and convoluted.

Seems like Article XX pretty much shows things weren't done correctly...UNLESS you can find the other information about "emergency meetings IN WRITING....that are CURRENTLY in the book....

field14


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

field14 said:


> Mike,
> Dont' just come down on ME....cuz you think I'm the ONLY pot stirrer...take a look at this thread...READ IT...it is CLEAR that people are torqued off royally...not at the ruling...but HOW it was done, WHY it was done, and how "underhanded" it appears that it was done.
> 
> You'd better start up now....and call out about 2/3 of the people contributing to this thread a pot stirrer.
> ...


well this should about cover the flybys

anyone got the number to that truck driving school:tongue:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> well CenterX.....be it as it may....you might be overstating that market share with jumbo arrows...as of today...they still aint readily available anywhere....and besides...i keep hearing about how target archery is so small to the overall market share anyway....
> 
> next, i find it odd that the other 2 large arrow companys have both said that they were fine with the 9.3mm ruling...so if nothing else....this makes me really wonder why any of them would have a problem.....
> 
> ...


I can tell you right now from a "leadership member's mouth"...that "the person shooting the huge shafts cannot win with them, so that goes to show you that the size of the arrow shaft is irrelevant." That was said directly to me by a person in a leadership role of the NFAA...in fact...by more than one of them....

So, I gather from that...that at least those two are convinced that a limit is NOT needed...since mega-shafts cannot seem to WIN anything anyways....this is their way of saying it will just go away by itself....yeah, right.

BUT...on the other hand....how many of the top 15 in Men's Freestyle CHAMPIONSHIP at Vegas shot 2712's???? In fact, how many of the top 40 were shooting 2712's?

EASTON had those shafts out to a very, very select few for "testing" many months ago (nothing wrong with prototyping)...but isn't is mysterious that they show up "for sale" (but nobody can get them) AFTER the Sept 30 deadline for NFAA agenda items? I wonder who knew about them and who didn't?

The 2712's are still not EASY TO GET...the excuse being "demand for them"...uh-huh...

field14


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Just an fyi, I'm no lawyer but those quoting Roberts (Julia? :tongue and the NFAA Constitution & By-Laws may want to re-read a few of those items they've been quoting and the context they're included in the Articles, etc.

For starters Article XX states the By-Laws can be amended at the annual meeting and by mail ballot. It does not say they can ONLY be amended via either of these circumstances. Hence, as someone pointed out per Roberts, if not declared illegal, then the it is legal. President also has the power to call an Emergency meeting. I would assume then per Roberts and the Constitution that any action decided upon said Emergency Meeting would be just as valid as if conducted at the Annual Board Meeting or a mail ballot of the Directors. The Constitution specifically states it may be altered or amended only at the Annual Board Meeting. Since this decision affects the By-Laws only, seems to me the Emergency Meeting and any decisions forthcoming are in fact legit?!

And for anyone who thinks this issue MUST sit until the next Annual Board Meeting......the Constitution also states the Board can be recalled to a mail session by 2/3 Council vote OR a petition signed by 25 Directors. I would think that if 25 Directors want to push this issue they could circulate a petition and get the necessary votes to recall the Board. I believe at that time a 15-sig item would need to be submitted to limit arrow sizes, the 15-sig item assigned to a committee by the Prez, the committee could then go about its investigation into the merits of the 15-sig item, and then present their findings and recommendations to the full Board for a vote -- as it was, I'm sure, conducted the first time through but this time with all outside interests opinions included in the presentation....as well as the chance for the membership/state boards to fully express their own interests to their respective Directors.

Just what I picked up on some light reading of the NFAA documents.....

>>--------->


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Seems I've either temporarily killed this thread or there are an awful lot of you suddenly leafing through your NFAA Constitution & By-Laws and Roberts Rules books, lol :tongue:!

>>------>


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Seems I've either temporarily killed this thread or there are an awful lot of you suddenly leafing through your NFAA Constitution & By-Laws and Roberts Rules books, lol :tongue:!
> 
> >>------>


Six viewers... I would say it is alive and well.


I think most are coming to the realization that nothing can and will be done until next year.

IF THE POWERS TO BE IN THE NFAA SEEN REASON FOR CHANGE IT WOULD BE DONE. OBT SEEMS TO THINK SOME VETO POWER SHOULD INITIATED. IT APPEARS THAT IT ALREADY HAS.


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> Six viewers... I would say it is alive and well.
> 
> 
> I think most are coming to the realization that nothing can and will be done until next year.
> ...


I have an importnt question!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just who is winning the dog race???????????????? AND are they fat dogging or what?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Just an fyi, I'm no lawyer but those quoting Roberts (Julia? :tongue and the NFAA Constitution & By-Laws may want to re-read a few of those items they've been quoting and the context they're included in the Articles, etc.
> 
> For starters Article XX states the By-Laws can be amended at the annual meeting and by mail ballot. It does not say they can ONLY be amended via either of these circumstances. Hence, as someone pointed out per Roberts, if not declared illegal, then the it is legal. President also has the power to call an Emergency meeting. I would assume then per Roberts and the Constitution that any action decided upon said Emergency Meeting would be just as valid as if conducted at the Annual Board Meeting or a mail ballot of the Directors. The Constitution specifically states it may be altered or amended only at the Annual Board Meeting. Since this decision affects the By-Laws only, seems to me the Emergency Meeting and any decisions forthcoming are in fact legit?!
> 
> ...


aint no way id sign such a important issue....after all.....if we didnt get it right last time around....i highly doubt without being able to face and read the rest of the room....this time around would be any different....

heck you can hardly trust the votes when in person....aint no way anybody would trust the outcome of a vote that nobody see's....

its a no win situation until next year.....

so size up and enjoy .......we have a year until we are told who, what, where, and when


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

DarrinM said:


> I have an importnt question!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Just who is winning the dog race???????????????? AND are they fat dogging or what?


Allot to be learned from those musher promoters.

850K with no inside help.

To early to tell who is winning. I am pushing for Martin Buser.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

DarrinM said:


> I have an importnt question!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Just who is winning the dog race???????????????? AND are they fat dogging or what?


Silly man, as with Dogs as it is with Arrows thin is in


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Silly man, as with Dogs as it is with Arrows thin is in



And PHFAT is OUT? Not hardly...look at how many TRIED to jump on the bandwagon and get the 2712's...but only a select FEW had 'em....and it is still tough to get 'em...with components that fit correctly.

I hear tell that at the Hattisburgh shoot....the 2712's were in use by a FEW...but they didn't win...just almost.....

Fine if you are long draw length, and heavy enough poundage to get them to go good for 3-D....500 grains plus for SHORT DRAW and average poundage...DREAM ON if you expect 280 fps!

FHFAT shafts....outdoors now.....even....or uneven....

field14


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> heck you can hardly trust the votes when in person....aint no way anybody would trust the outcome of a vote that nobody see's....


I am with you on that.

As far as I am concerned, the 9.3 is it at least until June 01, 2009.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

field14 said:


> And PHFAT is OUT? Not hardly...look at how many TRIED to jump on the bandwagon and get the 2712's...but only a select FEW had 'em....and it is still tough to get 'em...with components that fit correctly.
> 
> I hear tell that at the Hattisburgh shoot....the 2712's were in use by a FEW...but they didn't win...just almost.....
> 
> ...


Okay I'll finally bite this one. Technologically the FAT Shaft is a dead end. No arrow manufacturer in their right mind would WANT to go down that road. It's increased costs clearance issues not to mention rest tuning issues while not huge items to work around are a pain. Nock types and sizes or adapters need to be made. Same with points. From a shooting point of view who wants to increase their poundage if they are already comfortable with the draw weight they compete with?

From a design point of view why would you want to have to re engineer the structure of an arrow every 3 months just to have a wider shaft? Why take on the spining issues? Why look for new materials to try to reach performance that has already been achieved with slimmer shafts? It's a fools errand and not too many of the stick builders are fools.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Okay I'll finally bite this one. Technologically the FAT Shaft is a dead end. No arrow manufacturer in their right mind would WANT to go down that road. It's increased costs clearance issues not to mention rest tuning issues while not huge items to work around are a pain. Nock types and sizes or adapters need to be made. Same with points. From a shooting point of view who wants to increase their poundage if they are already comfortable with the draw weight they compete with?
> 
> From a design point of view why would you want to have to re engineer the structure of an arrow every 3 months just to have a wider shaft? Why take on the spining issues? Why look for new materials to try to reach performance that has already been achieved with slimmer shafts? It's a fools errand and not too many of the stick builders are fools.


We need the LIMIT just to make doggoned sure some "custom shop" doesn't start building things like the monster shafts...they ARE easy to get done...and obviously from our observed experiences...ARE VIABLE...and when used in the right hands, once the 'bugs are worked out" are WINNERS...and that is what people want.....BUY A WIN...no matter how....if it can be BOUGHT, people will do it.

SO, by having the limit established or even, over time put an INTERNATIONAL STANDARD on shaft size.....and since the USA is a drop in the bucket, that limit is FITA/NAA...or 9.3mm...but just don't do it all in one huge wave of the axe...GIVE TIME TO BRING IT DOWN...say a year or two...with ADVANCE NOTICE.

But stop this madness NOW...before someone else comes up with another mega-shaft of even, say 28/64"...nip it in the bud; put the line in the sand...

And that is ALL that was "asked for" by X-Cutter with those mega-shafts...DRAW A LINE; PUT A LIMIT ON IT....

field14


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

field14 said:


> We need the LIMIT just to make doggoned sure some "custom shop" doesn't start building things like the monster shafts...they ARE easy to get done...and obviously from our observed experiences...ARE VIABLE...and when used in the right hands, once the 'bugs are worked out" are WINNERS...and that is what people want.....BUY A WIN...no matter how....if it can be BOUGHT, people will do it.
> 
> SO, by having the limit established or even, over time put an INTERNATIONAL STANDARD on shaft size.....and since the USA is a drop in the bucket, that limit is FITA/NAA...or 9.3mm...but just don't do it all in one huge wave of the axe...GIVE TIME TO BRING IT DOWN...say a year or two...with ADVANCE NOTICE.
> 
> ...


Youre not getting me here field. I am all for a limit I just think folks should know why sane manufacturers do not want to build fat arrows and therfore will support the size limit. Ask Tim what the cost was to put those fat logs together and how much grief it was to get the bow set up to fire em. As for custom shops doing it, well if you want to pay about 80 bucks an arrow I'm sure they could, but why bother?

More and more I cannot see the reason the decision was overturned, unless it was just master teaching fido to "roll over".


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

field14 said:


> We need the LIMIT just to make doggoned sure some "custom shop" doesn't start building things like the monster shafts...they ARE easy to get done...and obviously from our observed experiences...ARE VIABLE...and when used in the right hands, once the 'bugs are worked out" are WINNERS...and that is what people want.....BUY A WIN...no matter how....if it can be BOUGHT, people will do it.
> 
> SO, by having the limit established or even, over time put an INTERNATIONAL STANDARD on shaft size.....and since the USA is a drop in the bucket, that limit is FITA/NAA...or 9.3mm...but just don't do it all in one huge wave of the axe...GIVE TIME TO BRING IT DOWN...say a year or two...with ADVANCE NOTICE.
> 
> ...



I'm really curious just how big a drop in the bucket the US is especially since many here see us as out of step with the rest of the world on arrow size.

Seems to me that someone told me a couple of years ago that the US was about 20% of the olympic recurve market...and not growing as fast as worldwide markets were growing. I can remember when there were probably more freakcurvers in the US than the rest of the world combined. Still, 20% would be more than a drop.

On the compound side I can only guess, but if you count all "target" venues, 3D, field, spot shoots of all kinds...and keep in mind that there is little bowhunting outside the US...but there _may_ be more compound shooters, that sometimes shot spots, than the rest of the world combined.

As for an international standard in line with the "rest of the world", I don't believe that the IFAA has an arrow size restriction. Could be wrong. Of course, the IFAA is probably just a drop in the bucket. :wink:


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHPro 
Just an fyi, I'm no lawyer but those quoting Roberts (Julia? ) and the NFAA Constitution & By-Laws may want to re-read a few of those items they've been quoting and the context they're included in the Articles, etc.

For starters Article XX states the By-Laws can be amended at the annual meeting and by mail ballot. It does not say they can ONLY be amended via either of these circumstances. Hence, as someone pointed out per Roberts, if not declared illegal, then the it is legal. President also has the power to call an Emergency meeting. I would assume then per Roberts and the Constitution that any action decided upon said Emergency Meeting would be just as valid as if conducted at the Annual Board Meeting or a mail ballot of the Directors. The Constitution specifically states it may be altered or amended only at the Annual Board Meeting. Since this decision affects the By-Laws only, seems to me the Emergency Meeting and any decisions forthcoming are in fact legit?!

And for anyone who thinks this issue MUST sit until the next Annual Board Meeting......the Constitution also states the Board can be recalled to a mail session by 2/3 Council vote OR a petition signed by 25 Directors. I would think that if 25 Directors want to push this issue they could circulate a petition and get the necessary votes to recall the Board. I believe at that time a 15-sig item would need to be submitted to limit arrow sizes, the 15-sig item assigned to a committee by the Prez, the committee could then go about its investigation into the merits of the 15-sig item, and then present their findings and recommendations to the full Board for a vote -- as it was, I'm sure, conducted the first time through but this time with all outside interests opinions included in the presentation....as well as the chance for the membership/state boards to fully express their own interests to their respective Directors.

Just what I picked up on some light reading of the NFAA documents.....

>>---------> 

aint no way id sign such a important issue....after all.....if we didnt get it right last time around....i highly doubt without being able to face and read the rest of the room....this time around would be any different....

heck you can hardly trust the votes when in person....aint no way anybody would trust the outcome of a vote that nobody see's....its a no win situation until next year.....

so size up and enjoy .......we have a year until we are told who, what, where, and when
__________________
Size Up-Go Shoot 

*Just put some "SUNSHINE" on the vote count.....

Stating the proposal on the NFAA website to cap and phase down the arrow size over a given period and then show how each Director/State voted on the site......

The votes could even be called in to speed up the process and their vote would be public for all to see............I just love "SUNSHINE":wink:*


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

GOT LUCKY said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by CHPro
> Just an fyi, I'm no lawyer but those quoting Roberts (Julia? ) and the NFAA Constitution & By-Laws may want to re-read a few of those items they've been quoting and the context they're included in the Articles, etc.
> 
> ...



*GEEESSSSHHHHH.....What???....No response to my suggestion this morning????

What's the matter????.....afraid someone might get "burned" from all that SUNSHINE shining down on how they voted????......*
.


----------



## sittingbull (Jan 19, 2003)

> Youre not getting me here field. I am all for a limit I just think folks should know why sane manufacturers do not want to build fat arrows and therfore will support the size limit. Ask Tim what the cost was to put those fat logs together and how much grief it was to get the bow set up to fire em. As for custom shops doing it, well if you want to pay about 80 bucks an arrow I'm sure they could, but why bother?
> 
> More and more I cannot see the reason the decision was overturned, unless it was just master teaching fido to "roll over".


*Wouldn't it be great to think that 2712 is the max. limit that arrow manufacturers will go with the size of their shafts and that they would be willing to actually roll back the size of shafts to a proposed limit?

Wouldn't it be great to believe that arrow manufacturers were seeing eye to eye with the "overwhelming" majority of NFAA membership, that a limit in arrow size was needed and the arrow industry agreed? 

But now, back to reality...that did not happen...there was no agreement between the "overwhelming" majority of members of the NFAA and the arrow industry.

Even when the directors voted for a limit in the annual meeting at Vegas..all it took was a call for another "special" meeting to undo what the majority of the membership of NFAA wanted.

It appears that the arrow industry "made offers" and "proposed changes" to rescind the limits on arrow size, set by the directors, on behalf of an "overwhelming majority" of NFAA members in the first meeting.

Now why would the arrow manufacturers do such a thing?...call for a "special meeting" to see that the limits set by the directors, on behalf of the overwhelming majority of NFAA members, was overturned?

Hutnics and the rest of my fellow archers...I seriously doubt that 2712 is where the "archery industry" wants to stop. 

Just a guess on my part, but I would not doubt that larger shafts made from lighter, more durable materials, are in the works and that much has been invested by the arrow manufacturer, who assumed that the NFAA would never challenge their right to make and use such shafts in NFAA competitions.

There is no need for such a shaft, but one will likely be offered soon and for Vegas next year, a 28XX will be available for all to buy. 

In the end, for the arrow manufacturer, it appears to be about sales and money as well as knowing the they will remain unchallenged by archery organizations.

...jmho...sbl..

*


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

sittingbull said:


> *Wouldn't it be great to think that 2712 is the max. limit that arrow manufacturers will go with the size of their shafts and that they would be willing to actually roll back the size of shafts to a proposed limit?
> 
> Wouldn't it be great to believe that arrow manufacturers were seeing eye to eye with the "overwhelming" majority of NFAA membership, that a limit in arrow size was needed and the arrow industry agreed?
> 
> ...


You missed something...THIS YEAR...the "new" 2712's were NOT available for ALL TO BUY....they were 'available' to only a select few...and FEW DELIVERIES of them were made PRIOR to Vegas.......Sure, you could "order" them....but nonetheless...the orders were NOT delivered...and those that were.....well...the components didn't fit, the point weights were NOT 300 grains (special order from someone else), etc etc etc.....

So...what makes you think that a 28XX or LARGER won't again be given to the "select few" to "test" and prepare to slaughter everyone....and released LATE so as to preclude the agenda item covering "27's"....thus allowing a continuance of the same problem AGAIN....and on and on and on...

Then comes the "custom order" part of the issue.....those thay have the money and open pocketbooks...can and are willing...to order up som 5/8" diameters or BIGGER YET>.....not many, but ONE OR TWO is all it takes to start yet another arms race.

I wouldn't doubt what you are saying for an instant....Since "they" know that 5/8" is USABLE and FEASIBLE....and all that is needed is something LIGHTER with that diameter or bigger....of course "they" are already under development, or at the minimum, under "study" by at least ONE manufacturer, and I don't think that the manufacturer is GT, either!

"They" won't stop until we the members of the NFAA are able somehow to put our foot down, draw the line in the sand and tell that (those) manufacturers that enough is enough.....And the only way to do that is to FORCE our directors and leadership to have the SPINE to say NO...and SET A LIMIT once and for all with regard to shaft size!

Once that vote of 9.3mm was rescinded...the door went wide open for development and prototyping of a 5/8" or larger shaft diameter....WIDE OPEN...

AND...if "they" can get 'em light enough to fly out of lighter weight bows and shorter drawlengths....there are those out there that will stand in line to try to BUY A BETTER SCORE....

Give 'em a 64th....and they'll take another 64th or 32nd or 1/8" or MORE if they think they can sell it....Maybe the way to stop it....is to go BACK and set it...NOT at 27/64ths....but at a max of 26 diameter....and let the diamond EAT the 27's....and nobody else ventures beyond 26...and then downsize from there.

field14


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Who Cares?*

It's just indoors. It's not like we were discussing outdoor arrows.
Jbird


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Jbird said:


> It's just indoors. It's not like we were discussing outdoor arrows.
> Jbird


We may well be in the midst of people using 27's or BIGGER for "outdoors" too...probably NOT FITA...but field...the potential is there....and YOU try to sneak your arrow into a 40 yarder or 50 yarder when a person you are shooting with slams 4 of his 26's or 27's into the spot!

The limit is 280 fps and 80 pounds....and I already KNOW FOR A FACT...that the 2712's ARE BEING USED for 3-D shooting by a few of the top guns...Of course, they have long drawlengths and heavy poundages...to push those arrows out there at high speeds...and was good enough to ALMOST WIN the last ASA tournament.....something like 22 up or better the first day, if I recall correctly!

So....don't be so sure it is "just indoors" and "who cares"....

A line needs to be drawn, plain and simple.

In FITA several years ago...it was NOT "INDOORS" that caused the shaft size limit...it was OUTDOORS...when someone brought in super large shafts to a FITA or 900 round tournament...and took unfair advantage...and damaged target bosses to no end...FITA/NAA had the 9.3mm limit set within DAYS of that action by that shooter...

SO don't think for a minute that "indoors" is all that is involved in this....

field14


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

Jbird said:


> It's just indoors. It's not like we were discussing outdoor arrows.
> Jbird


Thats real supportive of Archery. 

Watch what you say you are out numbered four to one.:wink:

What do you think of the weekend Wed-Sun Outdoor National?


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Jbird said:


> It's just indoors. It's not like we were discussing outdoor arrows.
> Jbird


:wink: Someone doesn't realize where the NFAA's bread is buttered....... Field archery needs indoor archery more than indoor archery needs field.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

GOT LUCKY said:


> *GEEESSSSHHHHH.....What???....No response to my suggestion this morning????
> 
> What's the matter????.....afraid someone might get "burned" from all that SUNSHINE shining down on how they voted????......*
> .


I think this thread has degenerated into a how big are they gonna make em gripe rather than a what can we do to implement a limit thread.

A reversal of the reversal, that would be interesting. Are there in fact 25 directors willing to force this issue?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Kstigall said:


> :wink: Someone doesn't realize where the NFAA's bread is buttered....... Field archery needs indoor archery more than indoor archery needs field.


I agree...let's see:

National Field outdoor = <500 shooters for many years now.

Vegas: nearly 1,700 shooters and growing.
NFAA INDOOR Nationals....1,100+ shooters
Iowa Pro-Am: 792 shooters
Lancaster????

The ONLY "outdoor event" that brings in 1,000 shooters for the WAF/NFAA is the Redding Trail shoot. OTHER THAN 3-D, that is....

We aren't talking "just" indoors....we are talking the roots of SURVIVAL for target archery here....INDOORS is where it is REALLY AT.

Give high poundage, long-draw archers any more edge OUTDOORS...with 27 or larger shafts (even 25, & 26's give advantage)....and MORE will become discontent and give up FIELD shooting....

INDOOR is growing...for now....but......make it an uneven playing field, complicate the game (inside out scoring)...or even make it TOO EASY...and it won't see the boom last much longer....

Go inside out scoring...and you think you have a lot of line judge calls now...just wait...it'll add an HOUR or more to shooting time per line...and we'll need MORE judges to handle the "close ones"....Bad enough for liners as it is...but go "inside out" and people will want a line judge on EVERY CALL.

Been there and done that with a couple of shoots I've been to already that have gone "inside-out" just for some variety....what a mess that was.

field14


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> I think this thread has degenerated into a how big are they gonna make em gripe rather than a what can we do to implement a limit thread.
> 
> A reversal of the reversal, that would be interesting. Are there in fact 25 directors willing to force this issue?


Not if WE the members DO NOT GET TO THEM AND TELL THEM we won't!

There is an opportunity to re-open this issue at the NEW HEADQUARTERS in July at the National Outdoor...>OR even REDDING in MAY...

BUT...to get the 25 directors...could be a major hurdle....I know many attend those two shoots.....but enough?

