# Sticky  Change NFAA Seniors to 50?



## Daniel Boone

Turn 55 next year (wont help me). I voted yes to help this class grow and gain enough members to make it a large class.

Lancasters and ASA/Ibo have proven this can be a large class with good attendance at age 50.
DB


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Hey everyone...
> 
> Seems there is a push to revisit this again.
> 
> NFAA has the highest senior age limit of all US archery orgs at 55 years old. Each other one has 50 as the limit.
> 
> Could you please answer the poll.. depending on the results it could be presented at the NFAA meeting in Vegas in February.
> 
> I really appreciate it
> 
> (This would be an "all NFAA" rule change, not just for Pro's)


Chuck,
I also believe that FITA/NAA also has the seniors at age 50 and Master Seniors at age 60, so, unless I'm missing something, the NFAA is the only archery association in the World that has Seniors at age 55 and Master Senior at age 65. I would think that it would make sense to get this settled and to standardize the NFAA with the rest of the world.
It is good to revisit this, but I won't hold my breath on it changing. This has come up over and over again over the years and gest shut down every time. It sure would be nice to know the exact reasoning behind NOT changing it to ages 50 for Seniors and 65 for Master Seniors.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## rock monkey

the IFAA has their Senior (Veteran) class as 55.

the NFAA is the american affiliation of the IFAA, as i understand it. you can only make so many 'local' changes to the CB/L and still work within the spirit of the world association's rules.

not saying that is the EXACT reason why it doesnt change but it would make sense as to why it hasnt been changed.


----------



## FV Chuck

rock monkey said:


> the IFAA has their Senior (Veteran) class as 55.
> 
> the NFAA is the american affiliation of the IFAA, as i understand it. you can only make so many 'local' changes to the CB/L and still work within the spirit of the world association's rules.
> 
> not saying that is the EXACT reason why it doesnt change but it would make sense as to why it hasnt been changed.


Rock - 
There are a whole slew of other rules that are much different from NFAA. I agree, hopefully this aspect wouldn't be a deal breaker for the Directors.

As I look right now at the results just 10hrs in...- 76% for it 23% against with 21 votes already. Not bad for Christmas Eve 

Tom-
Yeah I've heard it has come up several times. I don't know the history of it either (why it was rejected, who presented etc..) but hopefully we can get a good solid poll with decent numbers to present it to the BOD. From what I hear the BOD is reluctant to make changes unless actual data can be shown to support a change. I'm told it's not that they are being difficult, just protective...which can be misinterpreted as ..well, um, difficult - LOL

Spread the word, have people vote... if they want the change I'm happy to carry the flag for it as long as I know the masses will support it.

<Peace>
Chuck Cooley
NFAA Pro Chair


----------



## rock monkey

chuck, lets look at it another way........

the IFAA nationals occasionally coincide with the NFAA nationals. there are several differences that must be accommodated. one of them is the shooting order of the bunny. another is the animal round. not sure if you went to the 04 nats at the glen, but friday was a mess. changing targets, the scorekeeper having to make 2 trips to the target.

throw the change in ages into the mix and you may say it's not a big deal but the same dissenting opinion of wanting to change it can be used as a point of contention.....in simplest terms, it's the equivalent of a cub shooting against a youth at the youth stakes.....what stink comes about if the cub wins/loses? if he wins, awesome, but to the youth he beat, bad taste in their mouth. if the youth beats the cub, then the older kid is taking advantage of the younger kid. you know how these discussions go. aint nobody ends up happy.


i dont care one way or the other about the age change. i have my opinions of who speaks the loudest but going strictly by results.....the age number doesnt hold water. Mr Barnesdale beat up on the 'kids' one year at vegas, nobody cried foul. it is what it is. play the game and be happy. changing rules just because YOU arent 'competitive' is why the CB/L is the way it is.


----------



## Daniel Boone

rock monkey said:


> chuck, lets look at it another way........
> 
> the IFAA nationals occasionally coincide with the NFAA nationals. there are several differences that must be accommodated. one of them is the shooting order of the bunny. another is the animal round. not sure if you went to the 04 nats at the glen, but friday was a mess. changing targets, the scorekeeper having to make 2 trips to the target.
> 
> throw the change in ages into the mix and you may say it's not a big deal but the same dissenting opinion of wanting to change it can be used as a point of contention.....in simplest terms, it's the equivalent of a cub shooting against a youth at the youth stakes.....what stink comes about if the cub wins/loses? if he wins, awesome, but to the youth he beat, bad taste in their mouth. if the youth beats the cub, then the older kid is taking advantage of the younger kid. you know how these discussions go. aint nobody ends up happy.
> 
> 
> i dont care one way or the other about the age change. i have my opinions of who speaks the loudest but going strictly by results.....the age number doesnt hold water. Mr Barnesdale beat up on the 'kids' one year at vegas, nobody cried foul. it is what it is. play the game and be happy. changing rules just because YOU arent 'competitive' is why the CB/L is the way it is.



How many archers over 50 have been able to compete over the years with the top young guns?

Barnsdale and Trillus, pretty small percentage of guys over 50.

Rules aren't being changed to be less competitive. Heck its those in the class like Steve Boylan that are inviting more archers to make the class more competitive and larger numbers for more pay back. Not really competitive to shoot against 20 archers, it twice as good to shoot against 50 to 60 archers and win.

Just look at the attendance at Lancasters and ASA. Awesome to see 50 to 60 Seniors in a class. Lots of times they got more shooters than Open Pro class.
DB


----------



## CHPro

Hey RM, I think NFAA/IFAA joint tournaments are now a thing of the past since that event you referred to. Fairly certain an agenda item was passed a few years ago in reply that basically no longer allows another tournament to piggyback on an NFAA National event that does not use all NFAA rules. So not really an issue anymore. Plus age isn't the only difference. There are numerous equipment rule differences between the two orgs, several different divisions offered in IFAA and I believe a couple of the youth divisions in IFAA use a different age classification than does NFAA.

There are certainly plenty of other reasons to argue for or against changing the NFAA's senior division to 50yrs old, but I don't believe leaving the NFAA at 55yr just because that is the IFAA rule should be strongly considered as one of those reasons.

Merry Christmas all.........

>>--------->


----------



## featherlite

Well here when I trun 55 now change 50 of course. I am ok with this it is a great class to shoot. Should be like the rest if you shoot the upper class you need to stay in the upper class all year no jumping back and forth just my thoughts. But yes I am for the age change.


----------



## brtesite

I Think that the group we are talking about is that small group in that 5 yrs between 50-55 that feel they are getting crapped on because
they have to compete against Jesse ,Reo & the rest of the machines. this also goes for the non pros. They want to get into the seniors so they
then now can beat up on the "OLD" 55 yr old seniors & above. 
The question is then ,what are you going to do for us old folks when you move the masters to 60. when you are over 75, one yr can make a 
difference in ability & stamina ,whereas there is not a big difference between 50 & 55

when you get older, live with it .It sure as hell beats the alternative. 
I have some other thought about the seniors, but I'd rather not express them at this time.


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> I Think that the group we are talking about is that small group in that 5 yrs between 50-55 that feel they are getting crapped on because
> they have to compete against Jesse ,Reo & the rest of the machines. this also goes for the non pros. They want to get into the seniors so they
> then now can beat up on the "OLD" 55 yr old seniors & above.
> The question is then ,what are you going to do for us old folks when you move the masters to 60. when you are over 75, one yr can make a
> difference in ability & stamina ,whereas there is not a big difference between 50 & 55
> 
> when you get older, live with it .It sure as hell beats the alternative.
> I have some other thought about the seniors, but I'd rather not express them at this time.


Mike,
Personally, I think it has more to do with coming in with nearly the REST OF THE WORLD when it comes to the age breakdowns! NAA, IBO, ASA...all competing organizations have their age at 50 and 60 and it makes it exceptionally difficult for the NFAA to compete for that slice of the pie when the NFAA downright refuses to change and help standardize the age standards used by everyone else.
The NFAA, in this, instance, in my opinion simply needs to just come into the mold and standardize with the rest of the organizations instead of "going it alone' based upon the thought about "beating up" on the older folks. I don't think at all that it has much to do with being crapped on by the younger guys. It is more about trying to draw in those eligible in all the other orgs and get them to try the NFAA too.
Senior games are growing...NFAA is falling down...something needs to be done.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

brtesite said:


> I Think that the group we are talking about is that small group in that 5 yrs between 50-55 that feel they are getting crapped on because
> they have to compete against Jesse ,Reo & the rest of the machines. this also goes for the non pros. They want to get into the seniors so they
> then now can beat up on the "OLD" 55 yr old seniors & above.
> The question is then ,what are you going to do for us old folks when you move the masters to 60. when you are over 75, one yr can make a
> difference in ability & stamina ,whereas there is not a big difference between 50 & 55
> 
> when you get older, live with it .It sure as hell beats the alternative.
> I have some other thought about the seniors, but I'd rather not express them at this time.


Mike...
I haven't even looked at the other ages, no one asked me to...it think if we were to boil it down, those classes get very very small as well. Is it even worth changing them?... I don't know.

You might have a point when you look at it from the Pro "machine" side. Here's how I viewed it...
If someone is a 3-D shooter in another org and shooting for money he (or she) might have a factory bow deal, may even be getting some contingency money for a podium. But probably has a list of shoots they need to attend within the NFAA schedule and has to come over and shoot against people as much as 37 years younger than them. Usually at least 25-30. Aside from Trillus and Barnsdale it's a pretty young list of winners on the NFAA Pro side. For the most part if your over your mid 40's it's a donation to the pot. (statistically true) You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. So what happens to those Pro shooters who can shift over to another org 5 years earlier and now shoot against their peers and win money??... They move over thats what they do. They start to focus on another game because they can be competitive, they can feel like a champion again, and most importantly they can win $$$...Makes them look good, makes the sponsors look good, and makes advertising look good to prospective customers. 

Now lets look at it from a business point of view....
There are essiantially 4 orgs in the US that have a major group of archers. NAA/FITA/World Archery - IBO - ASA - NFAA.... 
It's possible to win $$ in every single one of them if you shoot a money or Pro Class. (the first one is pretty tough, but it's there)
In 3 of those groups the Senior limit is 50...why would a shooter stay on the NFAA line for another 5 years against "kids" if he/she didn't need to?...Quite literally the only reason for them to stay would be loyalty. That "loyalty" in the Pro group will cost close to $2000 a year for NFAA/WAF events just in entry fees! So you want them to donate $10K plus time and travel in 5 years just so they can come play our game instead of learning a new one?? If thats the case I guarantee when I hit 50 I'll spend a summer figuring out how to judge yardage and go take my chances on foam...
Now... loyalty is awesome, but it only goes so far when your getting your butt handed to you every time you slide on our NFAA line... especially if when you stand on the other orgs lines your having fun shooting with your buddies and being "competitive" with a chance to cash.
So is it catering to a few whiners?... maybe. But those "whiners" have wallets, and families, and the desire to shoot...they have sponsors who want to see their people winning. Those sponsors spend ALOT of money to generate wins and celebrate them when it happens. If we make it too tough they (sponsors and shooters) will find a place to generate their wins and it wont be here.
Occasionally it's a good business practice to have an equal option to the competition, it gives your customer (shooters/sponsors) an honest balanced choice of where they are going to spend their money and their time...I think it's a lot less about feeling like they are getting crapped on otherwise that would skip the NFAA altogether. 


Respectfully
Chuck Cooley
NFAA PRo Chair

(by the way... thank for all the interest, even on Christmas !! So far 80% yes, 20% no... 36 votes)


----------



## field14

Chuck,
Your points are well taken...and, IMHO, spot on. The NFAA has put themselves at a disadvantage when competing with the other associations from those age groups in question...which, due to the lack of new blood coming in, are GROWING...and the NFAA has missed the boat on this for several years! I also believe that what you say concerning the statistics of this are "spot on" as well.
It only makes good business sense to capitalize on what the other associations have already capitalized upon. Standardization, IMHO, should be undertaken in the competitive archery venues, regardless of the venue, be it shooting foam or shooting paper.

80% to 20% in FAVOR of the NFAA changing the age from 55 and 65 to 50 and 60....do you think the powers at be will listen? As you know, AT isn't very "popular" with them, ha. This poll may well be discounted because non-NFAA members are voting??
What are the rules concerning being able to even bring this up at the Feb meeting, since I thought that the signature agenda items had been eliminated???
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## glsexton

I am 60 years old. When I shoot OAA/NFAA events and compete with 55 year olds I pretty much get smoked. Most of this is my lack of skill and abilities but a lot of this is due to age and the resultant physical inabilities. I also shoot FITA and I am always competitive and even won a couple times last year. I can only shoot a limited number of shoots and I am currently leaning toward making more FITA shoots than NFAA.

Am I understanding this correctly, if the change is made Senior would be 60 to 59 and Master Senior would be 60 on?


----------



## FV Chuck

GL

I'm not sure really on the other ages... I honestly hadnt even looked at it.

This whole thing was because a couple of guys were pressing me on the 50 thing. I supposed it could be expanded, and maybe it's logical to do so. Initially though I was really only looking at the first segment break at 50 v 55.


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Chuck,
> Your points are well taken...and, IMHO, spot on. The NFAA has put themselves at a disadvantage when competing with the other associations from those age groups in question...which, due to the lack of new blood coming in, are GROWING...and the NFAA has missed the boat on this for several years! I also believe that what you say concerning the statistics of this are "spot on" as well.
> It only makes good business sense to capitalize on what the other associations have already capitalized upon. Standardization, IMHO, should be undertaken in the competitive archery venues, regardless of the venue, be it shooting foam or shooting paper.
> 
> 80% to 20% in FAVOR of the NFAA changing the age from 55 and 65 to 50 and 60....do you think the powers at be will listen? As you know, AT isn't very "popular" with them, ha. This poll may well be discounted because non-NFAA members are voting??
> What are the rules concerning being able to even bring this up at the Feb meeting, since I thought that the signature agenda items had been eliminated???
> field14 (Tom D.)