It would seem that a change is in order to have the NATIONAL MEETING at the HEADQUARTERS...and to do it MID-YEAR so that ALL changes are implemented by JANUARY 1...or even December 1...the real START of the YEAR....

But, that is just a dream and fancy...they wouldn't wanna pass up on the glitter and glamour of Vegas' vacation atmosphere...or would they?

YANKTON is centrally located, now isn't it? HMMMMMMMM>>>>>>

And we have a PROBLEM...and "emergency meeting" has been called ONCE...why NOT do it again....???

Need 25 directors "on-line' or "in-line" with this.....

phfat chance, or no?

field14


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

field14 said:


> Not if WE the members DO NOT GET TO THEM AND TELL THEM we won't!
> 
> There is an opportunity to re-open this issue at the NEW HEADQUARTERS in July at the National Outdoor...>OR even REDDING in MAY...
> 
> ...


You're serious when you wrote that??? Yankton, a bunch of directors standing under the new _*diamond logo*_ over the gateway to the new HQ are gonna bring this up again?? I'd like to see that one


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

So... there are a lot of assumptions that the majority of archers want this 9.3 limit. I fail to see anything to support that assumption.

My recent poll about this only had 174 responses to the question and while the majority voted to support the limit, only 77 that actually claim to shoot shafts over the 9.3MM proposed limit support the limit. 

A real poor showing from the 87,270 members on this board. 

You want to know how the membership feels about this, have the directors ask the question. They didn't the last time around.


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Kidding, Duh!*

Don't get your knickers in a bunch. I was just joking. All of this discussion doesn't really make a hill of beans right now. Nothing is going to be done about it till Feb of 2009, if then. Personally I think the 9.3 makes the most sense. Can't believe this has become the endless thread. This is just another example of start, stumble, and fall. The right choice was made and
then crabbed out on. No sense whining over spilled milk that can't be cleaned up for at least a year. Until then the clubs buying the butts can decide how much damage they are willing to absorb.

Has Been
With the Wed-Sunday format at least we will finally see if this mystical bunch of weekend shooters really exists or if they are all foam and no beer. I hope they do show up, we need em.

Jbird


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

Jbird said:


> Has Been
> With the Wed-Sunday format at least we will finally see if this mystical bunch of weekend shooters really exists or if they are all foam and no beer. I hope they do show up, we need em.
> 
> Jbird


I'll make a friendly bet with ya. We will never fit the 09 Mechanicsburg participants on four ranges without doing two-a-days.:wink:

If the two-a-days get introduced tat should open up allot more places to place the bid. You could run 720 shooters trough 3 ranges per day. I don't know who came up with it but I think it is brilliant.:tongue::wink:


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

While I like the 2-a-day idea the resistance will come from the fact that you don't have the entire field shooting durign the same conditions


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

field14 said:


> EASTON had those shafts out to a very, very select few for "testing" many months ago (nothing wrong with prototyping)...but isn't is mysterious that they show up "for sale" (but nobody can get them) AFTER the Sept 30 deadline for NFAA agenda items? I wonder who knew about them and who didn't?
> 
> The 2712's are still not EASY TO GET...the excuse being "demand for them"...uh-huh...
> 
> field14


...FIELD14...this is an astute observation and one which I believe only one person has alluded to heere on this thread...can't remember what page though...it was one of the Wilde's though as I recall...

...I'm nobody if only an interested party to this organizational bloodletting...

...but this seems to me to be one of the MOST IMPORTANT questions yet to be answered...

...from what I have read, it appears as though only one or at most a couple PRO's even knew anything about these large arrows development...it appears as though no one at the NFAA except for "maybe" Bruce Cull even knew about the development of this arrow...obviously NONE of the State Directors knew about the arrows development "for" the NFAA which they diseminated to their constituents...

...did one or two PRO's basically give Easton their blessing...and the race was on...

...FIELD 14...you bring up a great point...and the above are just some of the thoughts that entered my small mind when I read your postage...

...not that I'm anybody that needs to know...but I do believe someone needs to know the NAMES "and" chronology associated with this LACK OF DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE LIMITING OF THE ARROW WARS brewhaha...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> You're serious when you wrote that??? Yankton, a bunch of directors standing under the new _*diamond logo*_ over the gateway to the new HQ are gonna bring this up again?? I'd like to see that one


The part I AM serious about is..>Using the NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS for its intended purpose...AND as the site for the Annual BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meetings..we went to central location for many reasons...and hopefully just the MONEY wasn't the only reason.

Makes sense to assemble the directors and councilmen at the HEADQUARTERS for that Annual meeting and NOT a show-boat place or vacation "getaway" atmosphere....it is supposedly BUSINESS....isn't it?

AND...the other part I'm serious about is that the implementation of NEW RULES should be at the BEGINNING of a year...which for us....is the start of a new INDOOR SEASON and BEFORE the Three Star Events...not AFTER them and in the middle of the summer field season and TARGET event season!
Make the new rules effective Dec 1 or at the latest Jan 1...makes much more sense that way.

Making decisions in Feb at Vegas, to me, made sense when the NFAA was the FIELD association and FIELD shooting was in its heyday...but TIMES HAVE CHANGED, and INDOORS now RULES the NFAA/WAF way more than outdoors does...

but you all know...."that is the way it has been, and always will be"...or at least I sense than mentality is still prevalent...new headquarters centrally located or not...
Getting that sentiment changed will be a major coup...if it ever happens at all..and to do it will require a substantial change in the mind set, if not the personnel involved...and it may well not happen easily or very soon...if at all.
Oh, yes the MAJORITY of members WANT a limit....the directors didn't just pick that vote out of thin air.....now as to whether the majority want the limit at 27, or at 26, or eventually 9.3mm.....whatever...but it can't go on out of control forever....something has got to give...or indoor archery as we know it is going to be history; inside out scoring is NOT the answer and won't make the problem go away....you still have to pay for target faces, bales, and backstops...AND if you go inside-out scoring, you'd better be prepared for LOTS and LOTS of Line judging calls...so beef up on the number of line judges; add time between lines too....cuz scoring each end will take much longer than it now does too.

I sure wouldn't want to be the chairman trying to deal with all that bale failure hassle, crying and complaining by people losing score points due to sliding down a huge hole created by a megashaft, pass-thrus and bounce outs, line judging, target face replacements, and all the gripes that come with those situations....

This is way bigger than just shaft diameter; and involves a heck of a lot more than just BUYING A HIGHER SCORE...but people on the outside looking in, wannebee hot dogs, and selfish people...well...they are in it for the SHORT TERM and couldn't care less...if they lose...they'll just quit and go on to something else...and GIVE NOTHING in return....GIMME, GIMMEE, GIMMEE...is all they care about.

And yes, I'll call the bad with the good...and go with the DOOM scenario too....and I'll call the pot black too.

field14:tongue:


----------



## Woody69 (Feb 17, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> I think this thread has degenerated into a how big are they gonna make em gripe rather than a what can we do to implement a limit thread.


The simplest and easiest way to implement a limit right now ,this very minute, would be if all archers that are in favour of the limit just point blank refused to use anything larger than a 9.3 mm arrow, but that would involve having the moral fibre and balls to actually do it, and to criticise "ANYONE"
you see not doing it, no matter who they are, but we already know how that will end up, just a bunch of pissing and moaning about not wanting to give up an advantage to the competetion, "so i'll just keep using the fattest thing i can find" !

If we really want this limit, we can have it right now, today, but each archer has to do there bit and refuse to shoot anything fatter than a 9.3 mm, if enough archers stand up for their beliefs and did it, sales would drop off on the big shafts, and the mfg's would soon stop making them if no-one is buying them !!!!

Since voting through the org has no effect, perhaps it's time to vote with your wallets and stop buying fat shafts PERIOD !

Woody


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

Woody69 said:


> The simplest and easiest way to implement a limit right now ,this very minute, would be if all archers that are in favour of the limit just point blank refused to use anything larger than a 9.3 mm arrow, but that would involve having the moral fibre and balls to actually do it, and to criticise "ANYONE"
> you see not doing it, no matter who they are, but we already know how that will end up, just a bunch of pissing and moaning about not wanting to give up an advantage to the competetion, "so i'll just keep using the fattest thing i can find" !
> 
> If we really want this limit, we can have it right now, today, but each archer has to do there bit and refuse to shoot anything fatter than a 9.3 mm, if enough archers stand up for their beliefs and did it, sales would drop off on the big shafts, and the mfg's would soon stop making them if no-one is buying them !!!!
> ...


...better watch out WOODMAN...folks will start to *LIKE* what you have to say if you keep up this logical thinking

...but of course there is that ME, ME, ME thing in archery


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Woody69 said:


> The simplest and easiest way to implement a limit right now ,this very minute, would be if all archers that are in favour of the limit just point blank refused to use anything larger than a 9.3 mm arrow, but that would involve having the moral fibre and balls to actually do it, and to criticise "ANYONE"
> you see not doing it, no matter who they are, but we already know how that will end up, just a bunch of pissing and moaning about not wanting to give up an advantage to the competetion, "so i'll just keep using the fattest thing i can find" !
> 
> If we really want this limit, we can have it right now, today, but each archer has to do there bit and refuse to shoot anything fatter than a 9.3 mm, if enough archers stand up for their beliefs and did it, sales would drop off on the big shafts, and the mfg's would soon stop making them if no-one is buying them !!!!
> ...


Self imposed LIMITS on shaft size...WILL WORK...for YOU...but like you said...too many people are not thinking of anything but score and BUYING SCORE, and THEMSELVES and PERSONAL GAIN....

I wonder if in addition to "self-imposed" shaft diameter limits...if we each contacted several PROS that we know and spoke to them to do the same...that is SELF-IMPOSED shaft diameter limits of say 26 or 27 diameter and REFUSE anything bigger, even if offered.....

Of course...many PROS might lose sponsorship if they declined to test anything BIGGER than 27's or did NOT use anything at all bigger than 9.3mm....

But many of them only use the huge shafts at the major tournaments anyways....so...maybe self-imposed limits on shaft size MIGHT FLOAT afterall.

More than one way to skin a cat? Is that politically correct...or will PETA be after us on it...or the NSPCA? :wink::tongue:

Personally, I"ve already "self-imposed" a shaft diameter limit to not exceed the 9.3mm...in fact...I'm going to be using GT ULPro 500's or ProHunter 35/55, or even SMALLER....GT CAA 500's....SELF-IMPOSED size limits.

field14:wink::tongue::darkbeer:


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*AND...the other part I'm serious about is that the implementation of NEW RULES should be at the BEGINNING of a year...which for us....is the start of a new INDOOR SEASON and BEFORE the Three Star Events...not AFTER them and in the middle of the summer field season and TARGET event season!
Make the new rules effective Dec 1 or at the latest Jan 1...makes much more sense that way.*

THe problem with a rule change effective 12/1 or 1/1 is that many tournaments are starting ( Iowa the first big one) inthe Middle of Janurary

You may be giving the participants no more then 2-6 weeks to make any changes to comply with the new rules... and if those changes were a unexpected restriction to a 9.3 shaft like was attempted to be passed recently...... Well I'm afraid people could not re-tool fast enough

A June date gives people 1/2 a year to purchase, experiment and adapt

Ironically a Sept 1st day would be best.... Outdoor is over .. Indoor has not started 

That makes Outdoor Nationals the perfect time to meet... and since we should be driving more interest to this venue anyhow it pays double dividends


But alas... Yankton in the summer or Vegas in the winter... Even Swami can predict the outcome of that vote


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> But alas... Yankton in the summer or Vegas in the winter... Even Swami can predict the outcome of that vote


It will be Vegas. 

The meeting should be held at the headquarters in Yankton however. Get it away from Vegas. We didn't buy that place just to talk about it.

Vegas is the wrong place in my opinion to have this meeting and the wrong time of the year.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

centerx said:


> *AND...the other part I'm serious about is that the implementation of NEW RULES should be at the BEGINNING of a year...which for us....is the start of a new INDOOR SEASON and BEFORE the Three Star Events...not AFTER them and in the middle of the summer field season and TARGET event season!
> Make the new rules effective Dec 1 or at the latest Jan 1...makes much more sense that way.*
> 
> THe problem with a rule change effective 12/1 or 1/1 is that many tournaments are starting ( Iowa the first big one) inthe Middle of Janurary
> ...


Yes, but look at it in reality.....Most of us first HEARD about the 27 diameters around the first of November or so...they were first used at the Utah Open, I think....the first week of December...and by the Iowa Pro-Am...SEVERAL of a "select few" had 'em for competition and ready to go...in 6 to 8 weeks OR LESS.....

We KNOW about the new rules pretty much right away....and they give 4 to 5 months for "implementation"....so....no difference at all...by having the National Board of Directors' meeting in JUNE or JULY...and making the rules take effect Dec 1...that STILL gets them into effect BEFORE the Utah Open or Midwest Open or Iowa Pro-Am....and people have PLENTY OF TIME to set up for the change(s). No different than before...other than Dec vs. the current June 1.

Won't happen...but is sure goes to show that thinking out of the box can be acommodated...just like "emergency meetings" can be accommodated or NOT accommodated based upon "interpretations" or "needs."

field14


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 17, 2003)

*Common Sense Max Arrow Size Ruling*

Hi to All; 
I'm not taking sides in any of this, but after giving it some thought...my .02 cents... maybe worth less than that, but anyway... 
I see a lot of Easton bashing, but a 9.3/23xx max ruling that takes immediate effect would have consequences for everyone involved in target archery, not just arrow manufacturers, but many archers and small Pro Shops too!
Any ruling by a governing body/organization that makes ANY currently used and widely accepted equipment illegal and therefore obsolute and useless SHOULD consider the effect that ruling has on each archer, archery dealer, archery distributor AND the equipment manufacturers themselves. The archery industry is very small when compared to most and the industry does as much as possible to promote the NFAA and target archery in many ways...it should be a two way street and most times it is that way. Also consider the archer or family who has invested hundreds of $ in 24, 25, 26 or even 27 size arrows that would become instantly useless for any serious competition, not to mention the small, medium and larger archery pro shops, dealers, distributors and aftermarket point or component manufacturers who would have a considerable amount of instantly obsolete inventory. 

A common sense approach to this issue would be to either:
A). Permanently limit the max size to 27XX that is currently available, therefore causing no harm or hardship, but drawing a line somewhere...

or...
B). Immediately set a temporary limit in max size to 27XX therefore ending the max race, and then if widespread member support demands, set a *future* limit of 9.3mm/23, or 24, 25.. to become effective in 1 1/2 to 3 years. That gives each archer time to shoot up what they have, the archery industry time to sell down the still legal big shafts, points, nocks, etc. and phase out production and inventories economically and every archer and business plenty of time to gear up to the new size limits with a minimum of pain involved. 

Just a couple thoughts coming from me on behalf of the industry with no specific agenda other than looking at the business side from everyone's point of view.... 

Thanks for reading...

Rob


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Hi to All;
> I'm not taking sides in any of this, but after giving it some thought...my .02 cents... maybe worth less than that, but anyway...
> I see a lot of Easton bashing, but a 9.3/23xx max ruling that takes immediate effect would have consequences for everyone involved in target archery, not just arrow manufacturers, but many archers and small Pro Shops too!
> Any ruling by a governing body/organization that makes ANY currently used and widely accepted equipment illegal and therefore obsolute and useless SHOULD consider the effect that ruling has on each archer, archery dealer, archery distributor AND the equipment manufacturers themselves. The archery industry is very small when compared to most and the industry does as much as possible to promote the NFAA and target archery in many ways...it should be a two way street and most times it is that way. Also consider the archer or family who has invested hundreds of $ in 24, 25, 26 or even 27 size arrows that would become instantly useless for any serious competition, not to mention the small, medium and larger archery pro shops, dealers, distributors and aftermarket point or component manufacturers who would have a considerable amount of instantly obsolete inventory.
> ...


Thanks Rob. That is in fact a valued opinion from a business which is essentially caught in the middle. I would hope yours, and other resellers voices would be solicited by the directorship when the time to actually make a decision comes.

Out of curiosity and as you are such a large distributor what is the actual demand for 27's and are folks actually clamoring for fatter shafts still?

I guess what I would like to know is what is the market trend you are seeing?


Stuart Hutnick


----------



## 60Xbulldog60X (Mar 12, 2005)

Very well put Rob. I am not in the Industry but I do see both sides of the coin. Regardless of what the outcome may be, I think there should be a limit set before the size get's out of hand. I really like your idea.

Kendall


----------



## sittingbull (Jan 19, 2003)

> Common Sense Max Arrow Size Ruling
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...




*Rob...common sense went out the window when the industry twisted the arms of the NFAA directors who voted to put a max standard on the size of shafts to be used in competition.....Yes...or...No?

Maybe you could tell me what the vote was, I can't remember. But I don't believe it was even close.

Here was the first words concerning the results of the arrow size issue after the first meeting...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
February 19th, 2008, 04:01 PM...........starting June 1st of this year....ALL NFAA tournaments will have a arrow restriction size....MAX allowable arrows shall not exceed 9.3mm....with the points not to exceed 9.4mm-NOTE- i do not know if the WAF will follow this rule
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now that may seem sudden to some but consider the fact that the shafts are not yet available to all especially in some areas. In other words, the 27XX rage is just beginning.

IMO, the best time to stop the build up of 27XX sizes would be to do so as quickly as possible. The June 1st date may have been negotiable for all I know but the industry was not interested in any compromise...were they?

Putting a limit of 9.3 would have meant a run on that size shaft which would offset the loss of revenue for larger shafts.

There will be some pain involved in setting a "common sense" standard in an effort to stop the madness. We can either drag this out over the next 1.5 yrs and let the wounds fester into an all out boycott or something similar. 

Or we can try to right the wrong that occurred at the special meeting held at Vegas and do so in a minimum time frame recalling the reason for the change...COMMON SENSE!

jmho...sbl

*


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Rob*

Thanks for you well thought out input. The 9.3/23XX size limit seems to be the best way to standardize across all disciplines of archery and make it easier on the budget for a lot of archers. One set of arrows to shoot any indoor venue. Lower stocking requirements for distributors and dealers. Your phased in size limits makes the most sense with the least pain for all involved.
I hope this is the approach that the organizations settle on.
Jbird


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*The archery industry is very small when compared to most and the industry does as much as possible to promote the NFAA and target archery in many ways...it should be a two way street and most times it is that way*

If you read my post Rob has echoed everything I have mentioned.... including the area highlighted

Maybe you need merit to have an opinion on the topic


----------



## LEADWORKS (Apr 6, 2006)

I haven't checked these boards in quite a while, and I come in and see this. Man all I can do is shake my head. Tell you what, it makes me think twice about ever buying "diamond" type arrows again. This really makes me mad, and it makes me lose faith in the NFAA. Don't know if I'll bother renewing my NFAA membership again until they start doing what the membership wants rather than what the manufacturers want.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

centerx said:


> *The archery industry is very small when compared to most and the industry does as much as possible to promote the NFAA and target archery in many ways...it should be a two way street and most times it is that way*
> 
> If you read my post Rob has echoed everything I have mentioned.... including the area highlighted
> 
> Maybe you need merit to have an opinion on the topic


Being the main man of the largest archery retailer in the world does lend a certain credibility doesn't it.:grin: Plus the fact that Lancaster's put in the first arrow restriction at 27/64 regardless of what the NFAA did or did not do.

Lack of merit just makes us little voices in the dark:teeth:


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

I don't think any manufactures contact our directors prior to making changes in there product line. So out of respect for the Orgs I fail to see why the Org should contact the manufacture to make a rule change. 

Rob brings up some viable points but I think the manufactures should make an effort to meet the orgs int the middle. The way it stands now the orgs are going to the manufactures side with no effort from the manufacture to meet the orgs in the middle.

This is the reason that we have manufactures getting bashed. Many look at the situation as strong-arming.


The situation is a bit awkward for me. Kind of puts me in the middle. I represent manufactures as well as support the NFAA.


----------



## GOT LUCKY (Apr 30, 2005)

GOT LUCKY said:


> *Good Morning Everyone..........
> 
> Now that EVERYTHING has been brought out into the SUNSHINE.....:wink:...it's time to stop throwing our arrows out the door and try and fix the problem....
> 
> ...


*
IT'S OK CENTERX.....SLIDE OVER.....WE HAVE BEEN ON THE SAME BENCH FOR A WHILE ON THIS TOPIC AND HOW TO HANDLE IT......

ABOVE WAS MY POST WAYYYYYYYYY BACK AT #185...........

GLAD ROB CAME HERE AND VERIFIED MY CONCERN OF THE CURRENT INVENTORY ON HIS AND OTHER SUPPLIERS SHELVES.....

CAP IT AND PHASE IT DOWN OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS IS THE ONLY WAY TO NOT HURT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SO GOOD TO ALL OF US.....*
.


----------



## abe archer (Mar 2, 2003)

Let's just score inside out. That would stop the question.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

abe archer said:


> Let's just score inside out. That would stop the question.


Look before you leap. This has been discussed to death in here.....


----------



## sittingbull (Jan 19, 2003)

SonnyThomas said:


> Look before you leap. This has been discussed to death in here.....



*Actually, the quickest, fairest way to solve the entire problem would be to score X's from the inside out. 

Companies could make shafts as large as they want and retailers and archery shops could continue to sell any shaft produced.

Scoring from inside out should get a "very serious" review and be debated again by the directors of NFAA *


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

sittingbull said:


> *Actually, the quickest, fairest way to solve the entire problem would be to score X's from the inside out.
> 
> Companies could make shafts as large as they want and retailers and archery shops could continue to sell any shaft produced.
> 
> Scoring from inside out should get a "very serious" review and be debated again by the directors of NFAA *



And, just so you can BUY what you think might be a higher score, YOU are perfectly willing to not only pay more for your arrows every year...but PAY MORE AND MORE for registration fees and shooting time.....at local shops and major events....to help PAY FOR THE INCREASE IN THE DAMAGE TO THE BALES?

You are willing to cost your competitors points because their smaller arrows drive down the holes YOU created and "miss a line" due to this....get a pass thru...or due to wadding of the material...they have to shoot their arrow over and over again because of bounce-outs?

Are you going to PUT IN THE LABOR in your local range to change the bales two or three times a year, and HELP PAY FOR THOSE EXPENSIVE NEW BALES?

All so YOU can just shoot unlimited shaft size and BUY YOUR SCORE...or so you think?

Are you going to go out and volunteer to be a line judge and bring more line judges with you so that you can quibble with the "inside out" scoring...becaue I'll guarantee you, if you think "close calls" are outrageous now...just wait til when that inside out call is for a POINT instead of just a measly ole "x-ring" or not....the increase in "line calls" will be something to behold....and of course, that means longer times per shooting lines in tournaments and leagues...and in the evenings, your local range will have to pay their people to stay longer so YOU can BUY YOUR SCORES and shoot any size log you want....UP goes your fees to pay the overtime....

Yep, simple answer...just leave it unlimited and shoot whatcha want...and score inside out....

Don't forget....I/O scoring also means the use of MORE target faces per round per shooter...MORE COST there too..and YOU are wiling to PAY that cost too? How's about YOU pay everyone's cost...if YOU shoot mega-shafts....

There it is, the ultimate answer to "shoot whatever you want": ...a "Target Usage/Bale Damage fee"..._Payable ONLY for those shooting LARGER than 27 diameter shafts_.....to pay for the increased damage to YOUR bale, and cover the increased costs of targets YOU use....

But let's just go one better: "Those that use anything larger than 26 diameter pay this EXTRA FEE to cover the increased costs THEY bring to an event or league or practice session...Payable BEFORE SHOOTING. In addition, an extra penalty fee will be imposed if you try to sneak them in without paying the Damage fee up front."

field14:tongue:


----------



## Avalon (Jul 23, 2007)

field-we are talking about a 64th here. Not some 2 inch wrecking bar. I agree that the 27s cause more damage but you make it sound like the 27 shooters will totally wreck your bales. Can't see that much difference between the 2.

I am not in favor of big shafts. I just think the "damage" argument is not a good one 'cause we are talking about a 64th of an inch.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

*Are you going to go out and volunteer to be a line judge and bring more line judges with you so that you can quibble with the "inside out" scoring...becaue I'll guarantee you, if you think "close calls" are outrageous now...just wait til when that inside out call is for a POINT instead of just a measly ole "x-ring" or not....the increase in "line calls" will be something to behold....*

Field… Let's face it .. .the x's are counting for points anyhow in addition it effects the shooters the same…. If you used to do 300 50x and now you shoot 300 45 x so will everybody else that shot similar scores before………….. The field remains the same , The competition remains the same and a lot of problems get solved. 

In addition there is not a reason to think that I/O calls will be on the increase at all….. During league we take a few side bets for 3 bucks a game for the most I/O x' shot …. And we shoot them with the logs ……….. It really helps the shooting … I have never had a problem calling a line yet

However yes, The national scene will be more intense but not the doom I think many would beleive … Plus like I have said the NAA went to a 9.3 shaft restriction AND counted the Baby x as a 10…. You HAVE to shoot a I/O arrow as you compare it to how it is scored in the NFAA to pick up the 10 points…… Never did here of this mass exodus

I think I/O is worth talking about and it certainly shows benefits to the Shooters… Better spined shafts… One shaft more all venues… Easier on Family's to have single universal set ups for all members

Don't know if it is the right solutions or not… However to dismiss idea's based on fear especially when other Orgs are or have made the game "harder" I like to say different because let's face it … the people you finished next to yesterday … you will finish next to after the changes… and those orgs did not suffer any ill effects

Iowa's Growing IN PART because they count the extra x ring as a point…. People are already embracing a more challenging game .. Were dead center shots are rewarded by higher point value's


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

WV Has Been said:


> I don't think any manufactures contact our directors prior to making changes in there product line. So out of respect for the Orgs I fail to see why the Org should contact the manufacture to make a rule change.
> 
> Rob brings up some viable points but I think the manufactures should make an effort to meet the orgs int the middle. The way it stands now the orgs are going to the manufactures side with no effort from the manufacture to meet the orgs in the middle.
> 
> ...


I agree to a point but . . . the manufacturers produce what archers want. Archers want the biggest advantage they can get within the rules. I do think in cases like this, that the industry SHOULD be consulted before rulings are made especially when you are talking about groups that are supposed to be on the same side. The organization is supposed to promote what is best for archery and the manufacturers certainly benefit from a strong sport.

But legislation that pulls the rug out from under the industry (manufacturer, pro-shop, etc.) is always bad whether it comes from an organization or a government.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

> Plus like I have said the NAA went to a 9.3 shaft restriction AND counted the Baby x as a 10…. You HAVE to shoot a I/O arrow as you compare it to how it is scored in the NFAA to pick up the 10 points…… Never did here of this mass exodus


Just keep in mind, the FITA shaft restriction AND the little 10-ring for compounds were mutually independent changes that occured several years apart. First FITA decided to drop the 25m distance (compounds and recurves used to shoot first day at 25m using the same 10-ring, compounds shot 25m again the second day while recurves shot 18m; there was no little x-ring in the target back then). When they standardized everything to 18m FITA felt the scores would be too high in the compound division, hence they added the little x-ring. Guess what happened then...... If you guessed that the compound archers started shooting 24's, 25's, and 26's (and even an experimental 27) in order to hit that small x-ring shortly afterwards you win a cookie! FITA only opted to institute a 23 limit once the compound scores again started to get close to perfect, and oh by the way, coincidentally also after someone showed up at a World Championship sporting an experimental arrow akin to what TG has been playing with the past couple years. Only after that occured did FITA decide to institute a 23 limit. Something like 3 or 4 years between the intro of the compound 10-ring and the 23 limit. Difference between then and now, the larger aluminums were just starting to gain in popularity and weren't widely used by the everyone yet. Unlike today where over 1/2 the people shooting in my leagues for example are running at least 25's (aluminum or carbon). I saw the same thing happen when Vegas came out with the harder, smaller target that one year back in the early '90's. Immediately saw an influx of 22's and 24's being used. Few would bother with large arrows, i.e. 26's and 27's, if we'd quit making the game harder and harder. Now its not just a matter of shooting big 10's anymore, now you need the little x's as well for tie-breakers, final shoot-off scoring for Vegas, tournaments using the little 10-ring as an extra point (IA ProAm, Lancasters, Presleys), etc., etc.. Continue to bring it on ourselves, imo!

And just an fyi, didn't hear of any mass exodus from FITA/NAA comps after the change for a reason.......very few here in the US were ever shooting that round anyway when the change occured. Vice versa, going to the limit didn't exactly increase attendance either .

Just to add a few additional thoughts and observations..........

>>-------->


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

AVALON said:


> field-we are talking about a 64th here. Not some 2 inch wrecking bar. I agree that the 27s cause more damage but you make it sound like the 27 shooters will totally wreck your bales. Can't see that much difference between the 2.
> 
> I am not in favor of big shafts. I just think the "damage" argument is not a good one 'cause we are talking about a 64th of an inch.



You are obviously not READING what I'm saying...I'm saying _*LARGER THAN 27 diameter*_.....set the limit at 26 or 27 diameter MAXIMUM.....but NO LARGER THAN THAT.

We most all agree that a size limit is needed...but the bone of contention is WHICH SIZE...to me, since the 27's are so new....should be at 26 MAX....and if we decide to down-size...to 9.3mm max...then do it over the course of a few years....say by Jan 1, 2010 or something like that.

But please READ what I say before you yank words out of context...again, LARGER THAN 27's....should be prohibited, and in some ranges and tournaments a shaft sizes of LARGER THAN 27/64 (0.425) already ARE prohobited.

field14:tongue::wink:


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I hear ya' CH

While I was not hard into compettive archery when the NAA made some of these changes I am aware of the history of thse changes and agree with you 100%

However . I have yet heard anybody refusing to shoot this format because it is "To Hard" I think in part it is not more popular because… well there are not more events. NFAA rules and gudelines are the primary stimulas for dot archery in the USA. However those that choose to shoot NAA events do seem to like them. 

As you also alluded NFAA participants also seem to like to hit smaller scoring values as well in the form of IOWA, LANCASTER, PRESELY'S….. Some of the fastest gowing formats currently… In fact we have even started to counting the x rign as a 6 in some of our local leages… Archers love it 

What I know is it appears archers worldwide and to a growing degree here in the US do not only mind having to hit the center of the target. They are actaully prferring it …. 

Now while I don't pretend to know the thoughts of everybody on this subject what I do know is the JOE"S I talk to find value in this becase they feel they can Rally and make up ground when they are not the perfect shooting machines of the peer's , despite if it actually makes a diffrence or not.Arguably if scoring is I/O the same Rally can happen.. Shoot the x's a little cleaner and make up some ground 

But again… I don't know what may be the preference of the majority… My own opinion is most could care less either way. However I do know that thwowing out fear of DOOM to the membership while the membership seems to be embracing the concept on a growing degree is ……………. odd 

Heck ... Even in the IBO and ASA they have made smaller and smaller rings worth higher values that you HAVE to hit in order to be competitive... lots of archers loving it 

I will admit... I don't pretend to understand it myself....


----------



## Avalon (Jul 23, 2007)

field14 said:


> But let's just go one better: "Those that use anything larger than 26 diameter pay this EXTRA FEE to cover the increased costs THEY bring to an event or league or practice session...Payable BEFORE SHOOTING. In addition, an extra penalty fee will be imposed if you try to sneak them in without paying the Damage fee up front."
> 
> field14:tongue:


I was just posting in regards to your last paragraph. Not trying to take it out of context.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

AVALON said:


> I was just posting in regards to your last paragraph. Not trying to take it out of context.


I see, said the blind man....Indeed I did mention the "26" diameter being a potential max size....

One thing for sure about this issue...the MAJORITY by far WANT a limit in shaft size...but very few want to give up their little piece of the pie...or have to "change things."

They want their cake and to eat it too. Especially "newbies" and wannabees that feel that they should be able to jump right into the heat of battle by BUYING their scores. Lay a $50 on the table...and instantly shoot higher scores...no matter how they get there. they want it NOW or yesterday...and certainly, they shouldn't have to pay dues or come in and have to work for it.

As far as shop owners and host clubs or venues go...to heck with them..>the wannabees want it THEIR WAY...and tough crap if the bales get ruined...they say, "there is MINIMAL damage", so YOU just go out any buy new bales, pay the labor, YOU pay for the increased costs...but don't TREAD ON ME and expect ME to pay any part of it....

There is no winning this for any of the parties involved...

That is precisely why the organization needs to take contrl and NOT be badgered by ANY "special interest" group(s).

And if the orgs won't take control, then the SHOOTERS THEMSEVLES either take control...or the RANGE OPERATORS and HOST CLUBS put in controls to save their bacon and insure the costs of doing business don't exceed the INTAKE from the events.....

Lancaster treaded right on out there and maxed the shaft size for their tourament at 27/64the, IBO and ASA did the same....I know other ranges WILL do the same...since the orgs themselves won't do anything.

I don't figure a host club or range will lose but one or two shooters by implementing a rule of nothing larger than 27...and frankly, losing those one or two...will SAVE THE RANGE MONEY in the long run.

I'm nearly positive limits will be coming in quickly...either self-imposed by shooters themselves, self-imposed by range operators and owners, or imposed by the host ranges/clubs for specific indoor AND outdoor events.

Those that want to shoot something larger than 27's won't find too many places to do it...other than on their own bales or rubber deer...which THEY, but not everyone else, has to bear the costs of providing.

Enough of this...you have those in the majority that want limits....and you have the VERY FEW that want to have it completely unlimited with regard to shaft size...and I know who the loser will be. That's why I'm liking my CAA 500's more all the time...cuz I know I won't lose a place to shoot because of any actions on MY part....

field14


----------



## abe archer (Mar 2, 2003)

Since we want to take skill out of our sport, let's make the X ring the size of the 5 ring and the 4 ring the 5 ring. Everyone can shoot a 300 60X and than have a drawing as to is who won. 

I will vote to limit arrow size. Let's get skill back in archery!!!!!!


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I hear how the "downsizing" of the Field /Hunter targets was the doom of that game

I Keep hearing How I/O scoring will be the DOOM of this game…. In Fact… I keep hearing about how doing ANYTHING that MIGHT make the game harder is sure to spell DOOOOOMMMM and in fact I don't want a harder game myself… But also like I said If you and your competitors used to score 300 50 x using old methods .. And now you and your same peers score 300 45 x's ………. Really were is the DOOOOMMMMM…….. Not harder DIFFRENT games creating DIFFRENT scores

The Pro's will still be Pros's and The Joe's will still be Joe's ………. But everything will be everything while shooting with the SAME set of arrows across all venues.. Saving archers money,,, Saving orgs/shops butts , restoring integrity to the game…. Blahhh .. Blahhh … Blahhh 

But as I also mentioned were is it that this Harder ( I like to say Different ) shooting is causing the doom?????

Not On the World stage were competitors have to hit the baby x for a 10 … I don't even think they shoot the Blue/White with the bigger x much outside the USA

Not In the ASA /IBO… hitting smaller and smaller rings since 3-D's beginnings:embara:

Not at 3 major tournaments were they are counting the x ring as an extra point:embara:


AND most of us agree we all want SMALLER SHAFTS.. Making the game even harder YET?????

Can ANYBODY with PROOF show me were I/O scoring is going to be DOOOMMMMM ……….


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

centerx said:


> I hear how the "downsizing" of the Field /Hunter targets was the doom of that game
> 
> I Keep hearing How I/O scoring will be the DOOM of this game…. In Fact… I keep hearing about how doing ANYTHING that MIGHT make the game harder is sure to spell DOOOOOMMMM and in fact I don't want a harder game myself… But also like I said If you and your competitors used to score 300 50 x using old methods .. And now you and your same peers score 300 45 x's ………. Really were is the DOOOOMMMMM…….. Not harder DIFFRENT games creating DIFFRENT scores
> 
> ...


Good points, CenterX....BUT...

In those other "venues" you are talking about..>NONE OF THEM are scored INSIDE OUT...they are scored TOUCH THE LINE and it is IN...

What is being proposed is NOT the same thing....I/O scoring lovers....seem to want it INSIDE OUT for EVERYTHING.....and that isn't comparing apples to apples...

FITA 10-ring (Vegas baby-x) is scored TOUCH THE LINE for that "10"....if "they" went I/O on that things would get drastically tougher.

If we went completely I/O on the NFAA blue face....the game changes...it would be better to leave it alone and go to the Iowa Pro-Am, Midwest Open, etc format of 6-5-4 for the NFAA face, and on the "Vegas" face....11-10-9, but TOUCHING THE LINE for higher value.

I can tell you that most mid-level shooters are going to lose MORE than 5-X's if they are scored I/O....most that I've seen are running 10 to 15 LESS X's when scored for fun inside out than if it is scored as normal....

That of course does nothing for limiting shaft size directly...and would involve people (and NOT ALL OF THEM) "electing" to self-impose limits...but each person imposing a "different limit"...and no standard.....

The debate goes on and ONE org has UNLIMITED sizing for now...and the manuf....well...I wouldn't doubt one bit that one or more has been or soon will be testing 7/8" or bigger shafts to see if they get them to "go" or not....


>1" diameter was used in FITA several years ago...so we know that "they go"...just who(m) has the cajunas to try it again...it started with 5/8"...and where it ends???????? Maybe only the "diamond" knows that answer....


field14


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

NFAA should reword to the arrow has to cut the line to be considered in the next higher scoreing ring. there all done next!!  where is SWAMI when ya need him?


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I hear ya Field but like I have said…. I think we are already scorign I/O 

In FITA if you shoot a 9.3 shaft and hit the 10 you ARE scoring I/O compared to the NFAA

In IBO you used to shoot a a softball sized 10 ring. Now they put a golf ball sized 12 ring Inside that… Nobody complained when you now had to hit I/O of the former scoring area to score better???

Same with the ASA

Now since Dots is a "game of the X" maybe the rule should be you only have to be I/O of any scoring area EXCEPT for the highest scoring value on any target face… For which a "touch" counts :wink:

Now that would make for an Interesting Game….. Do You shoot an X-10 in NFAA competition in case you brush against the blue 4 ring…. Or do you shoot a larger shaft to catch the x ring when you can??? I bet MOST would compromise and come to a……… Oh maybe 9.3 shaft…. :wink::darkbeer:

IBO…… Shoot a smaller one so your 10's will count….. Or a larger one to catch the 12 when you can???

Fita… Large to catch the baby X for a 10 or small .. So you don't catch to many 9's?? 

Now THIS would be a FUN rule …:darkbeer::darkbeer:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Bees said:


> NFAA should reword to the arrow has to cut the line to be considered in the next higher scoreing ring. there all done next!!  where is SWAMI when ya need him?


Sooooo What you are saying is to GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY of scoring the "line cuts", then....REGRESS in time?

The NFAA USED to have it that way....as in...CUT COMPLETELY THRU THE LINE TO SCORE HIGHER VALUE...with the exception of the FITA indoor face (Vegas style face)...and it was "touch the line for higher value)...

Interesting...going BACK to OLD scoring...but not willing to go BACK to CORRECTLY SPINED and DECENTLY AND FAIR SIZED ARROWS....thus putting SKILL back nto the game and not who can make the fattest things possible fly to the target and get away with major faux pas.....

field14


----------



## Bees (Jan 28, 2003)

field14 said:


> Sooooo What you are saying is to GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY of scoring the "line cuts", then....REGRESS in time?
> 
> The NFAA USED to have it that way....as in...CUT COMPLETELY THRU THE LINE TO SCORE HIGHER VALUE...with the exception of the FITA indoor face (Vegas style face)...and it was "touch the line for higher value)...
> 
> ...


OK NFAA should reword the largest diameter allowed is 2315 anything larger your otta here. 

Except for one game which would be Vegas cause what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas and the sky is the limit. 
Vegas what ever ya can make fly. smoke em if ya got em , if aint got em get em , if ya can't get em cry. 

how would that be? everything in life is a comprimise and a trade off. why can't NFAA do something like that?


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

> One thing for sure about this issue...the MAJORITY by far WANT a limit in shaft size


 Where do you keep coming up with this Field , just from this forum , if that is where you are getting your info then it is definitely useless just like all the polls taken at election times , totally worthless. Show me in solid numbers where NFAA members are asked if they support a size limit, (especially your preaching of a 9.3 limit) . Guess what you cant come up with it because it was never in the agenda to be voted on by the masses. So QUIT saying the MAJORITY wants this when you dont have a clue if what you are saying is true or not, just you saying it. You are like Chicken Little , the sky is falling the sky is falling.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Where do you keep coming up with this Field , just from this forum , if that is where you are getting your info then it is definitely useless just like all the polls taken at election times , totally worthless. Show me in solid numbers where NFAA members are asked if they support a size limit, (especially your preaching of a 9.3 limit) . Guess what you cant come up with it because it was never in the agenda to be voted on by the masses. So QUIT saying the MAJORITY wants this when you dont have a clue if what you are saying is true or not, just you saying it. You are like Chicken Little , the sky is falling the sky is falling.


But...the flip side of the coin, which it is obvious YOU want....

Show me where the MAJORITY of shooters want this UNLIMITED SHAFT SIZE to continue...

YOU have no foundation for it at all..

At least we were told that the VOTE OF THE DIRECTORS on the INTIAL 9.3mm limit that was first voted in was OVERWHELMING in favor of a 9.3mm max shaft size...>The directors supposedly said that they were voting as they had been instructed by THEIR STATES" MEMBERSHIP! So that tells me that IF what the directors say is true, then the MAJORITY by FAR of the "NFAA MEMBERSHIP" that contacted their directors...wanted the 9.3mm shaft size limit.

The 15-signature agenda item voted upon initially was LEGAL...and it was supposedly OVERWHEMINGLY approved by the directors....more than what you have to go on with your reverse opinion. Way more than what you have, that is for sure.....

Personally, I really don't care if the limit is established at 0.425 diameter and stays there...at least there would be a LIMIT in place...instead of a selfish wide-open thing that will ultimately cost us all dearly in the manner of shooting and registration fees.

But since nothing we say, do, pee, or moan for or against will float until at least next February...YOU shoot your fat shafts if you want...they are legal...and if you have the money to throw away...go out and get yourself a custom set of 1" or even 1.25" shafts and try to get them to shoot....

In the meantime....take your polls, draft your agenda item to maintain the current NO SHAFT SIZE LIMIT...and go for it...and if you win, then fine...but if you don't; then accept it...or quit. Whatever.

Something may well come of this...but we all see the writing on the wall..it will not happen before the next NFAA Directors' meeting next February, in Vegas...and nothing will change before at least June of 2009, if then.

Either way, we are obviously on opposite sides of the fence...you for NO LIMITS or maybe "27's" max...and me...not really caring as long as they put the limit at 27 or LESS...and maybe go all the way to 9.3mm eventually.

I"m past my prime; I do not have to do anything I don't want to, and neither do you...but for the future of the game being REAL and not one that rewards for DIAMETER and NOT prowess...I prefer the LIMITS established NOW or NLT June, 2009.

As to whether any of it happens...I think it is honestly out of your or my control, and in the hands or pocketbooks of a "higher authority" regardless of how either you or I vote on the issue....

field14:darkbeer:


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

field14 said:


> *AlChick*,
> _*Could you send a "copy" or PM a copy of your "letter" or communication to your director and councilman to those posting on this thread...maybe that would get them off dead center and give them an idea of how/what to do to let their directors and councilmen know about their displeasure.*_
> 
> field14


Sorry I couldn't reply sooner I've been out of touch for a week. Here is the letter that I wrote my councilman. Notice that I remained diplomatic and made no accusations.

If you don’t mind, I would like to know from you what went on in Vegas. Were you at the “Emergency Meeting”? Did Easton threaten to pull sponsorship or not? How did you vote the first time and why? How did you vote the second time and why? 


Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I know this whole thing is a pain in the posterior, but I’d like to get the story from someone who can write clearly and won’t inject emotional argument into the explanation. Additionally, you represented me at that meeting so I’d like to know how you did. 


For the record, I am very much in favor of the 9.3mm limitation, particularly since the formation of the Wisconsin Archery Alliance. I would like to see a common standard which extends to age classes as well. I intend to switch to 23xxs next year any way just so I won’t have to change arrows to shoot FITA style competitions.


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

Actually FIeld you are full of bull again. If there is to be a size limit let it be the 26 or 27 shaft. To heck with going to 9.3 just so the NFAA aligns with the NAA. Let you in on a little secret the only reason I am even shooting 2512's now is because I gave my 2315's to my son to shoot and with the indoors being almost over here I didnt want to buy new arrows for a couple of weeks left of indoors here so I BORROWED these arrows to finish with. I could have used my carbons but for indoors I prefer to shoot aluminum since it pulls so much easier out of our target butts. You missed the whole point Field , show me where you have proof that the majority of archers want the size limit. We all know you would love it to be the 9.3 . Come on show us the numbers that YOU keep claiming to have . The numbers are what you just keep saying but in reality you really dont have a clue if the MAJORITY of NFAA members want the size limit . I mean if you say the majority surely you have polled all the members and can post them for us.


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Actually FIeld you are full of bull again. If there is to be a size limit let it be the 26 or 27 shaft. To heck with going to 9.3 just so the NFAA aligns with the NAA. Let you in on a little secret the only reason I am even shooting 2512's now is because I gave my 2315's to my son to shoot and with the indoors being almost over here I didnt want to buy new arrows for a couple of weeks left of indoors here so I BORROWED these arrows to finish with. I could have used my carbons but for indoors I prefer to shoot aluminum since it pulls so much easier out of our target butts. You missed the whole point Field , show me where you have proof that the majority of archers want the size limit. We all know you would love it to be the 9.3 . Come on show us the numbers that YOU keep claiming to have . The numbers are what you just keep saying but in reality you really dont have a clue if the MAJORITY of NFAA members want the size limit . I mean if you say the majority surely you have polled all the members and can post them for us.