Tom - 

Public opinion is public opinion, members or not. At the end of the day they are potential members and potential participants. So are their families.
If they weren't why would they vote?... I mean really, if the annual best garden lilly competition came up would you be casting a ballot just because you found it in a random MB that only marginally interested you?
I submit that the people who are actually voting do legitimately care one way or the other. I don't need them to be NFAA members to hear their opinion. I need them to know we give a damn about what they have to say. That little nugget right there makes us different that the other orgs. In the 3-D realm they dont have a mechanism to have submissions or votes by the membership on these types of things. It's for all intents and purposes a monarchy "this is how it's done" mentality. On one hand I think there are times when that is good and helpful, at other times I think input should be treated like gold.

As for Sig items, yes they still exist... the proposal needs to be written and submitted. Then 13 or 15 (I think) director signatures need to be attached to get it on the floor for a vote...then the vote needs to go your way to make a rule change.
So... right now I'm willing to write it up and present it, but you and others will need to reach out to your state directors, plead the case and see if they will sign on. After that you and others will need to continue to send your thoughts to other state directors to get a majority vote... if you don't, this dies. Simple as that...
If we dont have the numbers going in, then it's a HUGE waste of time and energy...

If this is REALLY something people want changed then the Dir's need to hear about it. TRUST me when I say they would rather take no action and make no changes than to make a change and get peeled when they get home for making one the gen-pop dosent like. If they know gen-pop is behind them and that they are making a decision that people have actually said they want then it's a very easy vote and they feel good and confident about it. 

RS
Chuck Cooley
NFAA Pro Chair


----------



## carlosii

ASA and IBO are now on the same track for the older age groups. Seniors are 50 and over. Super Seniors are 60 and over. Master Seniors are 70 and over. IMHO and experience there's a bigger jump in these decades than those that precede age 50. I know I was a lot more proficent and in better health at 50 than at 60, and in better health at 60 than I was at 70. I appreciate the opportunity to compete against people nearer my own age by ASA and IBO. That's why I will always choose to shoot their events ratehr than those that choose not to accomadate these age differences.


----------



## brtesite

FV Chuck said:


> Tom -
> 
> Public opinion is public opinion, members or not. At the end of the day they are potential members and potential participants. So are their families.
> If they weren't why would they vote?... I mean really, if the annual best garden lilly competition came up would you be casting a ballot just because you found it in a random MB that only marginally interested you?
> I submit that the people who are actually voting do legitimately care one way or the other. I don't need them to be NFAA members to hear their opinion. I need them to know we give a damn about what they have to say. That little nugget right there makes us different that the other orgs. In the 3-D realm they dont have a mechanism to have submissions or votes by the membership on these types of things. It's for all intents and purposes a monarchy "this is how it's done" mentality. On one hand I think there are times when that is good and helpful, at other times I think input should be treated like gold.
> 
> As for Sig items, yes they still exist... the proposal needs to be written and submitted. Then 13 or 15 (I think) director signatures need to be attached to get it on the floor for a vote...then the vote needs to go your way to make a rule change.
> So... right now I'm willing to write it up and present it, but you and others will need to reach out to your state directors, plead the case and see if they will sign on. After that you and others will need to continue to send your thoughts to other state directors to get a majority vote... if you don't, this dies. Simple as that...
> If we dont have the numbers going in, then it's a HUGE waste of time and energy...
> 
> If this is REALLY something people want changed then the Dir's need to hear about it. TRUST me when I say they would rather take no action and make no changes than to make a change and get peeled when they get home for making one the gen-pop dosent like. If they know gen-pop is behind them and that they are making a decision that people have actually said they want then it's a very easy vote and they feel good and confident about it.
> 
> RS
> Chuck Cooley
> NFAA Pro Chair


 Chuck is correct. All the *****en & writing up things on this forum, mean Zilch . Unless You can get your local director to write it up & 
present it to the floor nothing happens. 
How ever it is to late now. The only thing that can be done for this next meeting , Is to get the director to obtain 15 signatures to an agenda
to present it to the floor.


----------



## rock monkey

the idea of my thread on AT was to get the members to get an idea and have a single and universal submission rather than 8 submissions of the same thing. i guess it's too difficult for the management to get a feel for what changes need to be looked and and what the MEMBERSHIP is asking for.


being one of the last 25 people in ohio that shoot field and one of the very few that know how the game is played, i consult the rule book often and am usually the guy that everyone asks at the club when questions arise.

with the NFAA's management style and rule over the fiefdom, it is doomed to failure regardless of what superficial changes occur.

the rules are one giant grey area. your legal consultant advised the BoD that the operating procedures and the game rules need to be separated. hasnt happened yet and dont see it happening in the future. the rules themselves are confusing and contradictory and use a language that can only be deciphered by a secret decoder ring or lawyer. the opening statements of the C/BL define the mission but we all know how that's goin.

i have stopped being a paying member because i just dont see things changing from the status quo. as long as the ruling class of the NFAA refuses to learn to adapt and simplify things for their members, i'll withhold my financial support. does it mean anything in the big picture?, probably not. my pittance of a membership is just a drop in the ocean. as an affiliate, the ohio archers have made great strides but with almost no support from the mother ship.

i'm off this bus.

LOVE the game, DESPISE the games


----------



## Daniel Boone

Fought this battle way to many years. Have talk to so many Senior pros that agree. Just makes to much good sense to be on the same page with other archery assc. for the Senior Pros and all seniors.

Old Guard at NFAA not going to accept change and that is really sad for the future of Seniors.

For me it was never about winning and easier. Just good common sense.
DB


----------



## field14

Daniel Boone said:


> Fought this battle way to many years. Have talk to so many Senior pros that agree. Just makes to much good sense to be on the same page with other archery assc. for the Senior Pros and all seniors.
> 
> Old Guard at NFAA not going to accept change and that is really sad for the future of Seniors.
> 
> For me it was never about winning and easier. Just good common sense.
> DB


I hear ya, Dan! I agree, fighting the battle all these years and nothing ever comes of it...cut off at the knees every time.
However, even tho it won't help you out if it changes next year, the guard IS changing; not rapidly, but it is changing, one by one, bit by bit.

Only thing about a "member" writing up an agenda item is that it must be "perfect", fit the mold perfectly, be expertly put together in a perfect format, and then you just cross your fingers. MOST won't go thru, but every now and again, a change does occur.
One time it is 'YOU' put together the agenda item and give it to your Director, the next it is have your Director put together the agenda item...must just depend...upon...????? As in an earlier post: ".....writing up things on this forum, mean Zilch . _Unless You can get your local director to write it up  & present it to the floor nothing happens_. 

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## brtesite

field14 said:


> I hear ya, Dan! I agree, fighting the battle all these years and nothing ever comes of it...cut off at the knees every time.
> However, even tho it won't help you out if it changes next year, the guard IS changing; not rapidly, but it is changing, one by one, bit by bit.
> 
> Only thing about a "member" writing up an agenda item is that it must be "perfect", fit the mold perfectly, be expertly put together in a perfect format, and then you just cross your fingers. MOST won't go thru, but every now and again, a change does occur.
> One time it is 'YOU' put together the agenda item and give it to your Director, the next it is have your Director put together the agenda item...must just depend...upon...????? As in an earlier post: ".....writing up things on this forum, mean Zilch . _Unless You can get your local director to write it up  & present it to the floor nothing happens_.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Tom, Any director can do it for you . It doesn't have to be letter perfect, have the director help you out. Not every one that is involved with the process is on archery talk. You just like to constantly keep things stirred up here. You refuse to get the right people involved using the 
correct process. IT's like making a phone call with the wires cut. Run for office. I'm sure you can contribute more that way than what you 
are doing now.


----------



## bigGP

brtesite said:


> Tom, Any director can do it for you . It doesn't have to be letter perfect, have the director help you out. Not every one that is involved with the process is on archery talk. You just like to constantly keep things stirred up here. You refuse to get the right people involved using the
> correct process. IT's like making a phone call with the wires cut. Run for office. I'm sure you can contribute more that way than what you
> are doing now.



Ding Ding Ding Ding............ we have a winner!!


----------



## FV Chuck

Rock, DB, Tom - 

Dont give up the fight just yet.

Mike makes some really good points here.
Obviously this is a topic that gets a lot of attention, and it has in recent years. Based on the poll above I can see it is something that at least 75 people care about already (and this isnt even in GenPop traffic yet) ... The 75% majority for change speaks volumes BUT... ((and this is the really important part)) Not one Director, not one Council member, and not me either will take the flag to the top of the hill and fight for it if people wont fight for it at the grass roots level. None of us will fall on the proverbial sword for just one or two voices. Right, wrong, or indifferent the people have to speak up and they need to speak up at NFAA local meetings, and state meetings for the Dir to feel comfortable enough to stand up in a room of his peers and say "my people want this, who's with me?"

If you dont contact your State Directors with an e-mail or a phone call and tell them what you think then this dies a slow death right here on the keys. If you need a list of emails, names, phone numbers, addresses.. it's right here. 
http://www.nfaa-archery.org/about/directors.cfm

Here is your Council.
http://www.nfaa-archery.org/about/councilmen.cfm

It's one thing to voice opinion and idea on AT (and it's still important to do so), it's quite another to tell the people who can make a change....I absolutely promise to do my part, Mike would do the same when he was in office, all of them who are in office now will do it...you just need to tell them what you want. Not one of them wields enough power to do it alone, and they know it. You have to have a majority vote. ...It's late in the game for this one for this meeting, but it's possible still to happen.
You have time you just need to get it coordinated. I already have 6 items to work on so I might not be your best General in this battle but I'm sure there are Directors or Councilmen that could be an ally.... start reaching out. 

Work the system that is provided and change will happen...It's not hard, but it takes effort outside of the realm of AT

RS
Chuck Cooley
NFAA Pro Chair


----------



## Daniel Boone

I'm just an outsider looking in from local level who supported the NFAA for years.

But have talked to to many longtime NFAA members and all say change is not easy at NFAA or accepted allot of times.

Seen some spend there hard earned money fighting and attending meetings to come back and say politics in NFAA.

Regardless what Mike and others want to admit. I built with help on state level a websight for are state NFAA assc and it has gotten much attention and whether they join NFAA or are OSAA assc. it helps archers. So to say AT websight is not all NFAA members is Ok but it darn sure doesn't hurt to get the NFAA out there.


I went the route of state director and other members here in pms and trying to get the word out of this unjustice with no good reasons why it has not been done. Seems so obvious this would be a good thing for NFAA Senior Class.
DB


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Only thing about a "member" writing up an agenda item is that it must be "perfect", fit the mold perfectly, be expertly put together in a perfect format, and then you just cross your fingers.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Not _really_ tru...I can send you the sheet to write it up...it's a piece of cake
If you can handle AT, you can handle this... (although Tom you'll have to condense it )...LOL JK man. no room for novellas on these sheets


----------



## Woody69

field14 said:


> Mike,
> Personally, I think it has more to do with coming in with nearly the REST OF THE WORLD when it comes to the age breakdowns! NAA, IBO, ASA...all competing organizations have their age at 50 and 60 and it makes it exceptionally difficult for the NFAA to compete for that slice of the pie when the NFAA downright refuses to change and help standardize the age standards used by everyone else.
> The NFAA, in this, instance, in my opinion simply needs to just come into the mold and standardize with the rest of the organizations instead of "going it alone' based upon the thought about "beating up" on the older folks. I don't think at all that it has much to do with being crapped on by the younger guys. It is more about trying to draw in those eligible in all the other orgs and get them to try the NFAA too.
> Senior games are growing...NFAA is falling down...something needs to be done.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


G'day Tom, over here the senior age brackets in FITA are "Masters = 50-59", "Veterans 60+ = 60-69", "Veterans 70+ = 70-79" and so on.

I also think standardization with all the other Org's would be a good thing, but we saw how much they liked that idea with the whole arrow size limit fiasco a while back.

Woody


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Not _really_ tru...I can send you the sheet to write it up...it's a piece of cake
> If you can handle AT, you can handle this... (although Tom you'll have to condense it )...LOL JK man. no room for novellas on these sheets


Been there, done that several times, Chuck. One time, in spite of using the right format (the form of which you speak) AND having two NFAA directors basically go through it with a fine tooth comb and the fact it was very condensed...THE items were rejected because it wasn't the "proper format." Another time, I worked with a couple of other AT NFAA members AND a NFAA Director...and once again....even after the Director had "re-written it"...rejected, but this time, no reason given.
Won't go there again. It is NOT easy; or at least back then, it wasn't, hahaha.

NOT stirring things up, just telling you the facts as they happened and resulting flak still persists; some of it me firing the rounds, and some of it the obvious resistance to change, both of which are natural.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## blueglide1

I think that Steve Boylan,and Dave Barnsdale,and Dee Wilde all agree with me.Bring em on! It was fun to shoot with the youger guys 50+ at Lancasters last year.I think 70 or so people entered in the senior class last year,top notch guys that used to be in mens open Pros,are in the seniors now,but still can kick some butt!So if the 50 year olds think it will be a cake walk to be up here,come on in and have some fun!
Don Ward


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Been there, done that several times, Chuck. One time, in spite of using the right format (the form of which you speak) AND having two NFAA directors basically go through it with a fine tooth comb and the fact it was very condensed...THE items were rejected because it wasn't the "proper format." Another time, I worked with a couple of other AT NFAA members AND a NFAA Director...and once again....even after the Director had "re-written it"...rejected, but this time, no reason given.
> Won't go there again. It is NOT easy; or at least back then, it wasn't, hahaha.
> 
> NOT stirring things up, just telling you the facts as they happened and resulting flak still persists; some of it me firing the rounds, and some of it the obvious resistance to change, both of which are natural.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)



This one time.. at band camp..a long time ago. ..........................

Stop living in the past....looking forward is where we are going...use experience as a tool not a wall.


----------



## FV Chuck

blueglide1 said:


> I think that Steve Boylan,and Dave Barnsdale,and Dee Wilde all agree with me.Bring em on! It was fun to shoot with the youger guys 50+ at Lancasters last year.I think 70 or so people entered in the senior class last year,top notch guys that used to be in mens open Pros,are in the seniors now,but still can kick some butt!So if the 50 year olds think it will be a cake walk to be up here,come on in and have some fun!
> Don Ward



See 

That's the attitude I'm talking about!....BRING IT! LOL..
Any one of those guys can still whoop the )()[email protected])$ out of an awful lot of shooters.... young and old!


----------



## blueglide1

FV Chuck said:


> See
> 
> That's the attitude I'm talking about!....BRING IT! LOL..
> Any one of those guys can still whoop the )()[email protected])$ out of an awful lot of shooters.... young and old!