I'm not taking sides but I do have a question.

What makes you so sure that the masses don't want the 9.3mm limit?:wink:

I would ask you to show the numbers that the majority wants a 26/27 limit.:tongue:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Actually FIeld you are full of bull again. If there is to be a size limit let it be the 26 or 27 shaft. To heck with going to 9.3 just so the NFAA aligns with the NAA. Let you in on a little secret the only reason I am even shooting 2512's now is because I gave my 2315's to my son to shoot and with the indoors being almost over here I didnt want to buy new arrows for a couple of weeks left of indoors here so I BORROWED these arrows to finish with. I could have used my carbons but for indoors I prefer to shoot aluminum since it pulls so much easier out of our target butts. You missed the whole point Field , show me where you have proof that the majority of archers want the size limit. We all know you would love it to be the 9.3 . Come on show us the numbers that YOU keep claiming to have . The numbers are what you just keep saying but in reality you really dont have a clue if the MAJORITY of NFAA members want the size limit . I mean if you say the majority surely you have polled all the members and can post them for us.


Now, now, WV....

Remember..>those that want to BUY higher scores don't EVER want to look at the "flip-side" of that coin....WE have to show THEM the numbers that are contrary to THEIR opinion...but THEY do NOT have to show the numbers that SUPPORT them wanting to "BUY HIGHER SCORES."

Furthermore....I never said I was steadfast set FOR the 9.3mm limit. I would like to see it eventually come down to that size limit. However, If "we" and I emphasize the "WE" part of it...decide that 27 (0.425 INCLUDING the POINT DIAMETER) is the LIMIT and the BIGGEST ALLOWED...then that is fine too. At least there is a LIMIT and the indoor game won't be dictated by who(m) has the poundage, the DL, and the MONEY to go out and BUY some 1" or 1.275" diameter shafts and take the SKILL out of the game.

I do believe it will come to pass that there WILL BE a size restriction by the beginning of June, 2009 for the WAF/NFAA. What that limit will be remains to be seen....and if it is "for all time" or starts with whatever limit and over time REDUCES down to 9.3mm....who knows?

Those proposing NO LIMITS are only thinking of themselves and their own glory...and want everyone else to pay for their prices, prizes, and egos. They fail to consider costs, the ranges, the bales, the host clubs or ranges, targets, and the myriad of problems that ARE ARISING when "mega-shafts" are used in competition. Such SELFISHNESS.

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Actually FIeld you are full of bull again. If there is to be a size limit let it be the 26 or 27 shaft. To heck with going to 9.3 just so the NFAA aligns with the NAA. Let you in on a little secret the only reason I am even shooting 2512's now is because I gave my 2315's to my son to shoot and with the indoors being almost over here I didnt want to buy new arrows for a couple of weeks left of indoors here so I BORROWED these arrows to finish with. I could have used my carbons but for indoors I prefer to shoot aluminum since it pulls so much easier out of our target butts. You missed the whole point Field , show me where you have proof that the majority of archers want the size limit. We all know you would love it to be the 9.3 . Come on show us the numbers that YOU keep claiming to have . The numbers are what you just keep saying but in reality you really dont have a clue if the MAJORITY of NFAA members want the size limit . I mean if you say the majority surely you have polled all the members and can post them for us.


...FIELD 14 has his finger on the pulse of the NFAA masses...I'd bet my last dollar that what he states "is" what the vast majority of serious shooters will choose if they were allowed to actually vote on the question...

...and let's see, nearly ALL of the NFAA Directors "voted for" the limitation/reduction before they "voted against" it


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

Field , I was never the one saying the masses did or didnt want the size limit , you were. Actually I hope they do make a limit but I hope it will be the 26 or 27 size not 9.3. As I said the only reason I am shooting a larger shaft right now , 2512, is because I gave my son my 2315's . But come next indoor season I will be shooting the 2315's again. Just didnt want to get them right now for the little time left for indoors this season. WV , if you will go back through my posts you will see that I never said the majority didnt want a size limit, I was contesting Fields posts where he continually was stating the majority wanted it and I knew there was no way he could know this for sure. This should have been on the agenda so that the people could vote on it beforehand and not leave it up to the discretion of the directors to make a decision as to what they THOUGHT the people would want. Wasnt really fair that they were put in this position either .
Dondeere , Field only has so many people that he talks to so you cant say that it is a majority, that is nonsensical.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

DONDEERE said:


> ...FIELD 14 has his finger on the pulse of the NFAA masses...I'd bet my last dollar that what he states "is" what the vast majority of serious shooters will choose if they were allowed to actually vote on the question...
> 
> ...and let's see, nearly ALL of the NFAA Directors "voted for" the limitation/reduction before they "voted against" it



Now John Kerry is on AT???

Can we just swiftboat the slug out of here now?:wink:


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

Big Country said:


> Now John Kerry is on AT???
> 
> Can we just swiftboat the slug out of here now?:wink:


...LOL...when I first heard about the NFAA Directors changing their stripes I thought how much they remined me of Janus Kerry...

...seems they both have puppet masters to answer to

...but as soon as the test results start to come in, I'm sure we'll get the ball rolling again in the RIGHT direction!!:darkbeer:


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

DONDEERE said:


> ...LOL...when I first heard about the NFAA Directors changing their stripes I thought how much they remined me of Janus Kerry...
> 
> ...seems they both have puppet masters to answer to
> 
> ...but as soon as the test results start to come in, I'm sure we'll get the ball rolling again in the RIGHT direction!!:darkbeer:


If the results are what you are looking for, do we want those 5 questions put on an actual poll that the good folks can vote on??:wink:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

DONDEERE said:


> ...LOL...when I first heard about the NFAA Directors changing their stripes I thought how much they remined me of Janus Kerry...
> 
> ...seems they both have puppet masters to answer to
> 
> ...but as soon as the test results start to come in, _I'm sure we'll get the ball rolling again in the RIGHT direction_!!:darkbeer:


And I sense, Don...that YOU THINK the "right direction" is the way YOU want it and not necessarily the way those that DO THEIR JOBS as members and take the time to COMMUNICATE THEIR FEELINGS to their directors?

We as members are RESPONSIBLE to contact the directors on the issues and agenda items. This is, afterall a TWO WAY STREET...and personally, I don't want to hear or see, "My director never talked to me about this." 

If you feel that strongly, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT....and give your state director GUIDANCE...but realize one thing...that director MUST go along with the MAJORITY of the input he/she gets...and NOT JUST ONE PERSON that is adamant....

That is why I'm doing something along the lines of trying to generate a halfway decent questionnaire for our state director to use as a guideline to write their own poll/questionnaire (or use mine)....but at least someone is doing something EARLY and PROACTIVE...we can't wait until we see an agenda item in order to start the ball rolling on questionnaires and polls...Sept 30 is WAY TO LATE to get a questionnaire out to the members...at least IMHO...

It needs to start ASAP.

field14


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Field , I was never the one saying the masses did or didnt want the size limit , you were. Actually I hope they do make a limit but I hope it will be the 26 or 27 size not 9.3. As I said the only reason I am shooting a larger shaft right now , 2512, is because I gave my son my 2315's . But come next indoor season I will be shooting the 2315's again. Just didnt want to get them right now for the little time left for indoors this season. WV , if you will go back through my posts you will see that I never said the majority didnt want a size limit, I was contesting Fields posts where he continually was stating the majority wanted it and I knew there was no way he could know this for sure. This should have been on the agenda so that the people could vote on it beforehand and not leave it up to the discretion of the directors to make a decision as to what they THOUGHT the people would want. Wasnt really fair that they were put in this position either .
> Dondeere , Field only has so many people that he talks to so you cant say that it is a majority, that is nonsensical.



I understand what you are putting in text. I also understand that Field was using the result of several polls here on AT that would lead one to believe that the masses where in favor of the 9.3 mm limit. If I am not mistaken nearly 85%. 

Only time will fix the issues at hand.


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

field14 said:


> And I sense, Don...that YOU THINK the "right direction" is the way YOU want it and not necessarily the way those that DO THEIR JOBS as members and take the time to COMMUNICATE THEIR FEELINGS to their directors?
> 
> We as members are RESPONSIBLE to contact the directors on the issues and agenda items. This is, afterall a TWO WAY STREET...and personally, I don't want to hear or see, "My director never talked to me about this."
> 
> ...


...FIELD...dude, I'm right there with ya bro ...don't think for one minute that I am not...how YOU are going about this issue "is" the right way...

...my position on arrow size is that "I feel" it should be the very same for all 4 Major Tournament Organizations...and the only reason I would like it this way is so every archer could play every game on a relatively level playing field...

...with the exception of a few rule variations...and this may be attended to in the future as well...

...target longevity plays into my decision, but not as much as arrow size uniformity between Organizations...I want everyone to play ALL the archery games!!...not just "mine" or not just "yours...Archery is all of "ours" together bro!! :darkbeer:

...once this arrow size deal is settled...we can talk to our State Directors about the next important issue...REMOVING classes:thumbs_up


----------



## DONDEERE (Sep 24, 2007)

Spotshooter2 said:


> Dondeere , Field only has so many people that he talks to so you cant say that it is a majority, that is nonsensical.


...SPOT...man, I guess I missed this...sorry bud!!...

...trust me when I say that when it comes to this kind of stuff, that FIELD 14 is DA MAN

...HAS BEEN also mentioned the "past" polls on the issue as well

..and being something like 46 out of 50 State Directors voted IN FAVOR of the 9.3mm rule, before they voted against it...I'd say FIELD 14 is RIGHT ON TARGET:wink:


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Tom, would be nice if your current 5 question poll could be written up prominantly placed at Louisville for all participants there to express their opinions as well. I think a poll consisting of participating competitive indoor archers, as well as your poll here on AT, would help to better inform the NFAA Directors what their members' are interested in. Just word it in such a manner that the information is being collected to help the Directors make a more informed decision when this issue again comes to a head next Feb. Don't word it such that the final tally stands as gospel because other points may/will need to be considered as well, thus if the polled response does not get enacted immediately there will be fewer disgruntled pollee's.

A thought, I think a poll outside of AT needs to be considered as well because I'm betting there are several responders who have never shot an arrow larger than a 23 whose opinion, while valid, may not necessarily be the ones who will be affected by any changes.

Just my opinion. I just want to make sure the voices of the active NFAA members are being heard as well since they will be the ones most affected by any rules changes............

>>------->


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Many states are an organization of clubs while others may be members at large. My state, Virginia, is members at large.

In a state existing as an organization of clubs, the NFAA director may be controlled by the state association at a meeting of club representatives.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Tom, would be nice if your current 5 question poll could be written up prominantly placed at Louisville for all participants there to express their opinions as well. I think a poll consisting of participating competitive indoor archers, as well as your poll here on AT, would help to better inform the NFAA Directors what their members' are interested in. Just word it in such a manner that the information is being collected to help the Directors make a more informed decision when this issue again comes to a head next Feb. Don't word it such that the final tally stands as gospel because other points may/will need to be considered as well, thus if the polled response does not get enacted immediately there will be fewer disgruntled pollee's.
> 
> A thought, I think a poll outside of AT needs to be considered as well because I'm betting there are several responders who have never shot an arrow larger than a 23 whose opinion, while valid, may not necessarily be the ones who will be affected by any changes.
> 
> ...


Jeff,
That is precisely what I'm trying to work through right now with the "rough draft" poll on AT. First to find out any "trends" and also by reading things to find out about wording problems.
I would like to start with the 5 options in our state newsletter...then give two months to respond and a cutoff date for that. Then, compile those results, along with AT's (separately, so ALL NFAA members in Illinois are on one side and AT polling on the other). This gives NUMBERS that make paring the list down to the two (or combination of similar ones) that garner the most % of responses. Then, the final poll or "questionnaire" is sent out for a final resolution of which of the two most popular people want. This gives two things:

1. The constituents cannot say they never got contacted or were permitted their voice on the issue.

2. The directors won't be accused of talking out their butts at the National Meeting...because he/she will have POLLS IN HAND and the NUMBERS to support his/her vote.

I do NOT think a NATIONAL VOTE will work, nor should we go there. Mine and FS560 and loads of other "old-timers" experience with a "national vote" in the NFAA (a la 1971 release/compound) still has a bad taste in our mouths.

Just my thoughts and an explanation on where I'm trying to head with this. In my experience in private industry, I was the one that had to implement the changes at the factory level...AND come up with data on which change would work the best, so this process is NOT easy...but if done in a reasonable fashion and you allow PEOPLE"S INPUT...you'd be amazed at how smoothly a transition can go..>IF you know the NUMBERS and DATA.

Of course the poll or questionnaire may not be identical...but from what I'm seeing on the AT Poll...the wording must be pretty good, albeit not perfect by any means....but people seem to be able to understand it.

Thanks for solid and positive input!

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

DarrinM said:


> Did FITA consult all these manufacturers when they implemented a size restriction umpteen years ago????????


At that time, FITA Target Archery Committee was an independent body ELECTED by the FITA Congress to take care of all the matters related to Target (including Indoor but not Field) Archery. So, the committee was handling all rules and problems related to that area, and FITA council could not interfere at all. Committee proposals were going straight to the Congress, but FITA president was in any case De-Facto member of all committees, so also of the Target one. 
The committee collected a lot of requests to solve indoor tournaments problems related to too much damage to buttresses, too many faces to be chaged and too many shoot offs. Everything related to Compound division, of course, as recurve was NOT in a critical situation like Compound division. 
Committee developped several proposals that had to be introduced in sequence to solve all problems. But, all proposals were starting from the evidence that a 26xx arrow at 18 mt were touching two rings at the same time on a 40 cm face, so this was already the source of all problems. 
So, committee picked up the Easton chart and checked what was the minimum diameter for existing aluminum arrows that could handle 60# (rule already existing) with 32" with a compound bow. 23XX was found. 
Committee was supposing that 23XX size was at time corresponding to 23/64", or 9.13 mm , so committee first proposal was to limit diameter to 9.2 mm
As proposal was related to materials, it was sent for opinion to another independent FITA committeee, the Technical Committee.
The Technical Committee answered that 23xx size was not really covered by 9.2 mm maximum diameter, as several sizes inside that area were already "practically" measuring more than 9.2 mm, and that 9.3 was more appropriate as a limit. 
So, 9.3 maximum diameter rule was introduced by the subsequent FITA congress, with also the addition that, as points also had their tolerances, maximum diameter for points only was 9.4 mm
It was only after the rule was approved that the information that 2317 arrows were larger than 9.3 mm came to general knowlege, but it was too late.
None of the other proposals made for Indoor competitons improvement by that Committee have been approved, apart for the 9.3 mm rule.
After few years, the structure of the operation of the FITA committees have drastically changed and they are now submitted to the authority of the Council, so they are now purely politycal entities and no more truly independent bodies. All members of that Target Committee abandoned it in the subsequent years.

The Target Archery Committee that proposed the 9.2 mm rule was composed by:
Chaiman: Morten Boe, Norway
Members: Vittorio Frangilli, Italy and Jean Martens, Belgium

The Chairmen of the Technical Committe that suggested to change it to 9.3 mm was Don Rabska, USA

Discussion was run in October, 1998, so around 10 years ago. 

I resigned from the Target Archery Committee at the end of 2003. I was the Chairman of the Committee at the time, but I relaized that the new situation was simply making all our efforts without any possibility of concrete results ever and only for politycal reasons. No more a place fo me. 

This is the true and only story of the 9.3 mm FITA rule, with all elements that may help your discussion.


----------



## akbowhunter (Jan 21, 2005)

just might push me out of indoor competitive spot shooting, here i come "Chewie-Nation" I have some X-Jammers for sale....anyone????....


oh well,:embara: they must be too skinny

must set up too bows now for indoors, one with logs to get you to the shoot-off, and another set up with acc's, x-10's, or nano's to keep'em inside out.:wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Vittorio said:


> At that time, FITA Target Archery Committee was an independent body ELECTED by the FITA Congress to take care of all the matters related to Target (including Indoor but not Field) Archery. So, the committee was handling all rules and problems related to that area, and FITA council could not interfere at all. Committee proposals were going straight to the Congress, but FITA president was in any case De-Facto member of all committees, so also of the Target one.
> The committee collected a lot of requests to solve indoor tournaments problems related to too much damage to buttresses, too many faces to be chaged and too many shoot offs. Everything related to Compound division, of course, as recurve was NOT in a critical situation like Compound division.
> Committee developped several proposals that had to be introduced in sequence to solve all problems. But, all proposals were starting from the evidence that a 26xx arrow at 18 mt were touching two rings at the same time on a 40 cm face, so this was already the source of all problems.
> So, committee picked up the Easton chart and checked what was the minimum diameter for existing aluminum arrows that could handle 60# (rule already existing) with 32" with a compound bow. 23XX was found.
> ...


Thank you for enlightening us Vittorio. I am just a little curious, would a 10mm max size not have left a little room for the unknowns as well as solving the (then) current issues?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Interesting about the "being able to get in between the lines and score the higher value."

THAT is at issue with today's indoor game...its INTEGRITY, IMHO....It is to the point that a person, if they have a long enough draw length and heavy enough poundage...OR, can figure out how to get the mega-shafts to fly, can literally shoot 1/4 of his/her arrow that cuts OUTSIDE of the 1-ring line and still get a baby-x on it (for Vegas rounds), or be nearly halfway out in the "gold", and still shoot a "10". Of course, you also gotta have the money and "contacts" in order to get those mega-shafts specially made for you...but they ARE available commercially....AT A HIGH PRICE...but nonetheless available to pretty much everyone??
INTEGRITY and being realistic, IMHO....is this game going to continue about SHOOTER ACCURACY...or is it becoming more of "who can get the biggest, fattest, and heaviest log to fly into the target and hit something.....and knock the bale over with impact???

Just cuz the mega-shafts, 27's, 26's etc are around and being used...does that maintain INTEGRITY? Or does it just maintain profits and the arms race and the egos of the USA shooters? IMHO, those huge things are not NEEDED....they seem to be only WANTED....cuz people think they can BUY the higher scores and X-counts without working for them...the MORE IS BETTER thing so rampant in this game today.

field14


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 2, 2004)

field14 said:


> Interesting about the "being able to get in between the lines and score the higher value."
> 
> THAT is at issue with today's indoor game...its INTEGRITY, IMHO....It is to the point that a person, if they have a long enough draw length and heavy enough poundage...OR, can figure out how to get the mega-shafts to fly, can literally shoot 1/4 of his/her arrow that cuts OUTSIDE of the 1-ring line and still get a baby-x on it (for Vegas rounds), or be nearly halfway out in the "gold", and still shoot a "10". Of course, you also gotta have the money and "contacts" in order to get those mega-shafts specially made for you...but they ARE available commercially....AT A HIGH PRICE...but nonetheless available to pretty much everyone??
> INTEGRITY and being realistic, IMHO....is this game going to continue about SHOOTER ACCURACY...or is it becoming more of "who can get the biggest, fattest, and heaviest log to fly into the target and hit something.....and knock the bale over with impact???
> ...


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up 
Couldn't have said it better myself. 

Vittorio, thanks for sharing the insights.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Thank you for enlightening us Vittorio. I am just a little curious, would a 10mm max size not have left a little room for the unknowns as well as solving the (then) current issues?


In FITA rules, the outside of the arrow should touch the dividing line to score, and the line is inside the smaller area. 
With 9.3 mm if an arrow touches the smaller area line of the X10, you will still see the yellow between it and the 10 line, and viceversa. It means, also in presence of damaged faces, it is still possible to easily define if arrow scores an X10 or not. Principle is different in IFAA rules, as arrow has to cross the line, so basically considering the same position on the face for the centre of the shaft, you will need a fatter arrow to score an X10. As line is 1 mm max for the X10 ring, if the face is printed with same tolerances and concepts of a FITA approved faces, you will basically need at least 1.1 mm more on the radius to get the same score. It means, in IFAA rules the shaft should be around 11.5 mm. to score equivalent to the 9.3 mm in the FITA rules.
Arrow maximum diameter, maximum bow poundage, face design, face tolerance , scoring rules, and consistence of the buttress surface are all related toghether. Can't change one without considering the impact of the change on the other parameters.


----------



## x-cutter (May 20, 2003)

The difference in FITA and the US organizations is that FITA is making the rules for the betterment of the game and the NFAA leadership seems to feel the manufacturers should make the rules. At least the ones who are throwing the money around. I personally bel;ieve that is the board and directors responsiblity is to make the rules for the betterment and advancement of the game and the manufacturers should comply to those rules. I dont have a problem with a phase in period so that the manufacturers know it is coming but after talking with Bruce Cull he feels the only issue at hand is target damage and that diameter should not have a ceiling. My guess is that will only be while Easton has the competetive advantage with the biggest shaft


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

do you really feel like the larger arrows give someone a shooting advantage?


----------



## psargeant (Aug 1, 2004)

dead eye dick said:


> do you really feel like the larger arrows give someone a shooting advantage?


Shooting advantage, No...scoring advantage...maybe...I know my score jumped when I went to 2613's from 2212's. Nothing else was different...I expect my scores to come down a bit this year indoor now that I will be shooting 23 size arrows...I hope I'm wrong...


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

dead eye dick said:


> do you really feel like the larger arrows give someone a shooting advantage?


It’s really difficult to calculate without rigorous testing but consider this, if you are a 295 Vegas shooter with 2315's and the five shots you missed were no more than a 1/32” from touching the ten ring then yes using a 2712 could improve your scoring.. To what degree is the quandary...:wink:


----------



## x-cutter (May 20, 2003)

Absolutely, no question about it. Especially in the Pro Division where everything comes down to micromillimeters in being in or out. I saw Dave win two tourneys including Vegas with a call in that would have not been there with a smaller arrow. Not to take anything away from him shooting so well but yes, it makes a difference. The whole idea is that with a 23 diamtier size there is an arrow to fit everyone and the playing field is level. Manufacturers can then build variety for the archers in that O.D. or streamline their production. It is a win win but Easton's money is influencing fair play. That is all it boils down to.


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

ok but what about chance shooting for the million in hartford with very large gold tips it didnt help him and he is one of the best out there?


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

those who can't execute complain. When will can we expect goldtip's lawsuit against easton on the basis of it not being fair that only one company can reap the rewards of high quality processes and intelligent design?


Who is John Gault regards,


----------



## x-cutter (May 20, 2003)

Those were not really arrows yet and they needed to be indexed a certain way and I think he got the one he missed mixed up and nocked it wrong. He only missed 3 supers. Do you think it made a difference?