Yes come on in,if they change, then I got only 2 years to master at 60!.LOL HAHAHAHA


----------



## Daniel Boone

blueglide1 said:


> I think that Steve Boylan,and Dave Barnsdale,and Dee Wilde all agree with me.Bring em on! It was fun to shoot with the youger guys 50+ at Lancasters last year.I think 70 or so people entered in the senior class last year,top notch guys that used to be in mens open Pros,are in the seniors now,but still can kick some butt!So if the 50 year olds think it will be a cake walk to be up here,come on in and have some fun!
> Don Ward


Something tells me those 50 year olds may be surprised when the old timers take there money. 
DB


----------



## USNarcher

Chuck as NFAA director for Washington you have my vote. It doesn't make sense for the NFAA to be the odd org out. And to those that I have talked to it would bring a few more back into the AM divisions. 37 years as an adult, 10 from senior to master. It is a physical thing. Eyes, endurance, etc. Besides if a senior wants to compete with the young guns they still can.


----------



## USNarcher

Daniel Boone said:


> Something tells me those 50 year olds may be surprised when the old timers take there money.
> DB


We do now DB. Ruddock and Neely at least in non national shoots. I would enjoy joining the Pro ranks as a senior but I just can't keep up with Jesse, Poole maybe :tongue:


----------



## FV Chuck

Matt - 

Fantastic 

Here's your plan..

Write it up and have it ready for submission, call or contact some other directors, get 15 that will "sign on" (I believe I can be one of them because it will eventually effect Pro's, now your down to 14) and then keep working on more phone calls to the other directors until you know you'll have a majority vote go your way. Use this forum as a base for your opinion and have them check it out..... you can see the vote right now is 72 for 19 against. Fairly solid percentage's, and they have been right about the same 75% since day 1.

I honestly believe this needs to come from the genpop side of the NFAA, not really from my "Pro Side"... dont get me wrong, I'm all for it... but it affects a whole lot more trophy guys than money guys and I want to be cautious that I dont overstep my bounds with NFAA, the Pro's, or the Directors.... I should tread lightly as the new guy 

I am happy to guide and support where I can and I promise I will, but I urge you to take this one by the horns, use me and the people here as a reference and go!!!
((PS...hurry, you've got less than 30 days))

RS
Chuck Cooley
NFAA Pro Chair


----------



## USNarcher

PM sent Chuck. I have no problem fighting this battle. As most things there is resistance because it makes sense and because that's the way it has always been.


----------



## jimbow56

May I ask-- ? What are the reasons for wanting to lower the age to 50? Is it to make more prize money available in that class? Is it to increase the numbers of shooters in that class for the sake of competition? Or is it to decrease the number of shooters in the below 55 class to make it easier to win or less crowded at the line for convenience sake? 
I just don't see any good reason stated yet. Sorry if I read it too fast and missed the point.
But my counter-point would be that doing this would be akin to raising the Cub Division limit to 21 years of age. When it is put in those terms you can see that there is a reason for having specified divisions including the need for a Sr. Division that starts at a reasonable "senior" age. We shake- we can't see as well through a peep as we used to, we cant hold a full drawn bow up for an extended time without dancing the pin across a five spot on the last target face of a 60 arrow round.
Respectfully submitted, I say let it be. But as stated above, maybe I missed the point. I have the utmost respect for the governing body of the NFAA and will gladly adhere to whatever the outcome may be but if had my "druthers" I'd say leave it! Jim


----------



## ROSKO P

*I voted for the change to 50 yrs.

I do have two questions though:

(1) Why was the age 55 originally decided upon?

(2) What would the benifits be to the NFAA and it's membership to leave the age at 55 yrs.?*


Is there a logical argument to not make the change?


----------



## Daniel Boone

jimbow56 said:


> May I ask-- ? What are the reasons for wanting to lower the age to 50? Is it to make more prize money available in that class? Is it to increase the numbers of shooters in that class for the sake of competition? Or is it to decrease the number of shooters in the below 55 class to make it easier to win or less crowded at the line for convenience sake?
> I just don't see any good reason stated yet. Sorry if I read it too fast and missed the point.
> But my counter-point would be that doing this would be akin to raising the Cub Division limit to 21 years of age. When it is put in those terms you can see that there is a reason for having specified divisions including the need for a Sr. Division that starts at a reasonable "senior" age. We shake- we can't see as well through a peep as we used to, we cant hold a full drawn bow up for an extended time without dancing the pin across a five spot on the last target face of a 60 arrow round.
> Respectfully submitted, I say let it be. But as stated above, maybe I missed the point. I have the utmost respect for the governing body of the NFAA and will gladly adhere to whatever the outcome may be but if had my "druthers" I'd say leave it! Jim



Because NFAA is the only assc. now that starts age 55. All others start at age 50. Age 50 would increase the numbers and has been very successful in doing just that in all other assc. 
DB


----------



## jimbow56

Daniel Boone said:


> Because NFAA is the only assc. now that starts age 55. All others start at age 50. Age 50 would increase the numbers and has been very successful in doing just that in all other assc.
> DB


Are you sure it isn't just re-arranging the numbers? How would changing the age category bring new archers in? It seems that just being a good representative of archery (As you are DB, I've read dozens of your posts and that can easily be said) would be more inviting and bring more archers into the fold. I don't see how changing the age groups brings in more numbers.


----------



## rsarns

Matt,
Lets not just change the Senior from 55 to 50.... (Sure you wait till I am 56 to do this), but also for the amatures change to Master Senior at 60...


----------



## Daniel Boone

jimbow56 said:


> Are you sure it isn't just re-arranging the numbers? How would changing the age category bring new archers in? It seems that just being a good representative of archery (As you are DB, I've read dozens of your posts and that can easily be said) would be more inviting and bring more archers into the fold. I don't see how changing the age groups brings in more numbers.



Lancasters and ASA and IBO numbers show it works. Also if your a ASA Senior Pro at age 50. Your forced to shoot open pro in NFAA, not fair. This is something many Senior Pro want. It was brought up before and was very close to being voted in. It right for all archery assc. to be on the same page in ages to promote all shooting different assc.:thumbs_up
DB


----------



## Daniel Boone

rsarns said:


> Matt,
> Lets not just change the Senior from 55 to 50.... (Sure you wait till I am 56 to do this), but also for the amatures change to Master Senior at 60...


I turn 55 next year and agree but honestly its the right choice to make for making this class all it can be be.
DB


----------



## blueglide1

I was for the change when I was 50,and now at 58 Im still for the change.Heck even when I was in my upper 40s I could tell the difference in eyesight and strength.It just diminishes a little more every year.A 54 year old shooting against a 30 or 35 year old? Some guys are blessed that they can still compete with that,but the majority arent as blessed.Ill still go up against the younger guys if I feel good on that particular day, but most days NOT,LOL It just levels the playing field for most over the 50 barrier.You do have the choice[ not ]to shoot in the senior div if you dont want to.Just because the age would change doesnt mean you have to make the jump.You can still shoot with the young guys if you want.
Don Ward


----------



## field14

The avoidance of the NFAA by those in the ASA and IBO has been obvious for many years, along with the avoidance of those in the NAA/FITA as well. They simply will NOT attend NFAA shoots that they otherwise would attend if it wasn't for the NFAA being the ONLY archery org that sits on age 55 for Senior and 65 for Master Senior.
Yet, the NFAA has the reciprocity agreement with the IBO, ASA, and NAA concerning competing in NFAA tournaments, or NFAA members competing in their tournaments without having to join all 4 organizations.
So...why does the NFAA insist upon this age 55 and 65 thing? Doesn't make any sense at all, and never has. Standardize it across all the organizations; it is not only the right thing to do, it is likely the best thing to do for the NFAA and its members. ALL OF YOU will hit that age sooner or later; some sooner, and ALL later, ha.
Just this poll alone indicates that as of the moment of this post, 80% SUPPORT changing the age limits in the NFAA down to 50 for Senior and 60 for Master Senior, while only 20% are "opposed". That alone, says a LOT about what the population WANTS.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## brtesite

You will never get every one to agree. It all boils down to what is good for "ME". 
If you want to stop it all, Get rid of all the age groups & shoot against a score group with all the styles included. If a BB shooter shoots a 400, & a FS shooter shoots a 400 , they can compete with each other. Shoot what you bring. It would get rid of a lot of rules
I know what I will hear, that the guy with the scope has an advantage over the guy with out one. If they shoot the same scores, They are the same. 
Let see where this one goes.


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> You will never get every one to agree. It all boils down to what is good for "ME".
> If you want to stop it all, Get rid of all the age groups & shoot against a score group with all the styles included. If a BB shooter shoots a 400, & a FS shooter shoots a 400 , they can compete with each other. Shoot what you bring. It would get rid of a lot of rules
> I know what I will hear, that the guy with the scope has an advantage over the guy with out one. If they shoot the same scores, They are the same.
> Let see where this one goes.


Mike,
I respectfully disagree with "It all boils down to what is good for "ME". This "me" has little if anything to do with the issue at hand. The NFAA is playing second fiddle to the rest of the world in its steadfast refusal to fit the mold with regard to the age limit thing. It has cost the NFAA participation into NFAA events from the IBO, ASA, and NAA, and FITA for years.
This poll is a clear indicator that CHANGE is WANTED....80 out of 100 Support the change.

Tell you what, however....shoot what you bring sounds like a great idea, since a 440 is indeed a 440 regardless of what equipment it is shot with!

However, we know that shoot what ya bring and doing away with all the classes and etc, is NOT going to happen in any stretch of the imagination; but, a simple change to bring the NFAA in with the rest of the planet is NOT some earth-shattering thing. It is way, way overdue and will just about give complete reciprocity among the 4 archery organizations. THAT is what this is all about...and it is NOT about the people voting wanting "ME" first...far from it.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## USNarcher

Fine just stay with everyones head in the sand because that's the way it has always been. This is pure and simple, leveling the playing field. Currently the adult division age spans 37 years. What other physical/endurance sport has a 53 year old competing against 20 year olds. Seniors and MS are the only age groups that are allowed to compete out of their division, meaning they can shoot adult if they feel they want to compete there. This is a no brainer.


----------



## field14

USNarcher said:


> Fine just stay with everyones head in the sand because that's the way it has always been. This is pure and simple, leveling the playing field. Currently the adult division age spans 37 years. What other physical/endurance sport has a 53 year old competing against 20 year olds. Seniors and MS are the only age groups that are allowed to compete out of their division, meaning they can shoot adult if they feel they want to compete there. This is a no brainer.


Actually, a CUB, YOUTH, or YOUNG ADULT, or a Lady can and some do step up to the next level, and are allowed to do so.

USED TO BE...way back in the day, that if a YOUTH shot over 500 on a field or hunter round, he/she went to the adult stakes. I don't think that is the case anymore, however. It is by CHOICE now, should a YOUTH want to "step up" to adult stakes. I think CUBS can go to YOUTH stakes if they so choose to STEP UP in age bracket?

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## USNarcher

Ok Tom your point is to move up in competition. If a senior or MS wants to compete with the younger guys they have that option. But lets say that a 53 year old at Redding that shoots a solid 1520 isn't really competitive with the 20 year old or even 30 year old. We can argue this all day. The point is there is NO real solid reason not to level the playing field. Administratively there may be challenges but after the first year it would be business as usual. Hell we would double the size of the senior divisions. And I don't think that Allan, Dennis or Dee would complain too much if 50 year olds join them vice 55. And yes they had to wait but that really isn't the best arguement.


----------



## Rolo

I'm in for the change...


----------



## field14

USNarcher said:


> Ok Tom your point is to move up in competition. If a senior or MS wants to compete with the younger guys they have that option. But lets say that a 53 year old at Redding that shoots a solid 1520 isn't really competitive with the 20 year old or even 30 year old. We can argue this all day. The point is there is NO real solid reason not to level the playing field. Administratively there may be challenges but after the first year it would be business as usual. Hell we would double the size of the senior divisions. And I don't think that Allan, Dennis or Dee would complain too much if 50 year olds join them vice 55. And yes they had to wait but that really isn't the best arguement.


USN.
I'm NOT arguing with you one bit...>I'm FOR changing that age thing to be the same as the rest of the world! I was simply stating that there are options for others to move up if they so choose, and that indeed seniors and master seniors can step back into the young guys' divisions upon their choosing too.
What I don't like is the NFAA basically excluding those from the IBO, ASA, NAA, FITA, etc that are seniors or master seniors in those organizations from shooting the seniors or master seniors in the NFAA.
It isn't about the ME...it is about what is good for the NFAA...and frankly, I think that keeping the ages at 55 for Senior and 65 for Master Senior is NOT good for the NFAA, period. Change is overdue, and like you say, it is a no-brainer. 80-20 in favor of CHANGING is pretty indicative of it.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## USNarcher

Tom I know that you're not the confrontational type. :tongue: 

This isn't about me either. It is like I said LEVELING the playing field.


----------



## field14

USNarcher said:


> Tom I know that you're not the confrontational type. :tongue:
> 
> This isn't about me either. It is like I said LEVELING the playing field.


I wasn't aware that I had a "target" printed on both the front and back of my body? So what is this, "Pick on field14 week" or what?:tongue: :wink: :angel:  :darkbeer:

There may be some fear of the other divisions losing some "victims" while the senior and master senior may worry about becoming victims, heck I dunno. I do know that upper level archers want more and higher level competition. The senior and Master Senior participation WILL increase as a result...and I honestly don't think it will 'hurt' the "young peoples' " classes much at all. ALL of them are going to advance in age sooner or later anyways.

I do carry a bottle of duck oil in one back pocket, and some Prep "H" in the other...I guess if you aren't picking on me, you'd find some other victim, 

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## jimbow56

I guess it's only 5 years...Shouldn't be that earth shattering or life changing- just took me awhile to wrap my liitle senior brain around it. BUT-- when I get to the Super Senior Division age and somebody floats this topic and wants to lower that age group too---- I'm gonna turn my hearing aid up and say "huh?" !!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> I wasn't aware that I had a "target" printed on both the front and back of my body? So what is this, "Pick on field14 week" or what?:tongue: :wink: :angel:  :darkbeer:
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Dude there is a sticky for that... it's not your week, it's your day.. again, and again, and again.... heheheheheeee 
(Groundhog's Day movie LOL)...