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

x-cutter said:


> The difference in FITA and the US organizations is that FITA is making the rules for the betterment of the game and the NFAA leadership seems to feel the manufacturers should make the rules. At least the ones who are throwing the money around. I personally bel;ieve that is the board and directors responsiblity is to make the rules for the betterment and advancement of the game and the manufacturers should comply to those rules. I dont have a problem with a phase in period so that the manufacturers know it is coming but after talking with Bruce Cull he feels the only issue at hand is target damage and that diameter should not have a ceiling. My guess is that will only be while Easton has the competetive advantage with the biggest shaft


Exactly.....imagine if the PGA, NFL, MLB etc allowed the manufacters to set the equipment boundries.......


----------



## Tuningfreak (Apr 6, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> Exactly.....imagine if the PGA, NFL, MLB etc allowed the manufacters to set the equipment boundries.......


and you can add the NHL to your list too! Wasn't but a couple years ago they changed the equipment the goalies can wear to try and increase scoring. I do not recall any controversy over that because equipment companies got involved.

My personnal opinion, as a NFAA member, is we *need* an arrow limit that aligns with the international organizations.

Does anybody have any idea where this entire matter currently stands.....has anything been drafted for the coming annual meeting.....is the process by which it was re-voted on being challenged?


----------



## Tuningfreak (Apr 6, 2004)

SuperX said:


> those who can't execute complain. When will can we expect goldtip's lawsuit against easton on the basis of it not being fair that only one company can reap the rewards of high quality processes and intelligent design?
> 
> 
> Who is John Gault regards,



I do not believe for 1 minute that this is about "high quality processes and intelligent design"!!

What do processes and design have to do with the bid 'D' influencing the NFAA in NFAA matters?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> those who can't execute complain. When will can we expect goldtip's lawsuit against easton on the basis of it not being fair that only one company can reap the rewards of high quality processes and intelligent design?
> 
> 
> Who is John Gault regards,


I don't think that's entirely fair. Any company can build a bad or mediocre arrow to the set specs (whatever they become) and market it. I don't look at this as anyone being unable to compete in the arrow building venue at all, but purely heading off technology carried to ludicrous proportions. 

That would be John Galt (unless he has a Gallic counterpart) and apparently only Dagny knows:wink:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> I don't think that's entirely fair. Any company can build a bad or mediocre arrow to the set specs (whatever they become) and market it. I don't look at this as anyone being unable to compete in the arrow building venue at all, but purely heading off technology carried to ludicrous proportions.
> 
> That would be John Galt (unless he has a Gallic counterpart) and apparently only Dagny knows:wink:


60 cars at 60MPH is only fair for everyone since not everyone can afford the research it takes to invent Reardon Metal.

Taggert Transcontinental regards,


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Tuningfreak said:


> I do not believe for 1 minute that this is about "high quality processes and intelligent design"!!
> 
> What do processes and design have to do with the bid 'D' influencing the NFAA in NFAA matters?


then explain this


> The whole idea is that with a 23 diamtier size there is an arrow to fit everyone and the playing field is level. Manufacturers can then build variety for the archers in that O.D. or streamline their production. It is a win win but Easton's money is influencing fair play. That is all it boils down to.



why bother with improving processes or designing better products when everyone is playing on a level field and every manufacturer can benefit from old "proven" designs and reduce their costs by cutting corners and outsourcing to low cost offshore locations, always safe in the knowledge that nobody will be able to surpass them in technology or investment... after all fair is fair.


----------



## USNarcher (Oct 12, 2002)

SuperX said:


> those who can't execute complain.


I've never heard you complain. :tongue:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

USNarcher said:


> I've never heard you complain. :tongue:


Obviously I suck on multiple levels


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> 60 cars at 60MPH is only fair for everyone since not everyone can afford the research it takes to invent Reardon Metal.
> 
> Taggert Transcontinental regards,


I think what is missing here is the basic goal of the sport. Is it precision shooting to score or to obliterate as much of the target face as possible in lieu of accuracy?

The very thing you are arguing for on the manufacturer end works against you on the competitor side. In other words should a shooter be able to compliment his scoring by the use of a larger shaft in order to reduce mariginal misses? Should biggies be allowed so someone doesn't have to work as hard on their shooting ability to score the same as someone who does?

Now from a manufacturing and technology side. It's stupid to waste effort producing a product which is a technical dead end. Fat arrows get fatter, big deal, nobody really wants to shoot em and the industry is going to see no benefit from the set ups needed to launch the damn things. It goes nowhere. 

Get rid of speed limits and stress accuracy again and you may see some technical improvement. Bows that are able to go lower than 5gpp safely and arrows with better structure and materials to handle it.

There are a lot of ways to drive technology, but fat arrows is not a good choice.

Insert reference to small Colorado Hills town where our hero is found, here:wink:


----------



## andy1996 (Feb 15, 2004)

SuperX said:


> Obviously I suck on multiple levels


Now Matt; you need to chill out on the low blows--Oh yeah youre a blowie:wink:, it's not our fault that Crystal drank the Easton Kool Aid. :wink::jksign:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> I think what is missing here is the basic goal of the sport. Is it precision shooting to score or to obliterate as much of the target face as possible in lieu of accuracy?
> 
> The very thing you are arguing for on the manufacturer end works against you on the competitor side. In other words should a shooter be able to compliment his scoring by the use of a larger shaft in order to reduce mariginal misses? Should biggies be allowed so someone doesn't have to work as hard on their shooting ability to score the same as someone who does?
> 
> ...


plenty of people want them - look at the number who used them including the example used above who admittedly won 2 shoots with the 2712's. Sounds like not everyone can actually make them though and so we should invalidate the advantages of those who could to keep the playing field nice and level and let manufacturers "streamline their manufacturing processes". Oh and if that means that Dave doesn't get to win SLC or Vegas without them, that is not the intention, it isn't goldtips fault that scores went down after all they weren't trying to lower scores just make the things fair for everyone and you can't fault them for that - it is only fair. 


Shades of Jim Taggert regards,


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

andy1996 said:


> Now Matt; you need to chill out on the low blows--Oh yeah youre a blowie:wink:, it's not our fault that Crystal drank the Easton Kool Aid. :wink::jksign:



Didn't you use my hooter shooter on your favorite brand of arrows? How did that work out for you? :wink::zip:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Same ole crap in this game.>>BUY the scores, MORE is better...and unless a size restriction is put in...then 1.5" diameter arrows could be around the corner and the "subject manufacturer's" friend on the bow building side...has probably already gotten the shoot thru bow riser designs on the board with the cut-out to make the 1.5" Diameter arrows a go. (Well, maybe not 1.5" diameter...but you get the message).

The INTEGRITY of the indoor game is at stake here...and it will become no longer an accuracy game, but rather....give the strongest and stoutest and longest drawlength and highest poundage people an insurmountable advantage...when there is NO SIZE LIMIT AT ALL....and the rest suffer.

At that point, those in the game for ACCURACY will see the writing on the wall...and the indoor game could cease to exist.

Those FAT mega-shafts are by no meand NEEDED...only "wanted" by a small minority of shooters that THINK they give them higher "scores".

Make a shaft size limit, and the shooters will comply; go with an UNLIMITED shaft size...and you will see, in a short time the 1" or 1.5" shaft diameters! 

The ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE...is simple...let the NFAA and WAF go with NO shaft size limits....but the LOCAL CLUBS that host the majority of the tournaments can undermine this ....make a shaft size limit...so that the ONLY places the mega-shafts can be used are at 3-6 tournaments a year (and let the NFAA try to figure out how to get host clubs for the state and sectional tournaments. 

Lancaster's put in a shaft size limit 4 days before the tournament and it was a success in 2008....sure, they restricted it at 2712...but the mega-shaft didn't come into play.

I now see that the NFAA leader, according to the postings above....has his mind made up that NO LIMIT is the name of the NFAA/WAF...NOW...go and try to change that...if you can.

I'll That still doesn't justify ruining the integrity of the INDOOR GAME by turning it into a game of "close counts in hand-grenades, horseshoes, nuclear weapons, and now, the NFAA/WAF!

Personally I think the no shaft size limit is STUPID...and will never mince any words about it...even if some might think that I "have a personal agenda that doesn't support the organization or archery in general." I'll bet you can bet which way I voted in my State and to my State Director...but...a "yes" vote was given...problem is....which "yes"
A. A YES to have a shaft size restriction? OR
B. A YES to have UNLIMITED SHAFT SIZE remain...

NOBODY has said which "yes" it is? only that a "yes" would be sent to the National meeting...now how VAGUE is that one?:tongue:

I hope to high heaven that I've read all of this WRONG and that indeed the wiser heads have prevailed during this "research period of ONE YEAR"...and that a shaft size limit is emminent. Because, IMHO, kiss the indoor game good-bye if there is no limit on arrow size in the NFAA/WAF.

field14


----------



## x-cutter (May 20, 2003)

I can only tell you about the conversations I had with Bruce Cull at the Nationals where he made the reference that NASCAR is the most popular sport in the world and a lot of that because everyone runs the same tires. He doesn't even want to revisit the arrow size under any reason other than the target damage debate. In all fairness though, he did make the comment that he though there was a rush to judgment without a fair debate for such a impactful rule and that the democratic process would be done to make the right decision. I am just a little irritated by some of the comments made that favored one manufacturer over another, especially when I believe the directors job is to establish the rules of the game for the betterment of the game. It is not the responsibility of special interest to influence this decision making process.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

SuperX said:


> plenty of people want them - look at the number who used them including the example used above who admittedly won 2 shoots with the 2712's. Sounds like not everyone can actually make them though and so we should invalidate the advantages of those who could to keep the playing field nice and level and let manufacturers "streamline their manufacturing processes". Oh and if that means that Dave doesn't get to win SLC or Vegas without them, that is not the intention, it isn't goldtips fault that scores went down after all they weren't trying to lower scores just make the things fair for everyone and you can't fault them for that - it is only fair.
> 
> 
> Shades of Jim Taggert regards,


They WANT them, but they do NOT NEED them....

In addition, the mega-shafts were and are NOT available for the general public...yet....

If they want to set a limit at 2712, I don't think many of us have a problem with that, really....but to have it totally free and unlimited...and you WILL have a "real arms race" going....from the most recent mega-shaft to full stabilizer blanks or bigger yet...just to see who can out-do whom and get that edge at the big tournaments by perhaps SURPRISE..by bringing on something bigger yet than from the previous tournament.

Where will it end? It HAS started, because certain organizations were NOT proactive and headed things off right away....the NAA dealt with a 1" shaft diameter IMMEDIATELY, or close to it, and established the 2315 limit YEARS AGO...but no...the other "orgs" were REACTIVE and waited until things got out of hand...and then decided to try to take action...and are meeting a brick wall in the head shed of the organization, AND a major manufacturer that won't give up a piece of the pie....

field14


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

field14 said:


> Same ole crap in this game.>>BUY the scores, MORE is better...and unless a size restriction is put in...then 1.5" diameter arrows could be around the corner and the "subject manufacturer's" friend on the bow building side...has probably already gotten the shoot thru bow riser designs on the board with the cut-out to make the 1.5" Diameter arrows a go. (Well, maybe not 1.5" diameter...but you get the message).
> 
> The INTEGRITY of the indoor game is at stake here...and it will become no longer an accuracy game, but rather....give the strongest and stoutest and longest drawlength and highest poundage people an insurmountable advantage...when there is NO SIZE LIMIT AT ALL....and the rest suffer.
> 
> ...


If you want to "save the integrity of the indoor game" Tom, do me two favors. 1) start shooting in earnest instead of sitting in your armchair quibbling, and 2) put in drug testing for the NFAA.

Until you do 1, your opinion is no more credible than a passerby on the street, and until we do 2, who cares how big the arrows are if you can legally stoke up on what ever beta blockers are out there. 

Cart before the horse regards,


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

field14 said:


> They WANT them, but they do NOT NEED them....
> 
> In addition, the mega-shafts were and are NOT available for the general public...yet....
> 
> ...


wrong... dave NEEDED every 1/64th to win Vegas. 


Baby needs a new pair of shoes regards,


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

*Level Playing Fields*

The ONLY level playing field in archery is the NASP where you get a random bow and random arrows every time you go to the line and every bow is identical and every arrow is identical (in theory anyway).

If you really want to level the playing field then let a child lead the way!


Wait, that won't work, someone will complain that you should only be alllowed size 81/2 tennis shoes to shoot in - those size 14 flippers are too big and provide an unfair advantage in stability.


Where are my PF Flyers regards?


----------



## USNarcher (Oct 12, 2002)

x-cutter said:


> I can only tell you about the conversations I had with Bruce Cull at the Nationals where he made the reference that NASCAR is the most popular sport in the world and a lot of that because everyone runs the same tires. He doesn't even want to revisit the arrow size under any reason other than the target damage debate. In all fairness though, he did make the comment that he though there was a rush to judgment without a fair debate for such a impactful rule and that the democratic process would be done to make the right decision. I am just a little irritated by some of the comments made that favored one manufacturer over another, especially when I believe the directors job is to establish the rules of the game for the betterment of the game. It is not the responsibility of special interest to influence this decision making process.


Tim, that's when you should have mentioned why NASCAR implemented restrictor plates.


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

SuperX said:


> If you want to "save the integrity of the indoor game" Tom, do me two favors. 1) start shooting in earnest instead of sitting in your armchair quibbling, and 2) put in drug testing for the NFAA.
> 
> Until you do 1, your opinion is no more credible than a passerby on the street, and until we do 2, who cares how big the arrows are if you can legally stoke up on what ever beta blockers are out there.
> 
> Cart before the horse regards,


ARE YOU SAYING THAT SOME OF THE BEST SHOOTERS IN THE WORLD ARE INGESTING AIMING OILS????????????


I want to try my hand at a magical pill can somebody hook a brother up????


Oh, arrow size..... I don't care I won with 24's and then 26's and took a car home with a carbon. The game decides the arrow size to me..... The NFAA game is shootem as big as you can getum!:tongue::tongue::tongue::zip::wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> plenty of people want them - look at the number who used them including the example used above who admittedly won 2 shoots with the 2712's. Sounds like not everyone can actually make them though and so we should invalidate the advantages of those who could to keep the playing field nice and level and let manufacturers "streamline their manufacturing processes". Oh and if that means that Dave doesn't get to win SLC or Vegas without them, that is not the intention, it isn't goldtips fault that scores went down after all they weren't trying to lower scores just make the things fair for everyone and you can't fault them for that - it is only fair.
> 
> 
> Shades of Jim Taggert regards,


You are trying to make it sound as if high scores are an entitlement and they are not. If someone can't make SLC or win Vegas with a size restricted arrow that is their problem. The only reason anyone wants those shafts is because someone else has them. Some other arrow hawking pro will want their shaft company to one up that and so on.Stop trying to make this about a bunch of meanies holding back the poor downtrodden shaft maker who, shucks just happened to make a fat shaft and gee whiz shouldn't we all just be gosh darn filled to burstin with gratitude that they graced the sport with this super new technological wonder. Archery's equivalent of a shotgun for small bore rifle targetsAny manufacturer can make those damn shafts and nobody sees a future in it.

Just a little curious that FITA did not have this hue and cry over an obvious rule necessity.


----------



## gjarcher (Oct 26, 2006)

Its a game ... once you figure out how to play it, its still a game. Golf has had many rulings on equipment ... it changed scores, changed some techniques, but its still the same game. If you feel larger shafts give you an advantage or keep you even with the competition, then shoot them. 

I am in favor of the 'inside-out' scoring for shoot offs ... levels the playing field, IMHO 

I can get a dozen broom sticks cheap, I just need to find an arrow rest and fletching jig to handle them :wink:


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Just a little curious that FITA did not have this hue and cry over an obvious rule necessity.


Easy. Few compound shooters in this country give a crap about FITA.

The NAA Nationals is held at multiple locations around the country while the NFAA Nationals is held at one location and late in the year when many shooters have already moved outdoors.

Senior men's compound (that's adult men, pros included, for those that don't know) combined with the Masters 50+, 60+ and 70+ added up to about 289 male compound shooters.

The NFAA Nationals on one weekend got about 520 adult male freestyle shooters when combining all age groups pro and amatuer. Who knows how big that number would be if it were held earlier in the year and at multiple locations.

I understand the need for some kind of restriction but I think it's foolish to hold up FITA as the ideal when they've had so little success attracting compound shooters.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Hutnicks said:


> You are trying to make it sound as if high scores are an entitlement and they are not. If someone can't make SLC or win Vegas with a size restricted arrow that is their problem. The only reason anyone wants those shafts is because someone else has them. Some other arrow hawking pro will want their shaft company to one up that and so on.Stop trying to make this about a bunch of meanies holding back the poor downtrodden shaft maker who, shucks just happened to make a fat shaft and gee whiz shouldn't we all just be gosh darn filled to burstin with gratitude that they graced the sport with this super new technological wonder. Archery's equivalent of a shotgun for small bore rifle targetsAny manufacturer can make those damn shafts and nobody sees a future in it.
> 
> Just a little curious that FITA did not have this hue and cry over an obvious rule necessity.


Yep, I am sure there is demand for hotter golf balls, but it ain't happening if they exceed limits set by the governing org of golf in the US, the USGA. There is a market for it out there for sure, but the poor golf ball makers are not hurting by producing golf balls that are legal for the game of golf.

It really is common sense to have a limit somewhere. I fail to see how this is hard to understand by some.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

ShakesTheClown said:


> Easy. Few compound shooters in this country give a crap about FITA.
> 
> The NAA Nationals is held at multiple locations around the country while the NFAA Nationals is held at one location and late in the year when many shooters have already moved outdoors.
> 
> ...


I'm not holding them up as an ideal. It's simply they defined a need for an arrow size restriction acted upon it and were successful in doing it. Think it would be worth a look from a process point of view. Really has nothing to do with compound, recurve, or anything but, apparently, the size of shaft as related to the target face and scoring rings. That makes it a reasonable model to look at. (I think):wink:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> Really has nothing to do with compound, recurve, or anything but, apparently, the size of shaft as related to the target face and scoring rings.


EXACTLY!!

If the org can't see this, they can't see much. It had better get it done next year.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> I'm not holding them up as an ideal. It's simply they defined a need for an arrow size restriction acted upon it and were successful in doing it. Think it would be worth a look from a process point of view. Really has nothing to do with compound, recurve, or anything but, apparently, the size of shaft as related to the target face and scoring rings. That makes it a reasonable model to look at. (I think):wink:


It has a lot to do with compounds. The NFAA is, overwhelmingly, a compound organization. FITA is all about recurves. Additionally, the fattest shafts have never been embraced by the recurve crowd and for good reason. They'd be tough, if not impossible to tune. So, when you're talking arrow size restrictions you're talking about an issue that is very compound specific.

But, ultimately, what it's really about and the NFAA's only real responsibility is participation.

Participation at indoor shoots is generally up, or so I'm told. Certainly Vegas grows every year...nearly to the point of needing another shooting time. I don't know, but are NFAA Nationals and Vegas the two biggest indoor shoots in the world? At least of all shoots held at one location I bet.

If participation is steady or growing then certainly we don't have an integrity issue....yet. If sizes continue to increase, perhaps.

As for buying scores and implying that things are getting too easy...keep in mind that no one in compound flights cleaned Vegas this year and that the winner of the last flight shot 798/900. We've got a long way to go before it gets too easy.

About this nonsense of us adopting the "International Standard" for arrow size. Well, there just isn't such a thing.

FITA certainly has the 9.3 rule. They are one international organization and the NAA is a member of FITA.

The IFAA, admittedly the smaller international orangization, does not, I believe, have an arrow size limit. The NFAA is a member of the IFAA, not FITA.

If accepting FITA's rule about arrow size is the correct thing to do then wouldn't it follow that we adopt their indoor round and inner 10 scoring as well? If one is good doing both should be even better! Vegas participation would drop by 50% in two years if that were to happen.

I think it's important to note as well that if the NFAA adopts an arrow size restriction that such a rule only directly affects ONE national tournament...indoor nationals in Louisville. Vegas, Pittsburgh, Utah Open, Iowa Pro am, Lancaster, etc, do not have to follow suit. The NFAA rule book has no power over these shoots.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

x-cutter said:


> I can only tell you about the conversations I had with Bruce Cull at the Nationals where he made the reference that NASCAR is the most popular sport in the world and a lot of that because everyone runs the same tires. He doesn't even want to revisit the arrow size under any reason other than the target damage debate. In all fairness though, he did make the comment that he though there was a rush to judgment without a fair debate for such a impactful rule and that the democratic process would be done to make the right decision. I am just a little irritated by some of the comments made that favored one manufacturer over another, especially when I believe the directors job is to establish the rules of the game for the betterment of the game. It is not the responsibility of special interest to influence this decision making process.


I can't imagine target manufacturers doing any complaining about something that would result in them selling more targets. Is there some sort of debate going on with Bruce about target manufactures not wanting the large shafts?


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> You are trying to make it sound as if high scores are an entitlement and they are not. If someone can't make SLC or win Vegas with a size restricted arrow that is their problem. The only reason anyone wants those shafts is because someone else has them. Some other arrow hawking pro will want their shaft company to one up that and so on.Stop trying to make this about a bunch of meanies holding back the poor downtrodden shaft maker who, shucks just happened to make a fat shaft and gee whiz shouldn't we all just be gosh darn filled to burstin with gratitude that they graced the sport with this super new technological wonder. Archery's equivalent of a shotgun for small bore rifle targetsAny manufacturer can make those damn shafts and nobody sees a future in it.
> 
> Just a little curious that FITA did not have this hue and cry over an obvious rule necessity.



wow lots of thoughts here.

1. 27/64ths shafts have been around for a couple decades and were never illegal.
2. Gold Tip is the only one proclaiming that they are downtrodden and the only ones trying to force something with 1.5" arrows.
3. easton does their best to meet the needs of their customers, McKinney & Victory competes head to head and Gold Tip complains and tries to get the rules changed so they can streamline manufacturing processes and keep the playing field level.
4. FITA is practically a dictatorship compared to the NFAA and WAF and the internet wasn't lthe same as it is now when they made the change. Just read the FITA section to see how sedate and civilized things are now.
5. If someone chooses to shoot smaller arrows and can't win SLC or Vegas it is their problem not Eastons. 
6. when there was a million dollars on the line for Chance - he shot stabilizers with points at Hartford and only missed 2 or 3 X's all day.
7. don't be grateful for what Easton does for archery - blame them for the ills of the game. just don't expect an invitation to Colorado :wink:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

gjarcher said:


> Its a game ... once you figure out how to play it, its still a game. Golf has had many rulings on equipment ... it changed scores, changed some techniques, but its still the same game. If you feel larger shafts give you an advantage or keep you even with the competition, then shoot them.
> 
> I am in favor of the 'inside-out' scoring for shoot offs ... levels the playing field, IMHO
> 
> I can get a dozen broom sticks cheap, I just need to find an arrow rest and fletching jig to handle them :wink:


how about this - shoot what ya brung, but score all the rings. If there is an X ring on the target, make it a 6 or an 11 or what ever. Every ring is on the target for a reason so why not score them? Now inside out doesn't matter just hitting that smallest of aiming areas.