Sorry couldn't resist that one, 
JK Tom ~
allllllllll in fun


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Dude there is a sticky for that... it's not your week, it's your day.. again, and again, and again.... heheheheheeee
> (Groundhog's Day movie LOL)...
> 
> Sorry couldn't resist that one,
> JK Tom ~
> allllllllll in fun


Paybacks are pretty severe; what with my heritage and the thing called "vendetta", :cocktail:ukey::jazzmatazzes::icon_1_lol::set1_fishing:


----------



## carlosii

field14 said:


> Paybacks are pretty severe; what with my heritage and the thing called "vendetta", :cocktail:ukey::jazzmatazzes::icon_1_lol::set1_fishing:


i knew it...that's Dee Row *Gotti.*..


----------



## field14

My uncles have specialties...

Uncle Guiseppi is a knee specialist
Uncle Guido works on fingers and hands
Uncle Giovanni works on legs and arms
Uncle Giovetti works on necks and torsos
Uncle Juliani, he works on heads, noses, and faces.

They are all excellent "batters" and work on their golf club selections and swings a lot.

field14 (Tom D.)ukey::chimpeep::boxing::yield::deadhorse:scared::jaw::focus:


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> My uncles have specialties...
> 
> Uncle Guiseppi is a knee specialist
> Uncle Guido works on fingers and hands
> Uncle Giovanni works on legs and arms
> Uncle Giovetti works on necks and torsos
> Uncle Juliani, he works on heads, noses, and faces.
> 
> They are all excellent "batters" and work on their golf club selections and swings a lot.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)ukey::chimpeep::boxing::yield::deadhorse:scared::jaw::focus:


Mine all worked in construction and mining


----------



## field14

:tongue::wink:

Back to topic: Latest numbers still hovering 80/20 in FAVOR of changing the age downwards.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Daniel Boone

brtesite said:


> You will never get every one to agree. It all boils down to what is good for "ME".
> If you want to stop it all, Get rid of all the age groups & shoot against a score group with all the styles included. If a BB shooter shoots a 400, & a FS shooter shoots a 400 , they can compete with each other. Shoot what you bring. It would get rid of a lot of rules
> I know what I will hear, that the guy with the scope has an advantage over the guy with out one. If they shoot the same scores, They are the same.
> Let see where this one goes.


Has nothing to do with compete. Has to do with common sense. This is exactly why things never get done. I just cant see or understand someone not seeing it would be good for NFAA. Crazy not to be on the same page with other assc. If you dont want to be on the same page dont worry about what someone shoots in another assc. to place them in a class. Good to see the voting.
DB


----------



## ROSKO P

*Here are the Senior shooter numbers for the biggest events of the year for the NFAA, IBO, and ASA. As you can see the NFAA has the least amount of senior participants in both amateur and professional classes. And if you were maybe wondering about the number of senior participants at the Vegas shoot, it was 65 seniors.

IBO World Championship: 104 amateurs, 37 pros = 141 shooters

ASA Classic: 65 amateurs, 55 pros = 120 shooters*

*NFAA Nationals: 61 amateurs, 26 pros = 87 shooters*


Note: These are Open class numbers. Which I believe are the only numbers that can be compared fairly.


----------



## field14

ROSKO P said:


> *Here are the Senior shooter numbers for the biggest events of the year for the NFAA, IBO, and ASA. As you can see the NFAA has the least amount of senior participants in both amateur and professional classes. And if you were maybe wondering about the number of senior participants at the Vegas shoot, it was 65 seniors.
> 
> IBO World Championship: 104 amateurs, 37 pros = 141 shooters
> 
> 
> ASA Classic: 65 amateurs, 55 pros = 120 shooters*
> 
> *NFAA Nationals: 61 amateurs, 26 pros = 87 shooters*


Of course, there is no way of knowing how many NAA, IBO, & ASA "seniors" would have come if the NFAA wasn't so staunch in keeping the eligible age at 55 and 65??? Of course, those over age 55 or 65 in the NFAA are not FORCED to shoot "senior" or Master Senior...they do have a choice to "suck it up buttercup and shoot better" (or NOT).
The Poll is at 79% in favor of lowering the ages in the NFAA, 21% opposed....pretty huge margin....
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## ROSKO P

Just for kicks, lets take a look at last years Indoor Nationals scores. The top score in the Senior Division was a 600 with 109X's. If that person was shooting in the Amatuer Freestyle Division he would have had the 61st highest score.
I am not for making changes to rules or classifications just so everybody has a chance to win. But come on, that kind of discrepency speaks volumes for dropping the age to 50 or maybe even lower. It obviously proves that as you age in the archery world, your skills do depreciate. There is no reason you should be competing with people who are as much as 36 yrs. your junior.


----------



## carlosii

just a bit off topic, but since IBO has decided to mirror the ASA master senior class i plan on shooting several of the southern triple crown as well as the triple crown shoots.


----------



## Jim C

field14 said:


> Chuck,
> I also believe that FITA/NAA also has the seniors at age 50 and Master Seniors at age 60, so, unless I'm missing something, the NFAA is the only archery association in the World that has Seniors at age 55 and Master Senior at age 65. I would think that it would make sense to get this settled and to standardize the NFAA with the rest of the world.
> It is good to revisit this, but I won't hold my breath on it changing. This has come up over and over again over the years and gest shut down every time. It sure would be nice to know the exact reasoning behind NOT changing it to ages 50 for Seniors and 65 for Master Seniors.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)



Masters for NAA is the year of your fiftieth birthday. My first year in Masters I shot the 90-7-50-30 FITA, the 60+ shot 70-60-50-30 while the 70+ shot 60-50-40-30

Now everyone 50 and over shoots 70/60 etc and the lady masters all shoot 60/50

I think it should be synchronized but I note that the NAA is far more recurve oriented and as a 52 year old who has already had one shoulder surgery, I believe its harder for me to compete with one of my 18-20 year old students who is pulling 53 pounds than it would be with a compound.


----------



## Pro1

I am all for it. Not because I am 48 but because I believe we are about one of VERY few sports that requires someone to compete in a division from 18-55 years of age. No matter how good you are I believe 50 is a great cutoff age for letting the younger people shoot against people in their ability. I know VERY few people that can even compete against the 20 year olds nowadays In ANY PRO CLASS after the age of 40 let alone 50. Just my thoughts as a person who has been competing for 41 years and 19 as a Pro.


----------



## bullsi560

I was really for it when I was 50. Now that I'm of age, not so much. especially when this lost a close vote 5-6 years ago for no apparent reason. With that being said, the time has come for the NFAA to catch up to the rest of the pro organizations not only in archery but other sports. A good way may be what was proposed a few years ago and that is move the age one year at a time for the next five until 50


----------



## Pete53

yes the age of 50 may make for larger more competative class,but there may be other reasons once you start to make these golden years"maybe your health is fading". family health history,disease,and if you had to work physical hard all your life. just to name a few.my vote is to leave it the same i am 58 health has been ok not great, i only shoot the mssa shoots to cheap to spend any more for a plastic trophy.but i may not shoot as much or as good as some and yes age may be a factor, but i am not going to worry what age class i am shooting ,i do it for fun not for a plastic trophy."being born and raised in the country and always have worked outdoors in minesota as power lineman or a pole climber in all weather conditions for 32 years, lets not whine about a couple of years and just enjoy the sport of archery ! Pete53


----------



## blueglide1

ROSKO P said:


> Just for kicks, lets take a look at last years Indoor Nationals scores. The top score in the Senior Division was a 600 with 109X's. If that person was shooting in the Amatuer Freestyle Division he would have had the 61st highest score.
> I am not for making changes to rules or classifications just so everybody has a chance to win. But come on, that kind of discrepency speaks volumes for dropping the age to 50 or maybe even lower. It obviously proves that as you age in the archery world, your skills do depreciate. There is no reason you should be competing with people who are as much as 36 yrs. your junior.


On the other hand the Senior Pro Div winner had 116Xs,the year before was 119Xs. We had a shoot off last year between three people with that score.But if you want to compete in the Mens Open Pro you better be able to shoot 120Xs.I dont hink any senior, Pro, or not has done that at Nationals.


----------



## Fleahop

Didn't get in on the poll however my voice is for 50-60...60-70....70 and up. I have been to several Florida shoots in the last couple of years and the majority of the shooters are older. I think to keep it fair both physically and mentally we need to break it down a little further than it currently is.

Thanks Mike


----------



## deadx

I hope the age limit gets changed to 50 for Seniors. The water temperature is fine boys...........come on in.........don`t mind the red color to the water......someone must have cut their finger (insert evil laugh here).


----------



## field14

Apparently a "Dead issue" for yet another year. I don't think it was even so much as mentioned at the NFAA Director's Meeting. Figures.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## ccwilder3

The easiest way to get this through would be to convince the folks at Easton.


----------



## field14

ccwilder3 said:


> The easiest way to get this through would be to convince the folks at Easton.


In this case, it isn't selling products...so I don't think "Easton" would want to have any say in it.

However, the easier way would be to find some "popular, fair-haired favorite, golden-person" that is in good with the powers at be to write the agenda item and then to make darned sure the person with that agenda item SHOWS UP at the meeting. Trying for a 15-signature item won't cut it.
Not that convincing the old guard will be easy anyways. Changing anything is akin to finding and pulling hen's teeth.
Now we gotta wait two years before it can come up again...and by then, most will have forgotten about this.

However, that doesn't stop any individual clubs or hosts of 'non-sanctioned" tournaments from doing the age limit change on their own, now does it? It would still leave the main problem, however for NFAA events...so wouldn't solve much, really.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

ccwilder3 said:


> The easiest way to get this through would be to convince the folks at Easton.


That comment is out of line here...


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> In this case, it isn't selling products...so I don't think "Easton" would want to have any say in it.
> 
> However, the easier way would be to find some "popular, fair-haired favorite, golden-person" that is in good with the powers at be to write the agenda item and then to make darned sure the person with that agenda item SHOWS UP at the meeting. Trying for a 15-signature item won't cut it.
> Not that convincing the old guard will be easy anyways. Changing anything is akin to finding and pulling hen's teeth.
> Now we gotta wait two years before it can come up again...and by then, most will have forgotten about this.
> 
> However, that doesn't stop any individual clubs or hosts of 'non-sanctioned" tournaments from doing the age limit change on their own, now does it? It would still leave the main problem, however for NFAA events...so wouldn't solve much, really.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Tom... your bordering on out of line as well...."popular, fair haired, golden person"? As if what goes on in the meetings is all about favoritism and popularity?... How many years again has it been since you were in one????

The topic was not presented as planned in advance by a NFAA Director. I'm sure it will be presented next year or possibly before. I'm sure you have a Dir in your state, maybe you could ask them to do it for you?.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Tom... your bordering on out of line as well...."popular, fair haired, golden person"? As if what goes on in the meetings is all about favoritism and popularity?... How many years again has it been since you were in one????
> 
> The topic was not presented as planned in advance by a NFAA Director. I'm sure it will be presented next year or possibly before. I'm sure you have a Dir in your state, maybe you could ask them to do it for you?.


Yeah, I realized that after I posted, but got onto something else and didn't get back to it in time to change it. My apologies are in order.

I thought it wouldn't be next year, since aren't the meetings now every two years? The key here would be getting an OFFICIAL agenda item out and get the support for this change way, way in advance. This is a major 'drift' from what it has "always been" so it is going to be very difficult to achieve, IMHO.
One word out of place, or the presenter not bringing his/her "A" game in the presentation and it could kill the issue. Diplomacy, tact, and yes, making it 'palatable' will be the keys. People don't like change and are going to fight it.
However, a 'helper' to this may well be that there are some events out there that are indeed moving the age limits to 50 for Seniors and 60 for Master Seniors, so just maybe if there are more, then it could help sway the sentiments of the Directors sitting on the fence. It sure won't work by only having support for it from only one or two States, however. 
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## sweet old bill

at 70 years young I shoot as a master senior shooter and just shoot one arrow at a time and enjoy our sport.
It sure does seem the time has come as the overall age in our sport continues grow higher within the 50+ members. 

SO I hope they do look at and change the age to meet the other sport areas. 50 is now consider being a senior all over the USA.


----------



## Daniel Boone

Been arguing this fight for five years now. Polls and folks all show it a good thing for years. 

Don't know all the politics in NFAA. But sure seems like it a obvious good thing. 

I give up. Fight to much and seems those older guys just get upset with change.

NFAA has continue a downward trend in my state. Other assc. have grown. Time for change is needed.

Good Luck!

DB


----------



## field14

Daniel Boone said:


> Been arguing this fight for five years now. Polls and folks all show it a good thing for years.
> 
> Don't know all the politics in NFAA. But sure seems like it a obvious good thing.
> 
> I give up. Fight to much and seems those older guys just get upset with change.
> 
> NFAA has continue a downward trend in my state. Other assc. have grown. Time for change is needed.
> 
> Good Luck!
> 
> DB


Dan,
You and I have been preaching to the choir (the other AT members) for years now, problem is the "church" is apparently sound-proofed or deaf, cuz "the word isn't getting to them."

Apparently, those that vote here don't care all that much, or you would think that someone besides the fieldman would be told to "submit the agenda item" and get the "state director" involved...there are, I believe 50 States are there not? Can't someone else (or lots of them) pick up the ball and run with it?
Of course, if you get a director that is "against" this change, it could be problematical anyways, even tho he/she is supposed to vote according to the instructions of his/her State members. THERE is where the need for more NFAA MEMBER involvement comes in and those said members need to get involved, DB and the fieldman cannot go it alone, nor should we have to.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## brtesite

FV Chuck said:


> That comment is out of line here...


You are right on there Chuck.
Unfortunately there a bunch of folks that will never get convinced that the big E controls things. I was part of the inner workings for a very long time, & I can tell you that never happened


----------



## field14

It simply isn't going to get changed until more MEMBERS get directly involved and make sure their voices get heard in every State and that those State "Directors" get TOLD in no uncertain terms that they are to vote FOR changing these age limits. That is the system, but, unfortunately, since I've been in the game, that kind of direct involvement doesn't happen all that often. As I stated earlier, Daniel Boone and the fieldman cannot go it alone. Neither myself nor Dan'l Boone can up and submit the agenda item and get much of anywhere in only two states without the full support of membership, not only in those two states, but in the majority of the states, and especially those States with the most voting power to get change implemented.
SIMPLE process, but unacheivable without MEMBER involvement...and that means more than two members, and obviously also means that it has to be presented at the time it is supposed to be presented as well.

Didn't happen THIS year, so now we wait and see once again. That is how it works. Protocol hasn't been violated, the issue apparently wasn't carried through to get to the next step of the changing process.

Of some interesting comments I've heard concerning the issue, one really sticks in my mind: "Suck it up buttercup and just learn to shoot better." That comment was made by a couple of people that are NOT age 50 yet, let alone age 55. They are also very high level shooters with a ton of talent, still have their great eye-sight and health. I wonder what they are going to say 'when' (and it is NOT an 'if') their age starts showing and they are in the position of not being able to "suck it up and shoot better." ROFLMAO, their time will come, and then the shoe will be on a different foot.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## ccwilder3

FV Chuck said:


> That comment is out of line here...


I was being serious. The NFAA has shown that they give great credence to request made by such a large contributor. If Easton got behind it, it would be addressed.


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> Apparently, those that vote here don't care all that much, or you would think that someone besides the fieldman would be told to "submit the agenda item" and get the "state director" involved...there are, I believe 50 States are there not? Can't someone else (or lots of them) pick up the ball and run with it?
> Of course, if you get a director that is "against" this change, it could be problematical anyways, even tho he/she is supposed to vote according to the instructions of his/her State members. THERE is where the need for more NFAA MEMBER involvement comes in and those said members need to get involved, DB and the fieldman cannot go it alone, nor should we have to.


A somewhat curious statement...for is a Director is in favor of the age change, but his State members are against it...what would you have that Director do? I suppose there is 50 Directors (at least by intent, but it also takes an active State)...but if the individual States are against it...according to your own statements, it is not the NFAA, not a conspiracy, nothing but the members that are deciding the issue.

There may be a loud voice to change it...but the numbers (States function the same as National...majority rules) may mean that the States dont want it changed.

So...what do you propose that the Director who is for the change do when the State he or she represents is against it...


----------



## field14

Rolo said:


> A somewhat curious statement...for is a Director is in favor of the age change, but his State members are against it...what would you have that Director do? I suppose there is 50 Directors (at least by intent, but it also takes an active State)...but if the individual States are against it...according to your own statements, it is not the NFAA, not a conspiracy, nothing but the members that are deciding the issue.
> 
> There may be a loud voice to change it...but the numbers (States function the same as National...majority rules) may mean that the States dont want it changed.
> 
> So...what do you propose that the Director who is for the change do when the State he or she represents is against it...


If a Director is personally for it, and his constituents aren't then he/she must go with his/her constituents and vote "no". That is the way it is 'supposed to work' The MEMBERS rule, but the problem is getting the MEMBERS to get involved and it always has been that way; so few will actually do their job as a member and "direct" the State Director to vote this way or that on each agenda item. That would sure make the job of the State Director a heckuva lot easier, now wouldn't it? Give them NUMBERS to go by in how you feel.
This, stuff I get, "Hey, "fieldman" why don't YOU write up the agenda item and submit it to YOUR director?"...*I say, "HEY what about people from the other 49 states doing the same thing"*? 50 versus 1 might have more effect, wouldn't you think? Get off your duffs and do something too instead of hiding in the woodwork and leaving it to the next guy. 
I would just about bet that since this was a 15 signature item this year, that if it even would have been brought up, that the State Directors may not have had adequate guidance to vote the way their constituents wanted anyways.

Frankly, I'll be 65 later this year...so I'm Master Senior anyways, so none of this proposed change affects me one iota; The only match I have in this fire is a philosophy that all the archery organizations should be standard across the board with regard to the age thing instead of one standing out alone by itself like a sore thumb when everything around them is the other way. Time to get with the program, IMHO.

Easton shouldn't get into the fray on AGE, they aren't even related to it with regard to their impact upon the archery community.


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> If a Director is personally for it, and his constituents aren't then he/she must go with his/her constituents and vote "no". That is the way it is 'supposed to work' The MEMBERS rule, but the problem is getting the MEMBERS to get involved and it always has been that. Hey, "fieldman" why don't YOU write up the agenda item and submit it to YOUR director...what about people from the other 49 states doing the same thing? 50 versus 1 might have more effect, wouldn't you think?
> I would just about bet that since this was a 15 signature item this year, that if it even would have been brought up, that the State Directors may not have had adequate guidance to vote the way their constituents wanted anyways.
> 
> Frankly, I'll be 65 later this year...so I'm Master Senior anyways, so none of this proposed change affects me one iota; The only match I have in this fire is a philosophy that all the archery organizations should be standard across the board with regard to the age thing instead of one standing out alone by itself like a sore thumb when everything around them is the other way. Time to get with the program, IMHO.
> 
> Easton shouldn't get into the fray on AGE, they aren't even related to it with regard to their impact upon the archery community.


*It wasn't a 15 signature item this year*. At least some State Directors had discussed the issue with their State prior to the meeting, and the possibility of a 15 signature item. At least soem of these Directors were told by their State 1) we don't want to change it. 2) Don't be one of the 15 signatures. 

So...with that said...it may be important to 1) know the facts before commenting on them. 2) Understand that some Directors did their job, and based on that, the membership might well not want to change it (even if the Director believes it should be changed). 3) All the B'n & C'n from those in favor of the change, may just be a loud voice from the minority of the membership, and all that it accomplishes is yet more infighting and criticisms of the NFAA based on inacurate information and understanding of what actually occurred...


----------



## FV Chuck

Rolo said:


> So...with that said...it may be important to 1) know the facts before commenting on them. ...


Awwww man.... thats no fun! (and certainly not the norm either)


----------



## Rolo

FV Chuck said:


> Awwww man.... thats no fun! (and certainly not the norm either)


The problem is that "fun" often leads to conspiracy...which leads to opinions of favoritism and "fair haired"...which leads to proclomations of what is "true" to the masses...which creates beliefs of truth that are not true...which leads to unfounded and...quite frankly...uneducated opinions that are believed to be true...that aren't...which of course...

Does nutt'n to actually solve the problem or help archery in general, the NFAA or any other org an any way...but yeah...I guess it is more fun...at least if being productive is viewed as being "buzz kill"...

Excuse the frustration...but the continual criticisms without factual knowledge of what happened...which lead to blame based on some allusion of what is happening...get quite old, tiresome, and are worn...The NFAA isn't the ASA...it (th NFAA) is modeled after a representative government because that is what the members wanted, and still want...the ASA is modeled after a dictatorship...it is a lot easier to effectuate change in one, but not the other...

Yet those who are not involved still continue to assert factless facts...and echo continued conspiracies of what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen...even if they are not part of it...instead...it is simply easier to blame someone or something because they didn't get what they, but not necessarily the membership, wanted...

Yep...that's the promotion of archery...


----------



## FV Chuck

Rolo said:


> The problem is that "fun" often leads to conspiracy...which leads to opinions of favoritism and "fair haired"...which leads to proclomations of what is "true" to the masses...which creates beliefs of truth that are not true...which leads to unfounded and...quite frankly...uneducated opinions that are believed to be true...that aren't...which of course...
> 
> Does nutt'n to actually solve the problem or help archery in general, the NFAA or any other org an any way...but yeah...I guess it is more fun...at least if being productive is viewed as being "buzz kill"...
> 
> Excuse the frustration...but the continual criticisms without factual knowledge of what happened...which lead to blame based on some allusion of what is happening...get quite old, tiresome, and are worn...The NFAA isn't the ASA...it (th NFAA) is modeled after a representative government because that is what the members wanted, and still want...the ASA is modeled after a dictatorship...it is a lot easier to effectuate change in one, but not the other...
> 
> Yet those who are not involved still continue to assert factless facts...and echo continued conspiracies of what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen...even if they are not part of it...instead...it is simply easier to blame someone or something because they didn't get what they, but not necessarily the membership, wanted...
> 
> Yep...that's the promotion of archery...


Your brilliant dude... I was pretty angry about the initial post to begin with...
Thank you for saying what I could not.


----------



## Rolo

FV Chuck said:


> Your brilliant dude... I was pretty angry about the initial post to begin with...
> Thank you for saying what I could not.


Have you ever noticed how actual facts tend to kill a thread? :wink:

Brilliant...NO...but I do get a bit pissy when people go down the road of little factual knowledge...

And here's a prediction...Change...and I think for the best..it will happen...it may take some time, but I think it will...it might even occur faster if people spoke less about that which they don't know, and chose to listen so that they actually knew a little...just say'n...


----------



## Daniel Boone

Rolo said:


> Have you ever noticed how actual facts tend to kill a thread? :wink:
> 
> Brilliant...NO...but I do get a bit pissy when people go down the road of little factual knowledge...
> 
> And here's a prediction...Change...and I think for the best..it will happen...it may take some time, but I think it will...it might even occur faster if people spoke less about that which they don't know, and chose to listen so that they actually knew a little...just say'n...



I got a few facts. Other Senior classes grow and NFAA does not. There a pretty important fact. Some seniors get punished for being a ASA Senior pro when 50 but yet Rolo keeps calling ASA a dictatorship which NFAA must think pretty highly of if there going punish one (some dont like that word but it honesty) for being a 50 year old senior in ASA and make him shoot in open pro class which is really fair. Makes one make a choice and sadly I had to make mine. If ASA so bad don't base your rules on ASA Pros period.

Really not sure why Chuck posted the poll. Thread isnt killed we can go on forever. 
DB


----------



## Rolo

I tried...I couldn't...and oh, I also included your original post too...



Daniel Boone said:


> I got a few facts. Other Senior classes grow and NFAA does not. There a pretty important fact. Some seniors get punished for being a ASA Senior pro when 50 but yet Rolo keeps calling ASA a dictatorship which NFAA must think pretty highly of if there going punish one (some dont like that word but it honesty) for being a 50 year old senior in ASA and make him shoot in open pro class which is really fair. Makes one make a choice and sadly I had to make mine. If ASA so bad don't base your rules on ASA Pros period.
> 
> Really not sure why Chuck posted the poll. Thread isnt killed we can go on forever.
> DB
> 
> Did you really want input which it pretty obvious for several years now many have wanted this but nothing gets done? Poll shows it not even a close call but yet it always gets voted down. Dont see the promotion of NFAA myself. Easy to sit back and make post like Rolo when your not the one who doing the fighting for improvement.
> DB
> DB


So breaking it down...



Daniel Boone said:


> I got a few facts. Other Senior classes grow and NFAA does not. Some seniors get punished for being a ASA Senior pro when 50


Right...a lot of people agree...including me. It is one of the main reasons change the NFAA rule. There's the whole skills comparison thing too



Daniel Boone said:


> but yet Rolo keeps calling ASA a dictatorship which NFAA must think pretty highly of if there going punish one (some dont like that word but it honesty) for being a 50 year old senior in ASA and make him shoot in open pro class which is really fair. Makes one make a choice and sadly I had to make mine. If ASA so bad don't base your rules on ASA Pros period.


Time for a civics lesson...and I will keep it as simple as I can...

Dictatorship: One person is in charge. One person makes the decisions and sets the rules. That one person may consult others, but there is no vote, no majority...nothing...what that one person says and decides is the way it is going to be. Kinda like the ASA...one person who gets to decide, and if you don't like it...you still play by those rules...his.

Representative Government: A set number of people (in the NFAA that is 50 people from 50 States, though California and Florida get extra votes) all who come from different areas with different thoughts and interests...who also answer to a another group of people, the one's they represent in their State (for NFAA purposes) who are charged with deciding and implementing. Now, these 50 people may not have the same ideas, goals or beliefs as to what may be in the best interest of the NFAA. They may want to get their ideas passed, or change someone elses...in the end, the decision is made by a majority of those people present...cuz they are representing the interests of their constituents. If their constituents tell them that they don't want the age limit changed, that is how they are supposed to proceed and vote...even if they don't agree with what the people they represent want.

For the comprehensionally challenged...no one said the ASA rules are bad, wrong, or otherwise. The way the rules are made is entirely different than the NFAA.

Field was right...the Directors should vote how their members tell them too...if the members want the age to stay...that is what will be...that is how the NFAA was founded, that is how the members (at least some or a lot) want it to continue. There are several Directors who are afraid, very afraid of losing any scantilla of power and control...they are afraid of the Council...they are afraid of the Pro Division...they almost appear to oppose ideas because of where they came from...if they were their own ideas...they would be great...



Daniel Boone said:


> Really not sure why Chuck posted the poll. Thread isnt killed we can go on forever.


Cuz he wanted to get a sampling of what the people on AT thought, and perhaps put it to work...but this is not solely a Pro issue either...



Daniel Boone said:


> Did you really want input which it pretty obvious for several years now many have wanted this but nothing gets done? Poll shows it not even a close call but yet it always gets voted down. Dont see the promotion of NFAA myself. Easy to sit back and make post like Rolo when your not the one who doing the fighting for improvement.
> DB
> DB


This poll shows what exactly...that the number of people who voted want the age rule changed. How many of them are NFAA members? How many of them contacted their Director or their State Association and asked to push this through? Are they a majority or minority?

Voted down...it was never voted on! Facts I tell you...

Fighting for improvement...Well DB...did the Oklahoma State Director introduce an Agenda item to change the age rule? Here's a hint: NO. Did you speak with your State Director? What did the rest of your State members tell your Director about this issue?

Were you present at my State's meeting when this issue was raised? Were you there to hear what the membership wanted, and instructed their director to do?

Now here's some advice: know the facts before you make accusations about people sitting back and not doing anything. Know a little more about the situation before you open your mouth and remove any doubt...because when you continually proceed with half cocked notions that maybe sorta kinda reflect things in a semi-accurate way...and say things about people you don't have a clue about...you are a fool...you also provide incentive for people who work for change to work against what it is you want...just because you want to "bash" them without knowing a darned thing...


----------



## Daniel Boone

Well Rolo I did mention it my state director who did vote the time before and said it wasnt happening. Heck are State NFAA memberships so far down in numbers hard to get anyone to talk about NFAA.

First off Rolo dont act like your this know all about this issue. Your attitude is belittling to others is so easy to spot. Stop patting yourself on the back like your this highly eductated person who better than the next NFAA member here.