Just think, you could miss a 10 at Vegas on the first day, shoot 85-88 X's and still win by 15 or 20 points! No more shoot offs except in NFAA Blue Face which already goes to inside out scoring and recently had something like 20 extra ends with fat shafts... hmmm let's make the X even smaller on the blue face target too - that will help make sure that only the very best archer will ever win.

The elite will always rise to the top - no need to give the 2nd best any equalizers at all. The smaller the ring the less room for the 2nd best to hit inside of - one thing is true, the best will always hit the smallest point more consistently than the 2nd best. making things inside out scoring only hurts those who can't hit the center


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

ShakesTheClown said:


> It has a lot to do with compounds. The NFAA is, overwhelmingly, a compound organization. FITA is all about recurves. Additionally, the fattest shafts have never been embraced by the recurve crowd and for good reason. They'd be tough, if not impossible to tune. So, when you're talking arrow size restrictions you're talking about an issue that is very compound specific.
> 
> But, ultimately, what it's really about and the NFAA's only real responsibility is participation.
> 
> ...


Fat shafts started out with English Warbows around an inch in diameter back then:wink:

Seriously I am not saying jump on the FITA limit. I AM saying look at the reasoning and process behind the decision. I think 9.3 is probably too small right now and in around the 10 mm mark is probably more in line. Once again it is about arrow diameter in relation to target and scoring ring size. Once you make that determination the issue really has nothing to do with bow type. Round type and scoring has nothing to do with it as well. This is purely an academic issue with target size vs arrow size ratios involved.

Also of interest, has anyone actually ever seen any design rationale for the perfect size arrow? There must have been some egghead somewhere who's done some modeling on the issue:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> You are trying to make it sound as if high scores are an entitlement and they are not.



High scores are earned with years of practice and the constant honing of every aspect of an archer's game. 

Some feel that by the act of participating in archery the should be entitled to the same privileges and respect and rewards as those who built modern archery and who continue to do so. They feel entitled - and to them I say go earn it don't collude and conive to change the rules of the game when you can't compete.


Heck there must be a huge market for kite stakes in China!


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> wow lots of thoughts here.
> 
> 1. 27/64ths shafts have been around for a couple decades and were never illegal.
> 2. Gold Tip is the only one proclaiming that they are downtrodden and the only ones trying to force something with 1.5" arrows.
> ...


1 Things change

2 Easton is also trying to play the victim here claiming hardship if the product line is not allowed.

3 I see it as attempting to head of a size war which eventually goes nowhere. There is no technical benefit to the fat arrow in any discipline of archery, it's a dead end, period.

4 You know I've been there and had the rabble run me off with Shuttle inuendo.:wink: Besides you know it's all about quiver weight there anyhow:wink:

5 Yes it is, and conversely if someone cannot win it without large ones, hire a coach.

6 I'm paying some guy a meg to shoot he better be worth it and that means arrow placement not the most target area coverage per "shaft" he can buy.

7 Galt's Gulch will have to wait I fear, for all Easton has done for the sport and there is much there. It does not excuse Dictation of terms. Sometimes one can get too absorbed in their enthusiasms and end up achieving the opposite of their original intent.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> High scores are earned with years of practice and the constant honing of every aspect of an archer's game.
> 
> Some feel that by the act of participating in archery the should be entitled to the same privileges and respect and rewards as those who built modern archery and who continue to do so. They feel entitled - and to them I say go earn it don't collude and conive to change the rules of the game when you can't compete.
> 
> ...


By the same token you can cite collusion to gain an advantage by effectively tightening the scoring rings by a method clearly never intended. Fess up, folks found a workaround to their advantage, got called on it and now don't want to let go of it. Heck why not just shoot from 14 meters to get the same effect?:wink:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> 1 Things change
> 
> 2 Easton is also trying to play the victim here claiming hardship if the product line is not allowed.
> 
> ...


Can you imagine the advantage of an arrow made of Reardon metal? Pleather, Leather ha! Nothing would be able to contain it.

the looters stole my longer more thoughtful reply with a silly message about the server being too busy - is this the beginning of the end? 


It was Galt's gulch but Hugh Akston's valley 

Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastián d’Anconia regards,


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> By the same token you can cite collusion to gain an advantage by effectively tightening the scoring rings by a method clearly never intended. Fess up, folks found a workaround to their advantage, got called on it and now don't want to let go of it. Heck why not just shoot from 14 meters to get the same effect?:wink:


no collusion - let's make the elite more elite. 


X marks the spot regards,


----------



## Radman (Sep 19, 2003)

Let them keep their extra large arrows. Just add one additional rule. "All tie breaker rounds will be scored inside out. And you must use the same arrow in the shoot-off that got you there." That way the membership can decide what they want to use.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> Can you imagine the advantage of an arrow made of Reardon metal? Pleather, Leather ha! Nothing would be able to contain it.
> 
> the looters stole my longer more thoughtful reply with a silly message about the server being too busy - is this the beginning of the end?
> 
> ...


I think it's telling us to run off and shoot somewhere far away. How's your Conrad, I hear Sulaco is looking to found an archery team, supposed to be nice this time of year:wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> no collusion - let's make the elite more elite.
> 
> 
> X marks the spot regards,


Oh come on, you KNOW that if you actually wanted to separate the Elite from the rest of us scrapes, You'd be shooting 50m indoors on that same target and out to 120 on a 30 percent sidehill slope for Field:wink:

Do that, and folk will stop paying attention to the damn arrows:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> How's your Conrad


Not so good unless you mean the guy who wants you to knock the battery off his shoulder


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> Not so good unless you mean the guy who wants you to knock the battery off his shoulder


Well there you go, a little light reading while you wait for the peons to find their arrows on the next station:

Not quite objectivist, but worth a look.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

SuperX said:


> If you want to "save the integrity of the indoor game" Tom, do me two favors. 1) start shooting in earnest instead of sitting in your armchair quibbling, and 2) put in drug testing for the NFAA.
> 
> Until you do 1, your opinion is no more credible than a passerby on the street, and until we do 2, who cares how big the arrows are if you can legally stoke up on what ever beta blockers are out there.
> 
> Cart before the horse regards,


First let me address something here, as a PAID UP NFAA member, I have the RIGHT to quibble and to express my opinion..>MORE SO than any of the "unpaid" and non-NFAA members have. You say a PAID UP MEMBER is no more credible than a passer-by on the street? PHOOEY on that bunch of baloney; you are out of step with how the NFAA is SUPPOSED to be operating.

DRUG TESTING has notthing to do with this thread....so that is not the issue at the fore-front of this debate....Start another thread for drug testing, and be ready for a HUGE argument there.

As far as my opinion being credible....who are YOU to say? I could easily say that YOUR opinion isn't credible either.

The "Cart before the horse" is the issue at the forefront of this debate, shaft size limits. And the CART is the railroading that is going on by those that figure the ONLY ISSUE is bale damage, and couldn't care less about the future of the indoor game nor its integrity. The issue Bruce and the leadership WILL have to face...is simple...the voices of the membership that voted in the many polls from their states. Sure, most states probably had a very low % of their "paid-up" members vote...but that is the fault of those that sit on their duffs and won't do anything; or those that want to continue to buy their scores, take from the game, and give nothing in return.

The polls here on AT and other polls I'm privy too..have ALL and I do mean ALL indicated that the majority of "ARCHERS" (notice the caps and "archers" and not "shooters) WANT A SHAFT SIZE LIMIT." So credibility is with regard to the polls, and the numbers don't lie.

Bruce Cull is NOT the super mob boss of the NFAA, he is an elected president, as are the Directors, etc....by the PAID UP MEMBERS, of which I am one. 
IF he is doing what he is supposed to be doing, then by golly, if the majority of the MEMBERSHIP wants a shaft size limit...then the MEMBERSHIP VOICES should prevail, and not Bruce's, not the "directors PERSONAL OPINONS", definitely not a certain manufacturer with biased interests at heart...but the voices of the MEMBERSHIP of the NFAA. Who's organization is the NFAA? The Pres., Directors, and Councilmen, or does it belong to the MEMBERSHIP?

But...there is an "issue" wisely set up several years back with the formation of the WAF...the NFAA membership has SQUAT to say about the WAF....and the WAF is the one running those "successful" shoots each year INDOORS, and couldn't care less about the outdoor game.

So, I can, and I will continue to express my opinion that I have by RIGHT as a paid up member of the NFAA, regardless of who likes it or doesn't.

I figure that after 40+ years of continued NFAA membership...that is my paid up RIGHT...and nobody can take it from me...nor will I let them....until such time as I quit paying my dues...and even then...I"ll express an opinion.

field14:wink::tongue::darkbeer:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

The Swami said:


> Yep, I am sure there is demand for hotter golf balls, but it ain't happening if they exceed limits set by the governing org of golf in the US, the USGA. There is a market for it out there for sure, but the poor golf ball makers are not hurting by producing golf balls that are legal for the game of golf.
> 
> It really is common sense to have a limit somewhere. I fail to see how this is hard to understand by some.



Yes, I agree...and after the Big Bertha fad...and people getting BIGGER and BIGGER on club-head sizes...>*I believe the USGA also LIMITED GOLF HEAD SIZE and loft Angle, and number of grooves on the club. They finally, drew a line as the limit. They did the same with the number of dimples on the golfballs and what was inside them too! They did it to keep the INTEGRITY of the game. The club heads were getting so big that a person could just about look down range and just swing the club and hit the ball...and hit it straight too.

Sort of akin to the mega-shafts if allowed to get bigger and the one-upmanship continues...pretty soon...you just point the site any where in the bullseye and if it touches white....it is an X. If it is half way out in the blue 4-ring...it is a "5"....and that is what some of you people favor?

Touch the 9-ring on the vegas face or just inside the ling of the 9/8 ring....and still catch a ten? Is that what you favor? So, you say "shrink the target or go inside-out scoring? Yep...and then who is going to pay the bills for the indoor venues....???? Cuz it sure won't pay for itself with just the PROS and upper echelon shooters....the indoor game will vanish in short-order.

field14


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

How deep is the pit now... can you see The Great Wall yet?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

x-cutter said:


> I can only tell you about the conversations I had with Bruce Cull at the Nationals where he made the reference that NASCAR is the most popular sport in the world and a lot of that because everyone runs the same tires. _He doesn't even want to revisit the arrow size under any reason other than the target damage debate_. In all fairness though, he did make the comment that he though there was a rush to judgment without a fair debate for such a impactful rule and that the democratic process would be done to make the right decision. I am just a little irritated by some of the comments made that favored one manufacturer over another, especially when I believe the directors job is to establish the rules of the game for the betterment of the game. It is not the responsibility of special interest to influence this decision making process.



I don't know about the other PAID NFAA MEMBERS...but I certainly have a problem with the "HE" part of the sentence in red! Whether HE likes it or not...as you put it later on that "he" said the "democratic process" would be done to make the right decision.....well...the "right decision" according to WHOM?
The MEMBERSHIP'S voices? The "personal sentiments of the Pres, and Directors (supposedly duly elected by the membership), special interest groups that are biased? Just WHO will determine the "democratic process."

Whether "HE" likes it or not isn't the point..the point is the MEMBERSHIP is the entity that SHOULD be making that decision thru the honesty and integrity of the directors doing what the membership tells them to.

I'm hoping that the "democratic process" being discussed is the one that is dictated by the membership and not "dictated" by something else....you fill in the "something else items".

field14


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

The Swami said:


> Yep, I am sure there is demand for hotter golf balls, but it ain't happening if they exceed limits set by the governing org of golf in the US, the USGA. There is a market for it out there for sure, but the poor golf ball makers are not hurting by producing golf balls that are legal for the game of golf.
> 
> It really is common sense to have a limit somewhere. I fail to see how this is hard to understand by some.


That goes waaaaay back to the 60's and 70's with the Penfold Ace "cheater balls" which were slightly smaller in diameter to travel farther and give and edge on putts. The R&A and the USGA clamped that one quick enough:wink:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

The Swami said:


> Yep, I am sure there is demand for hotter golf balls, but it ain't happening if they exceed limits set by the governing org of golf in the US, the USGA. There is a market for it out there for sure, but the poor golf ball makers are not hurting by producing golf balls that are legal for the game of golf.
> 
> It really is common sense to have a limit somewhere. I fail to see how this is hard to understand by some.


You aren't under contract to the Diamond, so your vision is suspect....:wink:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

ShakesTheClown said:


> Easy. Few compound shooters in this country give a crap about FITA.
> you can probably say that about most of the recurve shooters as well
> 
> 
> ...


actually, there is a attitude perception with NAA/FITA that many compound shooters seem to have a problem with-




ShakesTheClown said:


> It has a lot to do with compounds. The NFAA is, overwhelmingly, a compound organization. FITA is all about recurves. Additionally, the fattest shafts have never been embraced by the recurve crowd and for good reason. They'd be tough, if not impossible to tune. So, when you're talking arrow size restrictions you're talking about an issue that is very compound specific.
> 
> But, ultimately, what it's really about and the NFAA's only real responsibility is participation.
> the only REAL RESPONSIBILITY of the NfAA is to its membership......period
> ...


very true....but it would also effect state shoots, sectional shoots and MORE THEN LIKELY....the WAF would adopt the rules of the NfAA so most likely all the major indoor shoots would use this same arrow size in the USA




SuperX said:


> no collusion - let's make the elite more elite.
> lets get real....if the elite get anymore elite there wont be but a handful of shooters left....
> 
> 
> ...





Radman said:


> Let them keep their extra large arrows. Just add one additional rule. "All tie breaker rounds will be scored inside out. And you must use the same arrow in the shoot-off that got you there." That way the membership can decide what they want to use.


this would only really effect the top of the top pro shooters...as they are the only shooters in shootdowns....




Hutnicks said:


> Oh come on, you KNOW that if you actually wanted to separate the Elite from the rest of us scrapes, You'd be shooting 50m indoors on that same target and out to 120 on a 30 percent sidehill slope for Field:wink:
> yep....all 8 of those elite shooters
> 
> 
> Do that, and folk will stop paying attention to the damn arrows:





field14 said:


> First let me address something here, as a PAID UP NFAA member, I have the RIGHT to quibble and to express my opinion..>MORE SO than any of the "unpaid" and non-NFAA members have. You say a PAID UP MEMBER is no more credible than a passer-by on the street? PHOOEY on that bunch of baloney; you are out of step with how the NFAA is SUPPOSED to be operating.
> 
> DRUG TESTING has notthing to do with this thread....so that is not the issue at the fore-front of this debate....Start another thread for drug testing, and be ready for a HUGE argument there.
> 
> ...


field you are a VALUED member of any and all archery orgs that you stay in touch with....whether through the internet, locally as a promoter-organizer-volunteer, or by participation at national events.....i can assure you that the NfAA values your membership.....past, present, and future regardless if you participate at a national shoot or not....


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

JAVI said:


> You aren't under contract to the Diamond, so your vision is suspect....:wink:


its funny toss a apple on a shirt or a diamond patch and .....and the rest of us arent supposed to see through the smoke and mirrors

cant wait to see some of the hired hands speak up at the meeting....should PROvide for some good entertainment for the rest of the room


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

OBT,
You and I have discussed the "multiple reasons" why I'm not competing on a very high level anymore. That is my business and my business alone, and how I deal with that issue (or don't deal with it) is the focal point of the problem with my competitive drive or lack thereof.

Too many people think that a person that isn't competing aren't worth the powder to blow them away...and when some people do compete, they are mocked and belittled...and then we wonder why the sport isn't growing..

Prime example is this shaft size issue.....the praise isn't there anymore when a person shoots their first 300 score! What do they get instead...."How many X's did you shoot?" Personal bests are mocked and scoffed at if the "X-count" or baby-X count isn't of a certain number chosen by the elitists or the wannabees.

There is more DISCOURAGEMENT in the game today that there was even 7 or 8 years ago, and so little ENCOURAGEMENT. It is win at all costs, and if it means belittline or demeaning your opponent, so be it...that is what is done!

What I went thru at Vegas two years ago....would have made another person without "mettle" quit archery and never pick up a bow again. However, due to those bozos...I haven't been able to get onto a shooting line in a tournament since...sounds piddly and simple...and asinine...but the asininity came from the two bozos and their big, fat, and non-understanding mouths...open mouth and insert foot...but they may as well as kicked me off the line...becuase one that got back to me...they indeed HAVE kicked me off the shooting lines!

But, I'm not a quitter...but the hobby is MINE, and I make the choices of whether to compete or not...and there isn't a soul on the planet that can MAKE ME compete...either by belittling me, bad-mouthing me, or whatever. I'll do it MY WAY, know what I mean?

Thre isn't much that can go on in this sport that we old farts haven't seen before; often times we know what they are going to pull of before they even know what they are going to pull off. We know the excuses, we know the TRIPE, and we know the GARBAGE.

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## andy1996 (Feb 15, 2004)

SuperX said:


> Didn't you use my hooter shooter on your favorite brand of arrows? How did that work out for you? :wink::zip:


Now that was a low blow!! OUCH!


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

JAVI said:


> You aren't under contract to the Diamond, so your vision is suspect....:wink:


Oh no, vision is clear... as in crystal.  LASIK took care of that.  I can't be drinking anyone's KoolAid, it has too much sugar in it and we all know I am sweet enough already. 

I'm my own man and speak what I believe. I'll probably never be a company man unless they have the same vision as I do for this fine sport. 

I am glad our country's constitution has held up better than the NFAA's. 

Oh yeah, I am a paid up member too, so I have a voice.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

OneBowTie said:


> actually, there is a attitude perception with NAA/FITA that many compound shooters seem to have a problem with-
> 
> True enough and with good reason, I believe. A lot of NAA member still would prefer that no compounds show up.  But, the size restriction and the inner 10 scoring keep quite a few away as well. I believe that if the NFAA were to adopt the 9.3 shaft size limit it would probably help participation at NAA shoots.
> 
> ...


----------



## litegun (Jan 1, 2003)

*Shakes the Clown*

Best answer to the arrow size limits yet. 2712 or smaller forever!!!
JB Hunt


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

litegun said:


> Best answer to the arrow size limits yet. 2712 or smaller forever!!!
> JB Hunt


As the polls on AT revealed months ago....WE (and not just "paid up" NFAA members) want a size restriction; that is a limit, or a line in the sand that nobody goes beyond.

If it is 2712 and smaller, at least there is a LIMIT, and everyone can live with that.

Only a very small MINORITY wanted, in the polls, and most likely in the States that are members of the NFAA to leave the shaft size at UNLIMITED and to just let it go on and on and on...

IF the NFAA and its ELECTED (not dictator-ship) leadership follows the wishes of the NFAA members that took the time to tell their directors what to do....then the NFAA will, most likely at least have a shaft size limit of 2712 (.0425") or smaller.

BUT...we still don't know the "influences" from outside sources and those forces being pushed from within.

What the Pres. of the NFAA wants and what the membership wants may well be two different things.....Chances are the "Official" numbers will never be posted...each member will, almost undoubtedly, have to ask for them individually and pray a lot.:wink::tongue:

I think my state 'voted' (a way less than desirable number of state NFAA members voted, but that figures) to have our director go with the 2712 and smaller limit. But that, for me, is second=hand information from a source that was there at the meeting. The newsletter simply said that a "yes" vote would be taken to the annual NFAA meeting; no further explanation or a re-copy of the voting poll, nor results, was given.

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> field you are a VALUED member of any and all archery orgs that you stay in touch with....whether through the internet, locally as a promoter-organizer-volunteer, or by participation at national events.....i can assure you that the NfAA values your membership.....past, present, and future regardless if you participate at a national shoot or not....




AMEN Field, you know I am just trying to drag you off your bike and back out on the course! You too bowtie.


Geez this old argument comes back up after being safely buried for weeks if not months and I don't know if I should be Taking 5 beta blockers or click click clicking or sizing up and taking the big pill. That will teach me to be listening to that rabbit in the hole.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

The Swami said:


> Oh no, vision is clear... as in crystal.  LASIK took care of that.  I can't be drinking anyone's KoolAid, it has too much sugar in it and we all know I am sweet enough already.
> 
> I'm my own man and speak what I believe. I'll probably never be a company man unless they have the same vision as I do for this fine sport.
> 
> ...


one dollar one vote! Just like it should be toothy


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

andy1996 said:


> Now that was a low blow!! OUCH!


LOL - well truth be told it was your nock pins, wasn't it?


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

JAVI said:


> How deep is the pit now... can you see The Great Wall yet?


Just about - give me a couple hours and we'll be there :tongue:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> Just about - give me a couple hours and we'll be there :tongue:


Well, thats _*one*_ way to get compound into the Olympics:embara:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

field14 said:


> Yes, I agree...and after the Big Bertha fad...and people getting BIGGER and BIGGER on club-head sizes...>*I believe the USGA also LIMITED GOLF HEAD SIZE and loft Angle, and number of grooves on the club. They finally, drew a line as the limit. They did the same with the number of dimples on the golfballs and what was inside them too! They did it to keep the INTEGRITY of the game. The club heads were getting so big that a person could just about look down range and just swing the club and hit the ball...and hit it straight too.
> 
> Sort of akin to the mega-shafts if allowed to get bigger and the one-upmanship continues...pretty soon...you just point the site any where in the bullseye and if it touches white....it is an X. If it is half way out in the blue 4-ring...it is a "5"....and that is what some of you people favor?
> 
> ...


and who did those limitations affect? Tiger? Heck no - it was people like me who can't break 100 who bore the brunt. Now we can't shoot like the pros just because some busy body wanted to protect the "integrity of the game". 

Just like making the arrows smaller, counting the X as 11, or scoring inside out to "protect the integrity of the game" you will only see a bigger gap between the patchless pros and the top echelon. Start counting X's and how many people will stick around after a week of field where they lose by 100+ points but only miss the white a handful of times?


They should all go back to feather filled balls regards,


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

ShakesTheClown said:


> Are you sure? *Have you got that in writing?* The greatest spectacle in archery is the shoot-off at Vegas. Bruce loves having 15 guys up there fighting for that check...and the longer the better. He won't do anything that endangers that.
> 
> As for the NFAA's responsibility, yes it has a responsibility to it's members and that is to continue to promote indoor and field archery. The barometer of how well it's doing it's job is PARTCIPATION. Clearly, it's doing a pretty good job on the indoor game despite this supposed controversy. A controversy that few outside the online community know or care about. I know this from talking to our state director who mounted an aggressive campaign to find out just what members in our state thought about arrow size restriction. The results were interesting. I was suprised to find out how few people had given it any thought. And, btw, only about 20% of the members of this state...and it's a big one...favor the 9.3 rule. Rather, opting for something in the 26 or 27 neighborhood. Just as many wanted no restriction as supported the 9.3 limit. Of course our state director actually polled our membership instead of selling them the 9.3 rule like some old used car.