I have disscussed this issue with many senior pros and got there feelings. I do know a injustice. I do know it would have been real easy to say hey NFAA really isnt for me and walk away. Honestly if ever NFAA member talked and was belittling in the way you talk to others I wouldnt be a member of NFAA. Thank goodness others are more assuring and not belittling. Im pretty good friends with some that have been in NFAA for many years and have heard and understand the battles and politics.

Its not fair to hold another one to be a open pro if the other assc. starts it age at 50. Not sure if your mind can comprehend this one or not but the Senior pros understand entirely. Once agian you think Im going to take advice from someone who rude and talks down to others?
DB


----------



## field14

Rolo said:


> *It wasn't a 15 signature item this year*. At least some State Directors had discussed the issue with their State prior to the meeting, and the possibility of a 15 signature item. At least soem of these Directors were told by their State 1) we don't want to change it. 2) Don't be one of the 15 signatures.
> 
> So...with that said...it may be important to 1) know the facts before commenting on them. 2) Understand that some Directors did their job, and based on that, the membership might well not want to change it (even if the Director believes it should be changed). 3) All the B'n & C'n from those in favor of the change, may just be a loud voice from the minority of the membership, and all that it accomplishes is yet more infighting and criticisms of the NFAA based on inacurate information and understanding of what actually occurred...


Yes, I understand what you are saying, however based upon past experiences when it comes to MEMBER "feedback" given to the Directors, I would just about bet that
1. the MAJORITY of the State Members did NOT bother to provide said feedback. So, while of course, the State Director may well indeed be doing his/her job by voting with the information he has....if only 11 people in the whole State Association give him/her feedback and 6 say no and 5 say yes...then, while you have a majority of those that at least had the courtesy and interest to let the Director know....that doesn't really mean that the majority of the State Association is opposed either. But again, that is NOT the Directors' fault, is it?
However, on the other hand, let's say that there are 200 members in a State Association and 140 give feedback to their Director (we can only dream, haha) and it is 80 opposed and 60 for, then that means something because they you have some REAL numbers to deal with.

What I'm saying is simply this....the MEMBERS have got to care enough to give their Directors instructions on what to do...because if they don't....then, if only 3 members in the entire state give that "direction" and 2 are one way and one is the other, then the Director is certainly left into a pickle...and then, the members that don't give the feedback made their own bed and they will...have to live with what only 2 members told the Director to do. SO, in this case TWO members controlled the entire State's vote on the item. Hopefully it isn't to quite this extreme, but I'll bet you the feed back gotten is extremely low.

My point? Simple..>MEMBERS have got to start caring enough on these issues to get off their duffs and provide direction to the NFAA State Directors instead of tying their hands with a % of participation in the teens or lower, instead of a REAL majority of the membership of said State's association!

There is one other thing, too...the NFAA is hurting for membership, and wants to increase membership....I know that non-members cannot vote...but, isn't it also smart to look at the outside opinions that are there to help guide the direction of the Association. Case in point: is THIS POLL...Sure, we all know that NON-NFAA members are voting...but this is a pretty darned good representation of the archery POPULATION...combined of MEMBERS and NON-MEMBERS and "potential NEW members" 70% on this poll as of right now FAVOR changing the ages down to 50 and 60....yet, it is basically ignored completely???
Once again, I seriously doubt that a MAJORITY of the paid NFAA members in each of the States that had information were directly involved in saying Yeah, or Nay to this proposal. I can't prove it, but based upon prior experiences of my tenure with the NFAA...getting a majority of paid members to vote on anything and give feed back is, like I stated earlier, like finding hen's teeth.

It comes down to one fact... if the Majority of MEMBERS won't do their job and provide the Directors guidance, then that "silent majority" (if it is indeed the case) that won't tell the Directors their preference...are bound by a MINORITY of the people....that do get off and do their jobs as members.
70% on this thread WANT the age change....I honestly cannot construe how this can be ignored year after year after year and not count as something the general archery population WANTS CHANGED. 
I strongly feel that this issue, and other issues are at the heart of the membership loss and lack of gain of new memberships in the NFAA; something the NFAA needs to really start considering if they are to survive.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo

Daniel Boone said:


> Well Rolo I did mention it my state director who did vote the time before and said it wasnt happening. Heck are State NFAA memberships so far down in numbers hard to get anyone to talk about NFAA.
> 
> First off Rolo dont act like your this know all about this issue. Your attitude is belittling to others is so easy to spot. Stop patting yourself on the back like your this highly eductated person who better than the next NFAA member here.
> 
> 
> I have disscussed this issue with many senior pros and got there feelings. I do know a injustice. I do know it would have been real easy to say hey NFAA really isnt for me and walk away. Honestly if ever NFAA member talked and was belittling in the way you talk to others I wouldnt be a member of NFAA. Thank goodness others are more assuring and not belittling. Im pretty good friends with some that have been in NFAA for many years and have heard and understand the battles and politics.
> 
> Its not fair to hold another one to be a open pro if the other assc. starts it age at 50. Not sure if your mind can comprehend this one or not but the Senior pros understand entirely. Once agian you think Im going to take advice from someone who rude and talks down to others?
> DB


And, What have you done sense then?

Should I pretend I don't know about it...even if I really do? Even if I know more about the issue and what occurred than you do? Seriously...I am not pretending a darned thing...I am speaking of actual facts and knowledge...try it sometime.

This is NOT a Pro issue...it is a general membership issue, including the Pros. Even if all the eligible Pros wanted this done, their numbers are still les than the majority of the general membership...and if the general membership doesn't want to change it, it won't change. Period! Shoot senior in ASA...can't shoot senior in NFAA unless your 55...it's not just pros...it's not just about pros...there are some who may very well vote against it if it is perceived about being for the pros...your, once again, faulty logic and mis-information actually works against what you want...but of course, you won't listen to it anyway...

Rude...maybe...honest, absolutely...and I didn't quote a thing of yours...until you had this gem:



Daniel Boone said:


> Easy to sit back and make post like Rolo when your not the one who doing the fighting for improvement.


So you want to fling a pebble without a clue what you're talking about...have at it...but your going to get the boulder thrown back at you...and actual facts along with it...


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> Yes, I understand what you are saying, however based upon past experiences when it comes to MEMBER "feedback" given to the Directors, I would just about bet that
> 1. the MAJORITY of the State Members did NOT bother to provide said feedback. So, while of course, the State Director may well indeed be doing his/her job by voting with the information he has....if only 11 people in the whole State Association give him/her feedback and 6 say no and 5 say yes...then, while you have a majority of those that at least had the courtesy and interest to let the Director know....that doesn't really mean that the majority of the State Association is opposed either. But again, that is NOT the Directors' fault, is it?


It might be. If the Director is not letting the State know and soliciting information, then it is (me does think there are some who act as they want)

But yes, generally, there seems to be little feedback from the membership on issues...apathy, don't care, whatever...

But, I am fairly certain and confident that AT is not the place...although chosen by some...to "bash' the NFAA with faulty knowledge and facts...spreading the conspiracies...unwilling to listen to both reason and accurate information, but instead challenge those who are actually doing something to help...cuz they don't understand the very basics of how it works, and why "change" is difficult to achieve...if people would take time to educate themselves, it may actually produce a good result...



field14 said:


> However, on the other hand, let's say that there are 200 members in a State Association and 140 give feedback to their Director (we can only dream, haha) and it is 80 opposed and 60 for, then that means something because they you have some REAL numbers to deal with.
> 
> What I'm saying is simply this....the MEMBERS have got to care enough to give their Directors instructions on what to do...because if they don't....then, if only 3 members in the entire state give that "direction" and 2 are one way and one is the other, then the Director is certainly left into a pickle...and then, the members that don't give the feedback made their own bed and they will...have to live with what only 2 members told the Director to do. SO, in this case TWO members controlled the entire State's vote on the item. Hopefully it isn't to quite this extreme, but I'll bet you the feed back gotten is extremely low.
> 
> My point? Simple..>MEMBERS have got to start caring enough on these issues to get off their duffs and provide direction to the NFAA State Directors instead of tying their hands with a % of participation in the teens or lower, instead of a REAL majority of the membership of said State's association!


Agree completely...with everything quoted here. But, some of the posts on this thread...and others...IMO do little if anything to either encourage members to get involved, or the growth of the NFAA. Look at your post that started this latest round. What kind of impression does that give to someone who either wants to get involved or is thinking about joining? IMO...it is greatly discouraging. And yet, mention the NFAA and people come out of the woodwork to assail the fallacies of the NFAA...though most of what they say is at best, based on less than 50% fact, and the rest is tied up in some grand conspiracy of the Bruce. 

It also speaks to issues far greater than the NFAA...say national politics...the same apathy applies...



field14 said:


> There is one other thing, too...the NFAA is hurting for membership, and wants to increase membership....I know that non-members cannot vote...but, isn't it also smart to look at the outside opinions that are there to help guide the direction of the Association. Case in point: is THIS POLL...Sure, we all know that NON-NFAA members are voting...but this is a pretty darned good representation of the archery POPULATION...combined of MEMBERS and NON-MEMBERS and "potential NEW members" 70% on this poll as of right now FAVOR changing the ages down to 50 and 60....yet, it is basically ignored completely???
> Once again, I seriously doubt that a MAJORITY of the paid NFAA members in each of the States that had information were directly involved in saying Yeah, or Nay to this proposal. I can't prove it, but based upon prior experiences of my tenure with the NFAA...getting a majority of paid members to vote on anything and give feed back is, like I stated earlier, like finding hen's teeth.
> 
> It comes down to one fact... if the Majority of MEMBERS won't do their job and provide the Directors guidance, then that "silent majority" (if it is indeed the case) that won't tell the Directors their preference...are bound by a MINORITY of the people....that do get off and do their jobs as members.
> 70% on this thread WANT the age change....I honestly cannot construe how this can be ignored year after year after year and not count as something the general archery population WANTS CHANGED.
> I strongly feel that this issue, and other issues are at the heart of the membership loss and lack of gain of new memberships in the NFAA; something the NFAA needs to really start considering if they are to survive.


Increase membership...agree...but like I said...look at what is said about it...you have said it...others have said much worse...are they even NFAA members...doesn't matter...cuz someone on AT said something bad about the NFAA and therefore it must be true...who cares if the person who originally made the statement said something that even remotely resembled reality...

I agree again...but it is the "silent majority that is to blame. It ain't hard to voice one's opinions to the proper people. If the silent majority suffers as a result...they have only themselves to blame.

So...how do you get the silent majority involved...the $250,000 question. How do you increase membership...the $1M question...but I am fairly certain that some of the statements in threads like this...the uneducated misinformed ones advertised as truth...ain't the way to do it...

Heck...look at DB...he can't even figure out how it works or that I agree with him on this issue...he wants to tell me I ain't doing nutt'n...of course that, like many others, he is sorely mistaken...


----------



## field14

Rolo said:


> And, What have you done sense then?
> 
> Should I pretend I don't know about it...even if I really do? Even if I know more about the issue and what occurred than you do? Seriously...I am not pretending a darned thing...I am speaking of actual facts and knowledge...try it sometime.
> 
> Rolo.
> 
> 
> This is NOT a Pro issue...it is a general membership issue, including the Pros. Even if all the eligible Pros wanted this done, their numbers are still les than the majority of the general membership...and if the general membership doesn't want to change it, it won't change. Period! Shoot senior in ASA...can't shoot senior in NFAA unless your 55...it's not just pros...it's not just about pros...there are some who may very well vote against it if it is perceived about being for the pros...your, once again, faulty logic and mis-information actually works against what you want...but of course, you won't listen to it anyway...
> 
> Rude...maybe...honest, absolutely...and I didn't quote a thing of yours...until you had this gem:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to fling a pebble without a clue what you're talking about...have at it...but your going to get the boulder thrown back at you...and actual facts along with it...



NONE of us, including YOU really knows if this last go around was a MAJORITY of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP of the entire NFAA or not. However, I know from EXPERIENCE that it is highly unlikely that the "NAY" your mentioned that State Directors gave out about a "majority" of their membership said no....is likely not the case at all.
Yes, the majority of THOSE RESPONDING said "Nay" or "not on a 15-signature item" and I don't doubt that...but for you to construe that that information is from the MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP of the NFAA is NOT BELIEVABLE one bit.

I can draw that conclusion alone from the results if this poll...which you and others are choosing to ignore... When you have a poll of this nature where 78% of those responding WANT THE CHANGE...then MORE investigation is definitely in order.
But please don't try to slant the numbers that at the meeting the majority of the general membership of the NFAA was against the change....it is rather, like I've now said several times...the majority of those responding to the FEW NFAA directors that were given direction told their Directors "no"....Those numbers could be anywhere across the board...from 3 members out of 5 responding to 150 out of 175 responding...but I'll bet you it is more toward the former rather than the latter.

Now...if you can provide the "numbers"...such as, for example....out of 2,000 members, 1500 said no...then fine. But if you cannot provide total numbers from the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP that provides a clear majority of the total membership then your information is really incomplete. But if you have numbers of a State Association that has 200 members in it and only 21 replied, then that hardly is a MAJORITY RULE, situation...it really represents that only 21 out of 200 did their job of telling the Director how to vote....but certainly does NOT mean that the "majority of the state general membership" wants it that way.

It is the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP'S fault this is happening with this and other issues that are really hurting the NFAA. Failure to evaluate PUBLIC opinion as part of the decision making process doesn't help. I know, blah, blah, about the NFAA Constitution and By-Laws, blah, blah...but....out of the 100+ (barely) on this poll, there have got to be a goodly number of current paid NFAA members that voted. 3 to 1 in favor of the age change is way more significant than you and/or whomever are even considering.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14

Rolo,
We musta been posting at the same time. The Directors are put into a pickle because of the lack of willingness of the membership to get involved; the majority of the general membership figure "somebody else can do it" so won't come out of the woodwork and do their job as a member. 
So, in reality, what the NFAA has, unfortunately is an organization really being run by....the MINORITY that will speak out. Not really the best thing. In some cases it works out for the better, but often times...it is a real back-breaker.

THIS issue is a hot item, but it doesn't have to be a hot item... Sooner or later this needs to be tackled and changed, and like you basically are saying...how the H$$$ can the Directors do this when the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP refuses to get involved and give proper direction.

They'll vote on polls like this easily...but when it comes down to sending an e-mail or calling the Director about this issue...they won't do it and let somebody else dictate.

The By-Laws do have the Directors' hands tied, too, with regard to how to deal with Polls on the internet...there isn't a provision allowed for this interpretation and/or addition of data to help in the decision making process. Once again, here we go with an agenda item to make that change...and we both know, "THAT ain't gonna happen".

So sad that the NFAA is the only archery organization on the planet that is left with the 55 and 65 age factor...My gosh, even many of the local and larger TARGET and INDOOR tournaments are shifting their ages over all on their own, because they clearly see the writing on the wall. The NFAA is now standing alone with egg on their face over this and some really significant other items beyond the scope of this thread and also of dealing with now; the National meeting is history, so nothing will transpire for now.


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> NONE of us, including YOU really knows if this last go around was a MAJORITY of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP of the entire NFAA or not. However, I know from EXPERIENCE that it is highly unlikely that the "NAY" your mentioned that State Directors gave out about a "majority" of their membership said no....is likely not the case at all.
> Yes, the majority of THOSE RESPONDING said "Nay" or "not on a 15-signature item" and I don't doubt that...but for you to construe that that information is from the MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP of the NFAA is NOT BELIEVABLE one bit.
> 
> I can draw that conclusion alone from the results if this poll...which you and others are choosing to ignore... When you have a poll of this nature where 78% of those responding WANT THE CHANGE...then MORE investigation is definitely in order.
> But please don't try to slant the numbers that at the meeting the majority of the general membership of the NFAA was against the change....it is rather, like I've now said several times...the majority of those responding to the FEW NFAA directors that were given direction told their Directors "no"....Those numbers could be anywhere across the board...from 3 members out of 5 responding to 150 out of 175 responding...but I'll bet you it is more toward the former rather than the latter.
> 
> Now...if you can provide the "numbers"...such as, for example....out of 2,000 members, 1500 said no...then fine. But if you cannot provide total numbers from the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP that provides a clear majority of the total membership then your information is really incomplete. But if you have numbers of a State Association that has 200 members in it and only 21 replied, then that hardly is a MAJORITY RULE, situation...it really represents that only 21 out of 200 did their job of telling the Director how to vote....but certainly does NOT mean that the "majority of the state general membership" wants it that way.
> 
> It is the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP'S fault this is happening with this and other issues that are really hurting the NFAA. Failure to evaluate PUBLIC opinion as part of the decision making process doesn't help. I know, blah, blah, about the NFAA Constitution and By-Laws, blah, blah...but....out of the 100+ (barely) on this poll, there have got to be a goodly number of current paid NFAA members that voted. 3 to 1 in favor of the age change is way more significant than you and/or whomever are even considering.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


1) There wasn't even a 15 signature item presented for the collection of 15 signatures...so there was no discussion at all.

2) Are you saying that it is not a general membership issue? Are you saying that rules and constitutional changes are not a general membership issue? Are you saying that the general members are outnumbered by the pro members? I din't think so and there was no "construing going on...

"Even *IF* all the eligible Pros wanted this done, their numbers are still les than the majority of the general membership...and *IF* the general membership doesn't want to change it, it won't change."

The word *"IF"* is a very important word in what I said...never did I say that is what the majority of members wanted...silent or vocal...

Another example of what I was talking about in my previous response to you...but I expected that you would understand the connotation of what I actually said...guess not...let the conspiracies go...i am willing to engage in a rational and objective conversation with you...but if you are going to take things out of context and make them say something they don't...the chances of that conversation are slim to none...


----------



## Daniel Boone

Rolo said:


> And, What have you done sense then?
> 
> Should I pretend I don't know about it...even if I really do? Even if I know more about the issue and what occurred than you do? Seriously...I am not pretending a darned thing...I am speaking of actual facts and knowledge...try it sometime.
> 
> This is NOT a Pro issue...it is a general membership issue, including the Pros. Even if all the eligible Pros wanted this done, their numbers are still les than the majority of the general membership...and if the general membership doesn't want to change it, it won't change. Period! Shoot senior in ASA...can't shoot senior in NFAA unless your 55...it's not just pros...it's not just about pros...there are some who may very well vote against it if it is perceived about being for the pros...your, once again, faulty logic and mis-information actually works against what you want...but of course, you won't listen to it anyway...
> 
> Rude...maybe...honest, absolutely...and I didn't quote a thing of yours...until you had this gem:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to fling a pebble without a clue what you're talking about...have at it...but your going to get the boulder thrown back at you...and actual facts along with it...


Rolo if you only knew how much I do on daily basis. Im the guy fighting for memberships on state level and trying my best to get clubs to join NFAA from ASA clubs. I dont know the NFAA except what others tell me that have attended the meetings. Where the faulty logic? Have talked tell Im blue in the face and other get it. You just dont seem to comprehend. You wont ever be able to boulder me or anyone else. Dont try and stop pretending some how your better than any member of NFAA. Most members dont have a qlue how the NFAA truly works. I saw an injustice and brought here five years ago. Several realized it then and try to get it passed. Aint happening now and most likely wont happen in the future so now Im 55 and quess I should just be selfish and say hey it aint going to benefit me. True fact it was never going to benefit me. I couldnt win on pro level. But knew an injustice and shame the NFAA pro class will stay small and only a few. 

Pro class is the only class this rule effects. 

Talking and logic dont work with you. Because comman sense goes right over your head. 
DB


----------



## field14

It is absolutely a general membership issue...but a MAJORITY of the TOTAL General Membership issue...not of the way it has come down with only a 'few' Directors having guidance.
Anything with the rules and Constitution are of course a General Membership issue.

But, you've said it too...the apathy and the lack of involvement of the general membership in their own organization really hurts. I think what you are trying to figure out is HOW to get the *majority of the general membership* involved in the agenda item decision process and to give that guidance to their Directors.

Monumental task, and that is too bad. There isn't a way around it under the current construction of the By-Laws and Constitution, and once again....getting the MAJORITY (the REAL one!) to get involved in those changes, seems to be out of reach.

I don't know the answer, and it sounds like you don't either, nor do the Councilmen or the upper leadership. You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Don't know how to get people off dead center nor how to get acknowledgement for "Polls" either. 

Even if the NFAA was to send out a "Voting ballot" on this very issue to ALL the paid NFAA members, I'd bet that the return of votes would be paltry. 

Does something like that require a formal vote of the general membership to vote to put out a general membership ballot to decide this age issue? Is THAT a possibility? 

The general membership ballot has been used before. One example is the general membership vote concerning the legalization of release aids back in around 1971 or 1972, and, if I recall correctly this was a "charged" emotional item. There was a good return of the voting membership on that ballot, but I don't think it was anywhere near 80% or better, which would be ideal.

That is one potential I can think of to try for the age change issue???? Somebody has probably already mentioned this however???

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Daniel Boone

field14 said:


> Rolo,
> We musta been posting at the same time. The Directors are put into a pickle because of the lack of willingness of the membership to get involved; the majority of the general membership figure "somebody else can do it" so won't come out of the woodwork and do their job as a member.
> So, in reality, what the NFAA has, unfortunately is an organization really being run by....the MINORITY that will speak out. Not really the best thing. In some cases it works out for the better, but often times...it is a real back-breaker.
> 
> THIS issue is a hot item, but it doesn't have to be a hot item... Sooner or later this needs to be tackled and changed, and like you basically are saying...how the H$$$ can the Directors do this when the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP refuses to get involved and give proper direction.
> 
> They'll vote on polls like this easily...but when it comes down to sending an e-mail or calling the Director about this issue...they won't do it and let somebody else dictate.
> 
> The By-Laws do have the Directors' hands tied, too, with regard to how to deal with Polls on the internet...there isn't a provision allowed for this interpretation and/or addition of data to help in the decision making process. Once again, here we go with an agenda item to make that change...and we both know, "THAT ain't gonna happen".
> 
> So sad that the NFAA is the only archery organization on the planet that is left with the 55 and 65 age factor...My gosh, even many of the local and larger TARGET and INDOOR tournaments are shifting their ages over all on their own, because they clearly see the writing on the wall. The NFAA is now standing alone with egg on their face over this and some really significant other items beyond the scope of this thread and also of dealing with now; the National meeting is history, so nothing will transpire for now.


Tom I understand exactly what your saying because this is what many say and feel about NFAA. THis is also why NFAA going to continue to lose memberships and other touraments are going to continue to grow while NFAA cant seem to grasp the simple concept of getting on the same page with other assc. Members can only do so much and then they give up and move on. State assc will one day say were fighting a losing battle. We can do this on are own and make it better and improve membership on state level.
DB
DB


----------



## Rolo

Daniel Boone said:


> Rolo if you only knew how much I do on daily basis. Im the guy f*ighting for memberships* on state level and trying my best to get clubs to join NFAA from ASA clubs. *I dont know the NFAA except what others tell me* that have attended the meetings. *Where the faulty logic?* Have talked tell Im blue in the face and other get it. You just dont seem to comprehend. You wont ever be able to boulder me or anyone else. Dont try and stop pretending some how *your better than any member of NFAA.* *Most members dont have a qlue how the NFAA truly works.* I saw an injustice and brought here five years ago. Several realized it then and try to get it passed. Aint happening now and most likely wont happen in the future so now Im 55 and quess I should just be selfish and say hey it aint going to benefit me. True fact it was never going to benefit me. I couldnt win on pro level. But knew an injustice and shame the NFAA pro class will stay small and only a few.
> 
> *Pro class is the only class this rule effects. *
> 
> Talking and logic dont work with you. Because comman sense goes right over your head.
> DB


Getting members is great for numbers...getting them invloved is the key...pat yourself in the back.

Well DB...I have been to the meetings, and I have been trying to tell you exactly what happened...yet you want to ignore that...you admit you don't know the NFAA, except what others tell you...well HTH do you know they are telling you accurate information? I have been telling you accurate information, and you want to argue about it...here's some more advice...if you really want to know about the NFAA take the time to educate yourself...everything you want to know is there...you don't have to ask a person...you just have to research and find the information...it is easy...

The faulty logic...logic by its definition is faulty if it is based on inaccurate information...your's is based on such...it is faulty...

I'm not better than anyone else...I have just taken the time to educate myself and get involved...learn for myself and rely on myself...not second, third, etc. hand information...you obviously haven't...you admit that...yet you criticize that which you do not know...

If most members don't have a clue...that is entirely their fault...they can either take the motivate themselves to do it or not...if they chose not too, that is on them...their complaints likewise are without a foundation to justify them...

Um...it is not just the Pro class this effects...what is it you do not understand about that...it is everyone...Period. I can assure you that if there was an attempt to just change this for the pro class...well the proverbial snowball stands a better chance...

Listen to me or not, your choice, but what you believe is common...is nonsense...its all there for you to discover on your own...I'm done trying to help you actually understand the issues...


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> It is absolutely a general membership issue...but a MAJORITY of the TOTAL General Membership issue...not of the way it has come down with only a 'few' Directors having guidance.
> Anything with the rules and Constitution are of course a General Membership issue.
> 
> But, you've said it too...the apathy and the lack of involvement of the general membership in their own organization really hurts. I think what you are trying to figure out is HOW to get the *majority of the general membership* involved in the agenda item decision process and to give that guidance to their Directors.
> 
> Monumental task, and that is too bad. There isn't a way around it under the current construction of the By-Laws and Constitution, and once again....getting the MAJORITY (the REAL one!) to get involved in those changes, seems to be out of reach.
> 
> I don't know the answer, and it sounds like you don't either, nor do the Councilmen or the upper leadership. You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
> 
> Don't know how to get people off dead center nor how to get acknowledgement for "Polls" either.
> 
> Even if the NFAA was to send out a "Voting ballot" on this very issue to ALL the paid NFAA members, I'd bet that the return of votes would be paltry.
> 
> Does something like that require a formal vote of the general membership to vote to put out a general membership ballot to decide this age issue? Is THAT a possibility?
> 
> The general membership ballot has been used before. One example is the general membership vote concerning the legalization of release aids back in around 1971 or 1972, and, if I recall correctly this was a "charged" emotional item. There was a good return of the voting membership on that ballot, but I don't think it was anywhere near 80% or better, which would be ideal.
> 
> That is one potential I can think of to try for the age change issue???? Somebody has probably already mentioned this however???
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Honestly...the immediately effective solution is to gut the Constitution and By-laws and make it into a Dictatorship...wait, that's to get issues decided and determined in an efficient manner. :wink:

The other solution is to approach the Director position as a statesman position do what is best for the Org, rather than a purveyor of the general membership's desires...wait that moves to efficiency and the greater good...

How to do it...get the membership more involved...first you have to get them involved on the local level...another monumental task...the most recent thing that sorta got people fired up was the "guest" issue...now finally resolved btw...but members really weren't that motivated by it because they were members and it didn't affect them.

Before that...the arrow size debacle...an example of why 15 signature items, certainly one's of importance, are a bad idea...a rule affecting all the members that the members weren't aware of...nor any indication of what the final rule was going to be...perhaps the biggest example of Directors not knowing what their members wanted before voting for it...generally...of course...then there was the undoing of the rule...leading to a conspiracy theory of its own...but I can also assure you that there were directors who heard from their members with questions of "WTH were you doing, why did you do that, And don't you think that was something that you should have talked to us about before voting on it?"

Interesting question...a referendum of sorts...I actually like the idea...let me do some digging on the answer...never heard the idea before...see, we can be constructive. :tongue: 

But, unfortunately...that may only resolve one issue...it does little to increase member input as a whole...

I however remain resolute that the statements of some on this post do nothing to either increase membership, or motivate people to actually get involved...they discourage it in fact...perhaps it is symptomatic of our society...we have to have instant gratification, and if we don't get it, we just give up and blame the org for us giving up...I mean something bad happened 5 years ago, it wasn't changed to suit the personal opinion, so rather than continuing to try to resolve it...work at it and be persistent...the solution was to give up and blame the org...becoming part of the problem...not the solution.

Which raises another interesting issue...with all of the unfounded, inaccurate statements about the NFAA, and all the criticisms of it, and the people who actually are trying to help and effectuate change...and crying because the results weren't available now, or because the thing wasn't on tv (which if anyone has read and understood the purpose of the NFAA, they would recognize that it is about the shoot and the people at the shoot first)...why the HE double hockey sticks do these volunteers continue to try to improve things for the people that P & M the loudest, and don't really have a clue, don't try to understand, and instead sit on the sidelines and complain...