Why do you talk in shadows? "Our State Director" "This State" "Our State"



Let me borrow your line from above, "Have you got that in writing" 

I would love to read this mounted agressive campaign. Please post the campaign litature and results so the rest of the NFAA directors can mount the same agressive campaign that polls the members of each state and does not sell the 9.3 rule like the some old used car.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> and who did those limitations affect? Tiger? Heck no - it was people like me who can't break 100 who bore the brunt. Now we can't shoot like the pros just because some busy body wanted to protect the "integrity of the game".
> 
> Just like making the arrows smaller, counting the X as 11, or scoring inside out to "protect the integrity of the game" you will only see a bigger gap between the patchless pros and the top echelon. Start counting X's and how many people will stick around after a week of field where they lose by 100+ points but only miss the white a handful of times?
> 
> ...


Tell you what, you want to shoot like Tiger? Start when you're 2 years old, devote your entire life to the sport, practice a million hours a day, get the best coaching money can buy and then practice some more. He didn't get where he is swinging a 3 wood the size of a lawnmower:wink:


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

SuperX said:


> and who did those limitations affect? Tiger? Heck no - it was people like me who can't break 100 who bore the brunt. Now we can't shoot like the pros just because some busy body wanted to protect the "integrity of the game".
> 
> Just like making the arrows smaller, counting the X as 11, or scoring inside out to "protect the integrity of the game" you will only see a bigger gap between the patchless pros and the top echelon. Start counting X's and how many people will stick around after a week of field where they lose by 100+ points but only miss the white a handful of times?
> 
> ...


Why would you expect to be able to play like Tiger if you don't have the ability of Tiger??????

Why do archers expect to compete with the best when they do not have the ability of the best.

It was mentioned if the 27's are not wanted why are so many shooting them. Do you think Tiger would goto a Major with a driver that had the same accuracy and hit 20 yards shorter than another legal driver?


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

Why is it that when any archery organization makes a decision that the majority of the discussion is the effect on the PROs?? The PROs make up the MINORITY of the shooters involved. Regardless of what, if any, size restriction is put in place, the PROs and top echelon shooters are going to continue being just that. They ARE that good.

As an amateur, I aspire to be able to shoot with and compete in the PRO class at some time before I am done with my archery career, but it has nothing to do with the equipment I use. It has to do with the time and effort that I put into it. If I put nothing in, I get nothing out. I am a firm believer that not everyone belongs everywhere. Just because I or anyone else shoots a bow or plays golf, or competes at anything, doesn't mean that we necessarily have to compete with the Pros. The cream ALWAYS rises to the top no matter what. 

What about the rank and file?? How is it gonna affect us, and telling me that it further separates me from the TOP DAWGS dosen't really matter because they are supposed to beat me if they use Nanos and I use 30x's.


----------



## kward598 (Sep 25, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Tell you what, you want to shoot like Tiger? Start when you're 2 years old, devote your entire life to the sport, practice a million hours a day, get the best coaching money can buy and then practice some more. He didn't get where he is swinging a 3 wood the size of a lawnmower:wink:


Couldn't have said it better, seems like in everything poeple always want the most for the least. from being paid the largest wage and buying the cheapest products to having the biggest edge to win with the least amount of effort.. I agree totally


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

Spoon13 said:


> Why is it that when any archery organization makes a decision that the majority of the discussion is the effect on the PROs?? The PROs make up the MINORITY of the shooters involved. Regardless of what, if any, size restriction is put in place, the PROs and top echelon shooters are going to continue being just that. They ARE that good.
> 
> As an amateur, I aspire to be able to shoot with and compete in the PRO class at some time before I am done with my archery career, but it has nothing to do with the equipment I use. It has to do with the time and effort that I put into it. If I put nothing in, I get nothing out. I am a firm believer that not everyone belongs everywhere. Just because I or anyone else shoots a bow or plays golf, or competes at anything, doesn't mean that we necessarily have to compete with the Pros. The cream ALWAYS rises to the top no matter what.
> 
> What about the rank and file?? How is it gonna affect us, and telling me that it further separates me from the TOP DAWGS dosen't really matter because they are supposed to beat me if they use Nanos and I use 30x's.


because people are lazy. society is lazy. most amount of product for least amount of work.

in the instant on nintendo-mcdonalds drive thru-pill popping to get better frame of mind that society is today, they figure if a pro shoots this bow, this arrow, this string........the list goes on and on...they will shoot, no....more like they are entitled to shoot like a pro. i remember something in history....if, as a mortal, you live like a god, and you think like a god, you are a god. much like if you tell a lie long enuff, it becomes truth.

there are those of us that are still old school that understand it is more about personal goal and effort than it is the material that brings success.

do i shoot 'fat' arrows?, yes. do i shoot consistant 60x games?, no. is it less work to shoot 60x games with fat arrows as compared to thinner, more reasonably sized arrows?, no. the amount of physical effort is the same. the difference is mental effort. those who have the desire and will to put the time and practice into their from, shot routine and execution will shoot better scores more consistently with 'reasonable' sized arrows than someone that is a wannabe. those same people that work for their scores will outshoot the 'mcdonalds' or 'nintendo' archer over time.

until the 'wannabes' and 'wish-i-was's learn that you can only buy so many points before natural ability and a concentrated effort make the difference, it will always be like this.


easton playing the 'woe is me' card is hilarious. ok, so now all the people that bought the fat arrows cant use em......gee, did it ever occur to them and those taking their side that they'll need new, smaller arrows.....where will they get them?, hey....there's this company called easton, they make arrows.

easton will put themselves into a position where only they are the sole supplier of a product with those dimensions. once goldtip, victory, and all the others join that 'mega fat' group, easton will do the same thing. not many aluminum arrow suppliers out there. as long as there is a marketing advantage, easton will exploit it, as would any company with good business sense.


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

rock monkey said:


> because people are lazy. society is lazy. most amount of product for least amount of work.
> 
> in the instant on nintendo-mcdonalds drive thru-pill popping to get better frame of mind that society is today, they figure if a pro shoots this bow, this arrow, this string........the list goes on and on...they will shoot, no....more like they are entitled to shoot like a pro. i remember something in history....if, as a mortal, you live like a god, and you think like a god, you are a god. much like if you tell a lie long enuff, it becomes truth.
> 
> ...


So we reward this behavior and try and convince these folks that they don't want to change the rules because it puts them farther away from something they will never get anyway. Got it.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

WV Has Been said:


> It was mentioned if the 27's are not wanted why are so many shooting them. Do you think Tiger would goto a Major with a driver that had the same accuracy and hit 20 yards shorter than another legal driver?


Because no one in their right mind would give that edge to their competition... If my competition is using 2712's then so will I...


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

SuperX said:


> and who did those limitations affect? Tiger? Heck no - it was people like me who can't break 100 who bore the brunt. Now we can't shoot like the pros just because some busy body wanted to protect the "integrity of the game".
> 
> Just like making the arrows smaller, counting the X as 11, or scoring inside out to "protect the integrity of the game" you will only see a bigger gap between the patchless pros and the top echelon. Start counting X's and how many people will stick around after a week of field where they lose by 100+ points but only miss the white a handful of times?
> 
> ...


Actually those limitations set by the PGA don't affect you at all....why because you aren't playing on the PGA...or LPGA :wink: If you are a weekend hacker you have no limitations on club head size...dimples....or grooves. Play with what you want....the stuff is out there.:wink:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> Why would you expect to be able to play like Tiger if you don't have the ability of Tiger??????
> 
> Why do archers expect to compete with the best when they do not have the ability of the best.
> 
> It was mentioned if the 27's are not wanted why are so many shooting them. Do you think Tiger would goto a Major with a driver that had the same accuracy and hit 20 yards shorter than another legal driver?


EXACTLY....

however, this is archery.....where anyone can be a pro ...unlike just about any other hobby or sport out there.....a entry fee and desire to compete with the best just isnt enough....

watered down .....only in archery


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> Why would you expect to be able to play like Tiger if you don't have the ability of Tiger??????
> 
> Why do archers expect to compete with the best when they do not have the ability of the best.
> 
> It was mentioned if the 27's are not wanted why are so many shooting them. Do you think Tiger would goto a Major with a driver that had the same accuracy and hit 20 yards shorter than another legal driver?


you mean having a 4" diameter arrow won't make me the best?


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Tell you what, you want to shoot like Tiger? Start when you're 2 years old, devote your entire life to the sport, practice a million hours a day, get the best coaching money can buy and then practice some more. He didn't get where he is swinging a 3 wood the size of a lawnmower:wink:



Now if the hole was only bigger I would be rich! Rich I say!!!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

ShakesTheClown said:


> OneBowTie said:
> 
> 
> > actually, there is a attitude perception with NAA/FITA that many compound shooters seem to have a problem with-
> ...


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

SuperX said:


> you mean having a 4" diameter arrow won't make me the best?


that would depend.....


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> that would depend.....


well I noticed on the front page of AT that we are now smoking scents and getting bent so I am pretty sure I will be able to find my way to the top through that purple haze! One way or another I'm gonna getcha getcha getcha!


Blondie regards,


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

SuperX said:


> well I noticed on the front page of AT that we are now smoking scents and getting bent so I am pretty sure I will be able to find my way to the top through that purple haze! One way or another I'm gonna getcha getcha getcha!
> 
> 
> Blondie regards,



you had me at size does matter:tongue:


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

SuperX said:


> Now if the hole was only bigger I would be rich! Rich I say!!!


You still gotta get it to the green.....

If you can't break 100....I doubt that the hole being bigger is gonna help


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*Back to the point*

I think that we have lost focus of the real issue related to arrow diameter. Larger diameter arrows favor larger and stronger archers. Is that really the direction we want to take our sport? One of the best features of archery is that physical size doesn't really matter. Limiting arrow diameter (INMHO to 23XX) gives archers of all sizes an opportunity to be competitive with a properly spined arrow.

I can talk, I compete and my NFAA dues are paid.:wink:


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I think that we have lost focus of the real issue related to arrow diameter. Larger diameter arrows favor larger and stronger archers. Is that really the direction we want to take our sport? One of the best features of archery is that physical size doesn't really matter. Limiting arrow diameter (INMHO to 23XX) gives archers of all sizes an opportunity to be competitive with a properly spined arrow.
> 
> I can talk, I compete and my NFAA dues are paid.:wink:


That's because this thread is now 1 day short of being 6 months old:wink:

But I am not large.....I am only 5' 7.5" (that .5 is important ) I can get a 2712 to spine without shooting over 60lbs....


----------



## itchyfinger (Jun 14, 2007)

I don't care what they do....If they allow 27's I'll shoot em. I have had success with them. They did gain me a few more x's and more consistent scores. However, whatever the rule is I will gladly follow....I'll just use it as an excuse to work harder.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Brown Hornet said:


> You still gotta get it to the green.....
> 
> If you can't break 100....I doubt that the hole being bigger is gonna help


I am sure it would help - I can hit it a ton, I just can't putt. Make that hole about 6' wide and I am pretty sure I can break 100!


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> you had me at size does matter:tongue:


If only...


If only regards,


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

*I'm still confused.*

Why is it so important to shoot a larger arrow? It seems to me the only reason is because I have to compete against others who shoot them and I don't want to sacrifice any advantage. On the other hand, if everyone suddenly voluntarily agreed to limit themselves to 23XX I'd wager that no one would feel deprived. The pros would go on shooting inside out X after inside out X and we Joes will drop a few X's or even a point now and again. If everyone in my class competes within the same parameters I am content to compare myself to them; which is what competition is really about. 

It could be argued that by passing an arrow diameter restriction the NFAA is really bringing about that "voluntary" limitation. I know that saying this is a stretch and I'm not particularly interested in getting into a spitting match about how well the NFAA Directors represent their constituencies, but it is at least a representative form of governance that we all agree to when we join. We also voluntarily agree to adhere to the rules, whatever they are, when we choose to compete. 

Perhaps the good of what happened in Vegas is that it has spawned discussion and survey research so that the next discussion and subsequent rule will be representative of the membership's wishes. As an aside, I also don't mind allowing manufacturers to have input as well, but that should be strictly advisory and should be taken with a grain of salt, realizing that marketing may also be informing their opinions. Great care should be taken to avoid even the appearance that any manufacturer has veto power.


----------



## AlChick (Mar 5, 2003)

Brown Hornet said:


> That's because this thread is now 1 day short of being 6 months old:wink:
> 
> But I am not large.....I am only 5' 7.5" (that .5 is important ) I can get a 2712 to spine without shooting over 60lbs....


That's interesting, but with all due respect, it's only anecdotal (just your case). The rules should be a best attempt to level the field for everyone in a class.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

WV Has Been said:


> Why do you talk in shadows? "Our State Director" "This State" "Our State"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why does it matter? It's all opinion after all. No one has posted to this thread more than Hutnicks and as I recall no one seems to know anything about him either...except that he's Canadian and probably has no vested interest in this either way. Why aren't you calling him out? 

Again, there is no significant support for a 9.3 limit in my home state per repeated conversations with the state director. There is pleny of support for a limit of either 26 or 27 and that's what I believe he will support at the meeting. And, I don't think I need it in writing. 

I'm in favor of a limit, just not 9.3. Even the poll here on AT was not overwhelmingly in favor of 9.3...well less than 50% of those voting. Nothing you could call a consensus. The only clear mandate was that some kind of size restriction is needed. I think a limit of 26 or 27 is the right thing to do.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

AlChick said:


> I think that we have lost focus of the real issue related to arrow diameter. Larger diameter arrows favor larger and stronger archers. Is that really the direction we want to take our sport? One of the best features of archery is that physical size doesn't really matter. Limiting arrow diameter (INMHO to 23XX) gives archers of all sizes an opportunity to be competitive with a properly spined arrow.
> 
> I can talk, I compete and my NFAA dues are paid.:wink:


glad to hear that your due are paid.....as we'd all hate to think your post was in vain:tongue:



Brown Hornet said:


> That's because this thread is now 1 day short of being 6 months old:wink:
> 
> But I am not large.....I am only 5' 7.5" (that .5 is important ) I can get a 2712 to spine without shooting over 60lbs....


i guess if you call letting MACGOO beat you able to get a arrow to spine.....then more spine to ya:tongue:



itchyfinger said:


> I don't care what they do....If they allow 27's I'll shoot em. I have had success with them. They did gain me a few more x's and more consistent scores. However, whatever the rule is I will gladly follow....I'll just use it as an excuse to work harder.


you my friend.....are gonna need alot more then a 27 arrow to have success:tongue:



SuperX said:


> I am sure it would help - I can hit it a ton, I just can't putt. Make that hole about 6' wide and I am pretty sure I can break 100!


dont worry, 90 % of all joe golfers cant break 100 on a consistent basis.....



SuperX said:


> If only...
> 
> 
> If only regards,


if my aunt had hang low's....she'd be my uncle



AlChick said:


> Why is it so important to shoot a larger arrow? It seems to me the only reason is because I have to compete against others who shoot them and I don't want to sacrifice any advantage. On the other hand, if everyone suddenly voluntarily agreed to limit themselves to 23XX I'd wager that no one would feel deprived. The pros would go on shooting inside out X after inside out X and we Joes will drop a few X's or even a point now and again. If everyone in my class competes within the same parameters I am content to compare myself to them; which is what competition is really about.
> 
> It could be argued that by passing an arrow diameter restriction the NFAA is really bringing about that "voluntary" limitation. I know that saying this is a stretch and I'm not particularly interested in getting into a spitting match about how well the NFAA Directors represent their constituencies, but it is at least a representative form of governance that we all agree to when we join. We also voluntarily agree to adhere to the rules, whatever they are, when we choose to compete.
> 
> Perhaps the good of what happened in Vegas is that it has spawned discussion and survey research so that the next discussion and subsequent rule will be representative of the membership's wishes. As an aside, I also don't mind allowing manufacturers to have input as well, but that should be strictly advisory and should be taken with a grain of salt, realizing that marketing may also be informing their opinions. Great care should be taken to avoid even the appearance that any manufacturer has veto power.


im pretty sure that while i may not think the emergency meeting was the right thing to do....i do feel that now after some time....that the next ruling will be a favorable ruling that the silent majority will be happy with:zip:

and yes.....i think any smart org or company would want some input from its partnering companys....however, most companys/ orgs will only remain long term if they are self sustaining....its just too easy for enablers to get mad....take their check book and go on home......and shame on those that allow themselfs to become too dependent upon outside agencys .....

i dont even have a problem with some veto power....however such force should always be undectable to the masses..... equitable distribution is good for most games.....

they say a apple a day is good for the soul......but we all know that diamonds move the soul


----------



## itchyfinger (Jun 14, 2007)

OneBowTie said:


> you my friend.....are gonna need alot more then a 27 arrow to have success:tongue:


:icon_1_lol: yeah......like a bow :embara:


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> im pretty sure that while i may not think the emergency meeting was the right thing to do....i do feel that now after some time....that the next ruling will be a favorable ruling that the silent majority will be happy with
> 
> and yes.....i think any smart org or company would want some input from its partnering companys....however, most companys/ orgs will only remain long term if they are self sustaining....its just too easy for enablers to get mad....take their check book and go on home......and shame on those that allow themselfs to become too dependent upon outside agencys .....
> 
> ...


Boy, it sounds like you are running for office here.  Maybe you hold a secret chair on the B of D in Utah?   :tongue:


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

Spoon13 said:


> So we reward this behavior and try and convince these folks that they don't want to change the rules because it puts them farther away from something they will never get anyway. Got it.



not quite.

it is the people that would rather spend untold sums of money in pursuit of a level of performance that is more achievable by those who invest their time and money in themselves instead of chasing the 'what the pros use' shopping list. it's great for the companies....they'll make their money, but when the honeymoon of new equipment is over, then what? what happens when someone with the means has had and has used everything under the sun and for lack of a better term, still sucks?

the nfaa has no max diameter rule, so it's a gold rush situation. the company that makes the bigger shafts and is able to get them to the most people the fastest, wins the dollar game. im not sure if carbon or aluminum is easier to tool up for, but the first with the most and able to meet supply demands will be the top dog.

if the nfaa levels the playing field, the archers who have developed their big picture game will be the ones who will win. those who seek to improve from within will have the edge over equipment and gadgets.

i think within this whole topic of discussion, the use of the word pro doesnt apply. its not the pros who will be penalized, it's the joes that will. once the limit is in place, the mental games will begin to improve.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Mike, 
The ride is not over, more to come in the very near furture, all the Directors and Council will soon see!!!:zip:


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

rock monkey said:


> its not the pros who will be penalized, it's the joes that will.


I don't think you need to look at it as if it is a "penalty", per se. There are shooters out there that have inflated scores because they would rather buy bigger arrows to increase the value of their misses rather than work and increase the number of hits they receive. An arrow restriction would merely put them back into the group that his/her skill set truly places them in. 

I understand that the "American Way" has changed to some degree and instead of working hard and feeling good about an accomplishment, it is far easier to whine and cry until someone comes along and gives you the necessary excuse or some sort of gimmick that improves your way of life with little or no effort on your part. 

I have told more than one person that if I really wanted the higher score bad enough I would shoot the arrow inside and not have to worry about whether it's touching or not. Unfortunately there is an increasing number of people out there that don't want to hold themselves to such standards, and that is NOT just an NFAA problem.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

archer_nm said:


> Mike,
> The ride is not over, more to come in the very near furture, all the Directors and Council will soon see!!!:zip:



what....you holding out on me.....

come on...do i have to call KALIFORNIA to get some answers:tongue:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Spoon13 said:


> I don't think you need to look at it as if it is a "penalty", per se. There are shooters out there that have inflated scores because they would rather buy bigger arrows to increase the value of their misses rather than work and increase the number of hits they receive. An arrow restriction would merely put them back into the group that his/her skill set truly places them in.
> 
> I understand that the "American Way" has changed to some degree and instead of working hard and feeling good about an accomplishment, it is far easier to whine and cry until someone comes along and gives you the necessary excuse or some sort of gimmick that improves your way of life with little or no effort on your part.
> 
> I have told more than one person that if I really wanted the higher score bad enough I would shoot the arrow inside and not have to worry about whether it's touching or not. Unfortunately there is an increasing number of people out there that don't want to hold themselves to such standards, and that is NOT just an NFAA problem.


Regardless of what arrow diameter one uses, they will always find their level of performance. While a larger arrow may improve one archer’s scores, it will in turn improve the scores of those who frequently beat the first’s scores…


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

JAVI said:


> Regardless of what arrow diameter one uses, they will always find their level of performance. While a larger arrow may improve one archer’s scores, it will in turn improve the scores of those who frequently beat the first’s scores…


AMEN! However in a finite game of 60x's it will help the weaker archer more


----------



## itchyfinger (Jun 14, 2007)

SuperX said:


> AMEN! However in a finite game of 60x's it will help the weaker archer more


Overspined arrows are more critical to shoot which does not really help a weaker archer. I mean we are talking about indoors at 20yrds so it's not AS critical but you still need a solid skill set to shoot 60x's with any arrow.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

ShakesTheClown said:


> Why does it matter? It's all opinion after all. No one has posted to this thread more than Hutnicks and as I recall no one seems to know anything about him either...except that he's Canadian and probably has no vested interest in this either way. Why aren't you calling him out?
> 
> Again, there is no significant support for a 9.3 limit in my home state per repeated conversations with the state director. There is pleny of support for a limit of either 26 or 27 and that's what I believe he will support at the meeting. And, I don't think I need it in writing.
> 
> I'm in favor of a limit, just not 9.3. Even the poll here on AT was not overwhelmingly in favor of 9.3...well less than 50% of those voting. Nothing you could call a consensus. The only clear mandate was that some kind of size restriction is needed. I think a limit of 26 or 27 is the right thing to do.


Stop putting quarters in that bed harlequin! Brians pretty good at ignoring me when need be. I also don't spout off about inside info or polling results or any other empirical data without being able (and willing to cite a source)

As for posts I think the Winchester Rimfire Chick has me beat about now.:wink:

As for vested interest hmmmmmmm, in a country with all of 6 field ranges every northerner has an interest (dunno if it's vested or not) in the NFAA's shenanigans. You folks might do well to start looking outside the little microcosm of membership (what is it 15 k out of a pop of over 300 million) with a view to conducting yourselves in a manner conducive to generating new membership where ever it may come from. To that point handling a little issue like an arrow size reg would go a long ways. The way I see it, every soul with a bow, withing driving range of the states shoots is a potential member, so maybe a little thinking outside the box (membership) might just be in order. Just under a year till the next Hillbilly, isn't it?


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

SuperX said:


> AMEN! However in a finite game of 60x's it will help the weaker archer more


The archer with the weaker skill set will continue to miss by a wider margin; therefore, statistically the opposite would be true. 

In reality all the larger arrow does is widen the margin between the better shooter and the rest. People who shoot perfect or nearly perfect scores will simply shoot more perfect games while the almost as good will shoot a few more near perfect games. The not so good, will occasionally pull a rabbit out of the hat, and the really bad shooter will feel better about their occasionally higher X count.. 

Like water, skill seeks its own level regardless of the equipment one uses.

If you can’t hang with 2613’s… 2712’s won’t help


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> AMEN! However in a finite game of 60x's it will help the weaker archer more


I'd be interested to see that as a percentage of score. Verbal descriptions of mathematical quantities disturb me. Are we thinking along the lines (no pun int). That a poor shooter will experience a larger percentage gain with the logs while the percentage of score increase at the (sic) elite level will be much smaller. Some statistical analysis on this might aid in an informed decision.


Might have chosen "Rifle Range" were I to quote Blondie on this thread:wink:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

JAVI said:


> The archer with the weaker skill set will continue to miss by a wider margin; therefore, statistically the opposite would be true.
> 
> In reality all the larger arrow does is widen the margin between the better shooter and the rest. People who shoot perfect or nearly perfect scores will simply shoot more perfect games while the almost as good will shoot a few more near perfect games. The not so good, will occasionally pull a rabbit out of the hat, and the really bad shooter will feel better about their occasionally higher X count..
> 
> ...


Between 2613's and 2712's, there is _almost _no spine difference only a tad larger scoring area in the 2712's. Certainly there is nothing between the two shafts that a visa card and www.competitionarcheryproducts.com can't fix.

Statistically speaking, a 60x shooter can't improve with 2613's or 2315's or 2712's - they already shoot the maximum score, whereas a weaker shooter will empirically pick up X's with a properly spined arrow with a larger scoring area.

That is unless you factor in good and evil, then the smaller shafts always win because good always triumphs over evil, and big shafts are inherently evil... right? :tongue:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Stop putting quarters in that bed harlequin! Brians pretty good at ignoring me when need be. I also don't spout off about inside info or polling results or any other empirical data without being able (and willing to cite a source)
> 
> As for posts I think the Winchester Rimfire Chick has me beat about now.:wink:
> 
> As for vested interest hmmmmmmm, in a country with all of 6 field ranges every northerner has an interest (dunno if it's vested or not) in the NFAA's shenanigans. You folks might do well to start looking outside the little microcosm of membership (what is it 15 k out of a pop of over 300 million) with a view to conducting yourselves in a manner conducive to generating new membership where ever it may come from. To that point handling a little issue like an arrow size reg would go a long ways. The way I see it, every soul with a bow, withing driving range of the states shoots is a potential member, so maybe a little thinking outside the box (membership) might just be in order. Just under a year till the next Hillbilly, isn't it?


hey.....arent we (THEE NfAA in a "partnership" with the (you) syrup sucker orgs:wink as i went to the CANADIAN FIELD ARCHERY CHAMPIONSHIPS alittle over a year ago, and didnt have to join YOUR org...as they recognized MY membership in the NfAA .....

i would think that any archer....whether a member or not of the NfAA has a viewpoint and input that should be recognized if it actually pertains to the subject matter at hand.....because as its been stated....anything that MIGHT possibly aid to the ENJOYMENT......making the game more accessible.....making the game more understandable......or more equitable for all no matter where the viewpoint or input came from ....would be a plus.....even if the source is maple


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

SuperX said:


> Between 2613's and 2712's, there is _almost _no spine difference only a tad larger scoring area in the 2712's. Certainly there is nothing between the two shafts that a visa card and LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY can't fix.
> 
> Statistically speaking, a 60x shooter can't improve with 2613's or 2315's or 2712's - they already shoot the maximum score, whereas a weaker shooter will empirically pick up X's with a properly spined arrow with a larger scoring area.
> 
> That is unless you factor in good and evil, then the smaller shafts always win because good always triumphs over evil, and big shafts are inherently evil... right? :tongue:


so....then it is true....there is a EVIL EMPIRE out there ......

diamond cut aint what it used to be


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

SuperX said:


> Between 2613's and 2712's, there is _almost _no spine difference only a tad larger scoring area in the 2712's. Certainly there is nothing between the two shafts that a visa card and www.competitionarcheryproducts.com can't fix.
> 
> Statistically speaking, a 60x shooter can't improve with 2613's or 2315's or 2712's - they already shoot the maximum score, whereas a weaker shooter will empirically pick up X's with a properly spined arrow with a larger scoring area.
> 
> That is unless you factor in good and evil, then the smaller shafts always win because good always triumphs over evil, and big shafts are inherently evil... right? :tongue:


Of course a 60X shooter can improve... no one and I do mean no one never misses... A person who shoots 60 X's the majority of the time will still never average 60...

The scoring difference between a 2315 and a 2712 is 1/32" or 0.03125

But if my Beta blockers kick in, I'll be shooting 2712's in Vegas this year...


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

OneBowTie said:


> hey.....arent we (THEE NfAA in a "partnership" with the (you) syrup sucker orgs:wink as i went to the CANADIAN FIELD ARCHERY CHAMPIONSHIPS alittle over a year ago, and didnt have to join YOUR org...as they recognized MY membership in the NfAA .....
> 
> i would think that any archer....whether a member or not of the NfAA has a viewpoint and input that should be recognized if it actually pertains to the subject matter at hand.....because as its been stated....anything that MIGHT possibly aid to the ENJOYMENT......making the game more accessible.....making the game more understandable......or more equitable for all no matter where the viewpoint or input came from ....would be a plus.....even if the source is maple


I;m not sure how far that agreement goes. Did you not have to shoot as a guest?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

JAVI said:


> Of course a 60X shooter can improve... no one and I do mean no one never misses... A person who shoots 60 X's the majority of the time will still never average 60...
> 
> The scoring difference between a 2315 and a 2712 is 1/32" or 0.03125
> 
> But if my Beta blockers kick in, I'll be shooting 2712's in Vegas this year...


I wish that arrow size shot had been listed in tournament this last year or two. I'm really jonesin for some stat analysis on this. Keep pluggin with those Javi there is an interesting picture forming.

And the heck with Beta Blockers I say we dose EVERYBODY with the adrenal suppressants the clueless quack dumped on me last year. That'll LEVEL the entire field...........to ground level.:wink:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> I wish that arrow size shot had been listed in tournament this last year or two. I'm really jonesin for some stat analysis on this. Keep pluggin with those Javi there is an interesting picture forming.
> 
> And the heck with Beta Blockers I say we dose EVERYBODY with the adrenal suppressants the clueless quack dumped on me last year. That'll LEVEL the entire field...........to ground level.:wink:


look at it this way - what size shafts are the best in the world shooting. Assume they are all smart enough not to shoot shafts that lower their average. Bingo that analysis should be as obvious as a clowns nose.


onky onky regards,


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

JAVI said:


> Of course a 60X shooter can improve... no one and I do mean no one never misses... A person who shoots 60 X's the majority of the time will still never average 60...
> 
> The scoring difference between a 2315 and a 2712 is 1/32" or 0.03125
> 
> But if my Beta blockers kick in, I'll be shooting 2712's in Vegas this year...


of course you can miss - everyone does as you say - that isn't my point. My point is that the difference in say chance's average on a blueface with a big shaft may be 59.999999999997 for the season and 59.99999999994 with a smaller shaft, but my average would be more like 55.0 for a 2315 and 56.75 for a 2712. I improve more but I don't automatically win like some may imply.

The "rule of thumb" is that all other factors being equal, improvements in the forgiveness of equipment will benefit the weaker archer more than the stronger archer, and conversely, decreasing the size of the bullseye will always favor the stronger archer over the weaker.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> look at it this way - what size shafts are the best in the world shooting. Assume they are all smart enough not to shoot shafts that lower their average. Bingo that analysis should be as obvious as a clowns nose.
> 
> 
> onky onky regards,


Well if were looking for the highest scores worldwide ie the best, then I'm afraid were back to FITA land and you know what that means.:wink:

What colour would you like your X-10's

or Nano's

or McKinney II's :wink:

Silly rabbit, oversize sticks are for kids:becky:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> of course you can miss - everyone does as you say - that isn't my point. My point is that the difference in say chance's average on a blueface with a big shaft may be 59.999999999997 for the season and 59.99999999994 with a smaller shaft, but my average would be more like 55.0 for a 2315 and 56.75 for a 2712. I improve more but I don't automatically win like some may imply.
> 
> The "rule of thumb" is that all other factors being equal, improvements in the forgiveness of equipment will benefit the weaker archer more than the stronger archer, and conversely, decreasing the size of the bullseye will always favor the stronger archer over the weaker.


That being so (and I hate seeing a female quote "rule of thumb"). Are we not back to upper echelon archers using the linkin logs purely out of peer pressure? In other words no so much to improve your game as much as not giving away any potential points.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> That being so (and I hate seeing a female quote "rule of thumb"). Are we not back to upper echelon archers using the linkin logs purely out of peer pressure? In other words no so much to improve your game as much as not giving away any potential points.


not sure I want to go there with the thumb thing but yeah we are talking about the top echelon. Peer pressure is kind of a silly way of putting it - let's just say if someone truely felt they shot more X's with smaller arrows they would be shooting smaller arrows. The notion that any top echelon shooter would shoot lower scores in order to not be laughed at by their peers is kind of a long shot.


Does this font make me look fat regards,


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> That being so (and I hate seeing a female quote "rule of thumb"). Are we not back to upper echelon archers using the linkin logs purely out of peer pressure? In other words no so much to improve your game as much as not giving away any potential points.





SuperX said:


> not sure I want to go there with the thumb thing but yeah we are talking about the top echelon. Peer pressure is kind of a silly way of putting it - let's just say if someone truely felt they shot more X's with smaller arrows they would be shooting smaller arrows. The notion that any top echelon shooter would shoot lower scores in order to not be laughed at by their peers is kind of a long shot.
> 
> 
> Does this font make me look fat regards,



i am just wondering.....does anyone know what score CUZ DAVE shot at last years NAA FITA indoor national championships?????

and im wondering.....did anyone else better his score......ever with any size arrow.....

oh ya....what was his score with what size arrow.....

so much for gaining or getting extra points with phat shafts


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> I;m not sure how far that agreement goes. Did you not have to shoot as a guest?


i want you to know......after having placing 2nd in the Canadian National Championships.....i feel that i have earned my MERIT:tongue:

i was treated like royalty.....so if thats the way all yall treat your guests....then i guess i was a guest


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> not sure I want to go there with the thumb thing but yeah we are talking about the top echelon. Peer pressure is kind of a silly way of putting it - let's just say if someone truely felt they shot more X's with smaller arrows they would be shooting smaller arrows. The notion that any top echelon shooter would shoot lower scores in order to not be laughed at by their peers is kind of a long shot.
> 
> 
> Does this font make me look fat regards,


Now Now Skeeter (in best south park ******* bartender voice) don't go starting innuendo, we don't want no trouble here:wink:

Wasn't meant to imply childeshness but merely the act of not giving away any advantage real or percieved. Why take the chance, type of thing. I mean you could shoot a hunting stabilizer but why on earth would you give the advantage* potential* away over a long stab, even if you _*could*_ shoot just as well with the shorty? It's the risk factor that comes into play and a great performer knows how to manage risk (See: Fernando Alonso in F1 for the absolute best example of that)

And in the current young vernacular you'll allways be phat to us.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Now Now Skeeter (in best south park ******* bartender voice) don't go starting innuendo, we don't want no trouble here:wink:
> 
> Wasn't meant to imply childeshness but merely the act of not giving away any advantage real or percieved. Why take the chance, type of thing. I mean you could shoot a hunting stabilizer but why on earth would you give the advantage* potential* away over a long stab, even if you _*could*_ shoot just as well with the shorty? It's the risk factor that comes into play and a great performer knows how to manage risk (See: Fernando Alonso in F1 for the absolute best example of that)
> 
> And in the current young vernacular you'll allways be phat to us.


In the words of OBT.... exactly:wink:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

JAVI said:


> In the words of OBT.... exactly:wink:



plus ONE


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Now Now Skeeter (in best south park ******* bartender voice) don't go starting innuendo, we don't want no trouble here:wink:
> 
> Wasn't meant to imply childeshness but merely the act of not giving away any advantage real or percieved. Why take the chance, type of thing. I mean you could shoot a hunting stabilizer but why on earth would you give the advantage* potential* away over a long stab, even if you _*could*_ shoot just as well with the shorty? It's the risk factor that comes into play and a great performer knows how to manage risk (See: Fernando Alonso in F1 for the absolute best example of that)
> 
> And in the current young vernacular you'll allways be phat to us.


Ok, snookums, the only F1 I know is the help key on my keyboard - get back on topic! 

do you honestly think the top echelon archers are guessing at what shoots best for them? There is no "percieved" notion of higher scores or "why take a chance when others are using them (implying "just in case"). These archers know what works and doesn't work. Nobody is giving up "proper spine" to shoot these arrows in spite of the hysterics of some. So give up your bias toward skinny arrows and embrace the magnificent surface area pounding power of the magnum supremes! 

All your bases are belong to us regards,


----------



## Forrest Carter (Oct 13, 2002)

> Wasn't meant to imply childeshness but merely the act of not giving away any advantage real or percieved. Why take the chance, type of thing. I mean you could shoot a hunting stabilizer but why on earth would you give the advantage potential away over a long stab, even if you could shoot just as well with the shorty? It's the risk factor that comes into play and a great performer knows how to manage risk (See: Fernando Alonso in F1 for the absolute best example of that)


Don't need no stinking long stabilizers. IDK what you are talking about...:wink:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> i am just wondering.....does anyone know what score CUZ DAVE shot at last years NAA FITA indoor national championships?????
> 
> and im wondering.....did anyone else better his score......ever with any size arrow.....
> 
> ...


that's where my rule of thumb comes in - the 10 ring is much smaller in NAA and Dave used the very largest legal shaft to boot. Of course he may have shot much better with 2117's which would spine better for him if you believe the "small arrow crowd"


Diamond cutter just ain't what it used to be regards,


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> Ok, snookums, the only F1 I know is the help key on my keyboard - get back on topic!
> 
> do you honestly think the top echelon archers are guessing at what shoots best for them? There is no "percieved" notion of higher scores or "why take a chance when others are using them (implying "just in case"). These archers know what works and doesn't work. Nobody is giving up "proper spine" to shoot these arrows in spite of the hysterics of some. So give up your bias toward skinny arrows and embrace the magnificent surface area pounding power of the magnum supremes!
> 
> All your bases are belong to us regards,


Is on topic, dead on. And if you actually want Elite to mean something other than a name etched on the bow Archery in general and compound in specific would do well to see how other Elite sports manage things like technology and how their athletes conduct business.

You get to level where thousands separate first from 10th place and the name of the game becomes risk management. Finish first but first you have to finish and the person who can eliminate the most risks at that level is usually the winner. _*Not*_ shooting fatties is a risk and one apparently deemed unacceptable by the E-Crowd. So be it. But the org with any conscience can take that right out of play and make it clear you need another plan to increase your X count. It's that easy an nobody actually suffers in the long run. So quit shillin and get some 10 millies an start drillin.:wink:


I seem to remember those 40 grain Winchesters were_* soft*_ nosed


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Forrest Carter said:


> Don't need no stinking long stabilizers. IDK what you are talking about...:wink:


One in every crowd: God bless you!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Forrest Carter said:


> Don't need no stinking long stabilizers. IDK what you are talking about...:wink:


ok...i need to know the order of finish in this photo before i can make a educated guess- or scientific evaluation on which stabilzer is best to shoot with



SuperX said:


> that's where my rule of thumb comes in - the 10 ring is much smaller in NAA and Dave used the very largest legal shaft to boot. Of course he may have shot much better with 2117's which would spine better for him if you believe the "small arrow crowd"
> 
> 
> Diamond cutter just ain't what it used to be regards,


actually cuz says that the 23's spine out better then the 21's:tongue:

and i have yet to hear just what his score was....shooting those 23's at the NAA indoor nationals???? oh ya.....more importantly how many itty bitty little tiny whiny X's did he miss with those whopping fat shafted 23's

hum....i heard a rumor that he shot a better score using 23 arrows then ANY PERSON in the world shot at ANY other indoor venue using ANY other arrow...whether phat or not 

i dont know.....i guess i need to ask all those 3d wizzards why they have switched to little tiny skinny X10 arrows in 3d instead of those big ole line grabbing 27 series arrows that were LEGAL for them this PAASST year:embara:



Hutnicks said:


> Is on topic, dead on. And if you actually want Elite to mean something other than a name etched on the bow Archery in general and compound in specific would do well to see how other Elite sports manage things like technology and how their athletes conduct business.
> 
> You get to level where thousands separate first from 10th place and the name of the game becomes risk management. Finish first but first you have to finish and the person who can eliminate the most risks at that level is usually the winner. _*Not*_ shooting fatties is a risk and one apparently deemed unacceptable by the E-Crowd. So be it. But the org with any conscience can take that right out of play and make it clear you need another plan to increase your X count. It's that easy an nobody actually suffers in the long run. So quit shillin and get some 10 millies an start drillin.:wink:
> 
> ...


the ONLY thing ELITE in archery......is located in W2 or for all yall that dont hablo...thats walla walla:tongue:


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Cousins, Dave East Standish, ME 597 57 3 597 57 3 1194:wink:


----------



## Forrest Carter (Oct 13, 2002)

> ok...i need to know the order of finish in this photo before i can make a educated guess- or scientific evaluation on which stabilzer is best to shoot with


Actually won that one. That's the 2005 Utah Open. That's why I chose that picture specifically.:wink:


----------



## itchyfinger (Jun 14, 2007)

Forrest Carter said:


> Actually won that one. That's the 2005 Utah Open. That's why I chose that picture specifically.:wink:


what kinda release did you use :biggrin1:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Is on topic, dead on. And if you actually want Elite to mean something other than a name etched on the bow Archery in general and compound in specific would do well to see how other Elite sports manage things like technology and how their athletes conduct business.
> 
> You get to level where thousands separate first from 10th place and the name of the game becomes risk management. Finish first but first you have to finish and the person who can eliminate the most risks at that level is usually the winner. _*Not*_ shooting fatties is a risk and one apparently deemed unacceptable by the E-Crowd. So be it. But the org with any conscience can take that right out of play and make it clear you need another plan to increase your X count. It's that easy an nobody actually suffers in the long run. So quit shillin and get some 10 millies an start drillin.:wink:
> 
> ...


What is a risk? You say not shooting fatties is a risk as though the guys are saying gosh my skinnier shafts score better over all but I better not shoot them because of the risk of not catching a line that someone else catches with a fatter shaft. 

When confronted by a paradox, re-examine your assumptions because one of them is almost certainly wrong.


SuperX 180 grain silvertip regards,


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

SuperX said:


> What is a risk? You say not shooting fatties is a risk as though the guys are saying gosh my skinnier shafts score better over all but I better not shoot them because of the risk of not catching a line that someone else catches with a fatter shaft.
> 
> When confronted by a paradox, re-examine your assumptions because one of them is almost certainly wrong.
> 
> ...


 Your words _*not*_ mine.The paradox is entirely yours for putting assumptions out. 
We have not discussed accuracy, at least I have not. In fact if you look back you will see _in my words_ that the issue is has been and will be the issue of area of target covered. Issues such as spine and (theoretical )accuracy differences are tertiary to the simple central point that they are being used to cover more target area. And if the guy next to you is punching larger holes, you had better be as well. Remove that ability from the guy next to you and the issue evaporates into the insubstantial cloud it really is.

They make 50 cal airguns but you wont find one at any 10m shoot.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

itchyfinger said:


> what kinda release did you use :biggrin1:


How mucha wanna bet that it most likely was a Carter? :wink::tongue::darkbeer:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> Your words _*not*_ mine.


I suspect that if I ever get my hutnicks decoder ring I will find that we are in violent agreement!


I must have been solving for Y regards,


:tongue:


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

SuperX said:


> What is a risk? You say not shooting fatties is a risk as though the guys are saying gosh my skinnier shafts score better over all but I better not shoot them because of the risk of not catching a line that someone else catches with a fatter shaft.
> 
> When confronted by a *paradox*, re-examine your assumptions because one of them is almost certainly wrong.
> 
> ...


A paradox can be an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition; or it can be, seemingly opposite, an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together. The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction. Often, mistakenly, it is used to describe situations that are ironic. 


The risk is that no person can prove that an arrow has to bend a specific amount to be more accurate. Therefore the diameter of the shaft is far more important than the fantasy of spine.


I'm 100% certain that Dave's great NAA rounds with the 9.3mm shafts can be explained for reasons other than the spine of the shaft.

I myself am thinking Super X's hollow points.:tongue::tongue::wink:


----------



## USNarcher (Oct 12, 2002)

SuperX said:


> SuperX 180 grain silvertip regards,


Except for your first round at Vegas this year I though it was 00 buckshot with a modified choke. :jksign::caked::boink::focus:

:darkbeer::darkbeer::darkbeer:


----------



## itchyfinger (Jun 14, 2007)

field14 said:


> How mucha wanna bet that it most likely was a Carter? :wink::tongue::darkbeer:


I was thinking a Stan. :noidea:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

USNarcher said:


> Except for your first round at Vegas this year I though it was 00 buckshot with a modified choke. :jksign::caked::boink::focus:
> 
> :darkbeer::darkbeer::darkbeer:


LOL! I was also shooting one handed, keeping my other hand free to choke myself


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

SuperX said:


> LOL! I was also shooting one handed, keeping my other hand free to choke myself



Most of us don't NEED even one hand while we are shooting....we'll choke anyways, hahahaha. I sometimes thinking that the most automated part of my entire shot sequence is the "choking" part of it.:tongue:..and no matter how hard we try to eliminate it...it seems that Murphy's Law prevails come tournament time, ha:wink::tongue:


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

WV Has Been said:


> A paradox can be an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition; or it can be, seemingly opposite, an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together. The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction. Often, mistakenly, it is used to describe situations that are ironic.
> 
> 
> The risk is that no person can prove that an arrow has to bend a specific amount to be more accurate. Therefore the diameter of the shaft is far more important than the fantasy of spine.
> ...



oh the irony of this post.........

yes....while without doubt...cuz's great rounds are all at the hands of him doing it......you can not discount cuz's other great abilities (just as HAS BEENS other great abilities-not just great shooting) 

now...cuz like alot of other archers....lets the mental midget creep into the picture far too often....like when he and some of the other runts rush to shoot what so and so is shooting.....and it can be proven more often then not when one of the mental midgets has a not so average round for themselfs.....more often then not, they have deviated from tried and true....

but thats another story.....

back on topic all you hijackers....especially you rotten apple/diamond paid to post rejects......

what was this thread about....some meeting or something:tongue:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

OneBowTie said:


> oh the irony of this post.........


are you now Pumping Irony? :weightlifter:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

field14 said:


> Most of us don't NEED even one hand while we are shooting....we'll choke anyways, hahahaha. I sometimes thinking that the most automated part of my entire shot sequence is the "choking" part of it.:tongue:..and no matter how hard we try to eliminate it...it seems that Murphy's Law prevails come tournament time, ha:wink::tongue:


LOL! Yep!


----------