The answer at least for me...is relatively simple...


----------



## ccwilder3

The problem with a referendum is the cost. Mass mailings are expensive. I do like the idea though.

While I think the age change is a good idea, I don't see it opening a flood gate of new members.


----------



## Daniel Boone

Obvious there not going to change the age.

They need to stop considering what a ASA/IBO Senior Pro does at age 50 in effecting what class they shoot at NFAA.

Two totally different set of rules and assc. Just makes common sense.


I would hope NFAA never doesnt want input (Good or Bad) from the thousands of archers here that only way they ever learned about NFAA was from a place called Archerytalk. That would be me. Internet is a good tool and I use it to reach archers all over my state and want there input regardless if there a member or not how they feel about NFAA and what it would take to change and get them to become members. You never learn if you dont ask. Posting pictures from a indoor event or 900 round may just be what someone needs to go give it a try. Many years shooting 3d not one NFAA member from my state ever even disscussed NFAA. I even shot some indoor and no one mentioned it. Took someone from here to invite me to a indoor national indoor event. So dont critisize something or any trying to give there input. Poll a good example.
DB


----------



## Rolo

Daniel Boone said:


> Obvious there not going to change the age.
> 
> They need to stop considering what a ASA/IBO Senior Pro does at age 50 in effecting what class they shoot at NFAA.
> 
> Two totally different set of rules and assc. Just makes common sense.


Some within the NFAA feel that perhaps the ASA and IBO should have considered what the NFAA was doing when those Orgs set their rules. The NFAA existed long before the ASA and IBO...so did its rules. When the ASA and IBO set their divisional ages, they are the ones that created the problem for their shooters with the NFAA.

As you said...different rules for age divisions doesn't make sense...so as some argue...shouldn't the ASA and IBO change theirs since the NFAA's was established well before, and the ASA and IBO rules were the ones that established the different divisions and created the problem to begin with...


----------



## Daniel Boone

Rolo said:


> Some within the NFAA feel that perhaps the ASA and IBO should have considered what the NFAA was doing when those Orgs set their rules. The NFAA existed long before the ASA and IBO...so did its rules. When the ASA and IBO set their divisional ages, they are the ones that created the problem for their shooters with the NFAA.
> 
> As you said...different rules for age divisions doesn't make sense...so as some argue...shouldn't the ASA and IBO change theirs since the NFAA's was established well before, and the ASA and IBO rules were the ones that established the different divisions and created the problem to begin with...


Considering it working well for those assc. I think they made the right call. 50 a better age to start seniors. Most agree as the poll shows.
DB


----------



## Rolo

Daniel Boone said:


> Considering it working well for those assc. I think they made the right call. 50 a better age to start seniors. Most agree as the poll shows.
> DB


And to state again...I think that the agr should be 50. But, and argument that it should change because of what the other Orgs do is a serious non-starter for some, and proposing the change for that reason alone or mainly, will prevent it from changing...combine that with a "pro only" idea...it is doomed before it gets out of the gate...

Again...just relaying factual information...


----------



## Daniel Boone

Rolo said:


> And to state again...I think that the agr should be 50. But, and argument that it should change because of what the other Orgs do is a serious non-starter for some, and proposing the change for that reason alone or mainly, will prevent it from changing...combine that with a "pro only" idea...it is doomed before it gets out of the gate...
> 
> Again...just relaying factual information...


Once again dont hold it against a archer for shooting at 50 in one assc when NFAA is different. Unfair! 
DB


----------



## Rolo

Daniel Boone said:


> Once again dont hold it against a archer for shooting at 50 in one assc when NFAA is different. Unfair!
> DB


The simple response: It is the other associations that are penalizing the archer. When they made their rules, they knew what the NFAA rules were. They made their rules anyway. They forced the people participating into a corner where they had to make a decision. Those competing in the Senior division in the other orgs could chose to shoot in the Adult division. They would then not put themselves in a position that causes problems with the NFAA's rules...rules that existed well before the other orgs rules. The individual made the choice of their own free will...they have to live by that choice...is how the argument goes.

The argument also asks the question of: How is it unfair when they knew and know the rules and chose to act in a way that creates problems for them. It is not a secret. They made the choice...it was their's to make...is again how the argument goes.

Attempting to change the NFAA rule based on an argument of what other orgs do, who came well after the NFAA, and adopted rules that created the problem, and "fairness" is a good way to assure that the rule won't change...

But, I doubt that matters...


----------



## Daniel Boone

Rolo said:


> The simple response: It is the other associations that are penalizing the archer. When they made their rules, they knew what the NFAA rules were. They made their rules anyway. They forced the people participating into a corner where they had to make a decision. Those competing in the Senior division in the other orgs could chose to shoot in the Adult division. They would then not put themselves in a position that causes problems with the NFAA's rules...rules that existed well before the other orgs rules. The individual made the choice of their own free will...they have to live by that choice...is how the argument goes.
> 
> The argument also asks the question of: How is it unfair when they knew and know the rules and chose to act in a way that creates problems for them. It is not a secret. They made the choice...it was their's to make...is again how the argument goes.
> 
> Attempting to change the NFAA rule based on an argument of what other orgs do, who came well after the NFAA, and adopted rules that created the problem, and "fairness" is a good way to assure that the rule won't change...
> 
> But, I doubt that matters...


Its simple then archer just loses and doesnt shoot. Gotcha! I was told it would be worthless fight five years ago. Should have listen to longtime members that knew exactly what I would be up against but certainly appreciate those who did try. 
DB
DB


----------



## field14

Rolo said:


> The simple response: It is the other associations that are penalizing the archer. When they made their rules, they knew what the NFAA rules were. They made their rules anyway. They forced the people participating into a corner where they had to make a decision. Those competing in the Senior division in the other orgs could chose to shoot in the Adult division. They would then not put themselves in a position that causes problems with the NFAA's rules...rules that existed well before the other orgs rules. The individual made the choice of their own free will...they have to live by that choice...is how the argument goes.
> 
> The argument also asks the question of: How is it unfair when they knew and know the rules and chose to act in a way that creates problems for them. It is not a secret. They made the choice...it was their's to make...is again how the argument goes.
> 
> Attempting to change the NFAA rule based on an argument of what other orgs do, who came well after the NFAA, and adopted rules that created the problem, and "fairness" is a good way to assure that the rule won't change...
> 
> But, I doubt that matters...



Rolo, 
You haven't even considered the REST OF THE PLANET with regard to the age factor in archery...The REST OF THE WORLD has had that age limit at 50 and 60 as well as the ASA and the IBO...
Thus, the singularly and stead-fast NFAA is the ONLY one, period. When the ASA and IBO set their age limit rules, if I recall, they based it upon FITA/NAA rules for ages...along with the REST OF THE WORLD...The IBO/ASA went with, basically what represented a WORLD standard, and obviously, from a participatory standpoint...once again, the NFAA was left in the dust.
I know that we Americans don't give a rat about the rest of the planet...but, once again, you fail to realize that the NFAA is by itself right now with regard to this issue. ALL the other organization's participation is way ahead of the NFAA, especially with regard to the OUTDOOR tournaments. NAA/WA (Used to be FITA) participation is growing rapidly..

In my opinion, in this regard, "fairness" hasn't a lot to do with it, but COMMON SENSE certainly does. We have an organization that is scrambling trying to figure out how to increase membership and participation. There is an obstacle whereby the NFAA differs completely from the rest of the world and ALL the other organizations in the USA as well...Yet, apparently, somebody(s) in the "leadership" seem to steadfastly ignore the situation...and apparently now is using the "numbers" to indicate that the "general membership" is OPPOSED to the change in age....Sure would like to see those representative numbers that represent the MAJORITY of the "general membership" being opposed to this item? It would seem to me that the "leadership" would take stock of the situation and propose to the membership, FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORGANIZATION a voting ballot to help move this issue along. It is ONE of many that may help to stem the flow and improve participation and harmony among the archery associations.
EVERYONE is going to be in those divisions sooner or later, some sooner, and ALL will be later!
This "we were here first, so you should do it OUR way" doesn't hold water. 
When the association is floundering and basically being told that this change is HURTING them and creating a hassle for people that would be interested, but stay away because of it, you would think that there would be a way to at least attempt to get something moving on the issue.
It is NOT about ONLY the "Senior Pros" at all...Of course, there are other nuances within the rules of the NFAA that need work, too...but...one step at a time.
I'm beginning to see that there likely is very staunch opposition all right...but just maybe it is not necessarily in the general membership?
Now, to the real nitty gritty.....You say you are in favor of changing the age, correct? You say you 'know the ropes' and how the organization works, correct? Then, apparently YOU aren't powerless to figure out a means to get the job done, correct?
Lastly... you mentioned that the other IBO and ASA should have considered the NFAA when they set their age limits...cuz the NFAA was there first...Well, I think the NAA and FITA were "there" before the NFAA?? Taking that crutch often used by some of the older NFAA folks is useless today...why? Very simple... PARTICIPATION LEVELS, and the SUCCESS that those other two you mention are having year in and year out, while the NFAA struggles with their outdoor venues big time. State shoots with 30 people competing? Sectionals lucky to have 60. Nationals hurting big time...Just who do you think is going to lose on this issue by NOT changing? The NFAA isn't going to get the rest of the world to change to the NFAA 'standard'; that is nearly a guarantee. So....what else is left?
Either the NFAA changes or....they lose. Not a threat, not bad-mouthing, just the way it is going to turn out.
I've ranted enough on this subject, but I can't go along with that "we were here first" PAST TENSE stuff and crutch. Time is NOW, the org is suffering from loss of participation, and looking for ways to improve. However when the people really interested offer up polls, suggestions, and tell the truth...they are accused of "bashing" and of "having a personal agenda not in the best interest of archery and especially of the organization."

Tell you all what....I wish more people had the get up and go and love of the game and WANTING TO HELP like Dan Chaffin! I know many a State Association and club that would give a lot to have a person with this passion to HELP! But no, he and I are routinely accused of bashing when we call the kettle black. 43 years of continuous membership in the NFAA and people are telling me I have a personal agenda that is contrary to the organization and archery in general? GIMME A BREAK! Dan and I have both tried numerous times on this age issue and done our part more than once... and got a swift kick every time, for whatever reason.


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> Rolo,
> You haven't even considered the REST OF THE PLANET with regard to the age factor in archery...The REST OF THE WORLD has had that age limit at 50 and 60 as well as the ASA and the IBO...
> Thus, the singularly and stead-fast NFAA is the ONLY one, period. When the ASA and IBO set their age limit rules, if I recall, they based it upon FITA/NAA rules for ages...along with the REST OF THE WORLD...The IBO/ASA went with, basically what represented a WORLD standard, and obviously, from a participatory standpoint...once again, the NFAA was left in the dust.
> I know that we Americans don't give a rat about the rest of the planet...but, once again, you fail to realize that the NFAA is by itself right now with regard to this issue. ALL the other organization's participation is way ahead of the NFAA, especially with regard to the OUTDOOR tournaments. NAA/WA (Used to be FITA) participation is growing rapidly..
> 
> In my opinion, in this regard, "fairness" hasn't a lot to do with it, but COMMON SENSE certainly does. We have an organization that is scrambling trying to figure out how to increase membership and participation. There is an obstacle whereby the NFAA differs completely from the rest of the world and ALL the other organizations in the USA as well...Yet, apparently, somebody(s) in the "leadership" seem to steadfastly ignore the situation...and apparently now is using the "numbers" to indicate that the "general membership" is OPPOSED to the change in age....Sure would like to see those representative numbers that represent the MAJORITY of the "general membership" being opposed to this item? It would seem to me that the "leadership" would take stock of the situation and propose to the membership, FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORGANIZATION a voting ballot to help move this issue along. It is ONE of many that may help to stem the flow and improve participation and harmony among the archery associations.
> EVERYONE is going to be in those divisions sooner or later, some sooner, and ALL will be later!
> This "we were here first, so you should do it OUR way" doesn't hold water.
> When the association is floundering and basically being told that this change is HURTING them and creating a hassle for people that would be interested, but stay away because of it, you would think that there would be a way to at least attempt to get something moving on the issue.
> It is NOT about ONLY the "Senior Pros" at all...Of course, there are other nuances within the rules of the NFAA that need work, too...but...one step at a time.
> I'm beginning to see that there likely is very staunch opposition all right...but just maybe it is not necessarily in the general membership?
> Now, to the real nitty gritty.....You say you are in favor of changing the age, correct? You say you 'know the ropes' and how the organization works, correct? Then, apparently YOU aren't powerless to figure out a means to get the job done, correct?
> Lastly... you mentioned that the other IBO and ASA should have considered the NFAA when they set their age limits...cuz the NFAA was there first...Well, I think the NAA and FITA were "there" before the NFAA?? Taking that crutch often used by some of the older NFAA folks is useless today...why? Very simple... PARTICIPATION LEVELS, and the SUCCESS that those other two you mention are having year in and year out, while the NFAA struggles with their outdoor venues big time. State shoots with 30 people competing? Sectionals lucky to have 60. Nationals hurting big time...Just who do you think is going to lose on this issue by NOT changing? The NFAA isn't going to get the rest of the world to change to the NFAA 'standard'; that is nearly a guarantee. So....what else is left?
> Either the NFAA changes or....they lose. Not a threat, not bad-mouthing, just the way it is going to turn out.
> I've ranted enough on this subject, but I can't go along with that "we were here first" PAST TENSE stuff and crutch. Time is NOW, the org is suffering from loss of participation, and looking for ways to improve. However when the people really interested offer up polls, suggestions, and tell the truth...they are accused of "bashing" and of "having a personal agenda not in the best interest of archery and especially of the organization."
> 
> Tell you all what....I wish more people had the get up and go and love of the game and WANTING TO HELP like Dan Chaffin! I know many a State Association and club that would give a lot to have a person with this passion to HELP! But no, he and I are routinely accused of bashing when we call the kettle black. 43 years of continuous membership in the NFAA and people are telling me I have a personal agenda that is contrary to the organization and archery in general? GIMME A BREAK! Dan and I have both tried numerous times on this age issue and done our part more than once... and got a swift kick every time, for whatever reason.


Tom...I am only summarizing the arguments that those who are against the NFAA rule change will make if it is based solely on what the ASA and IBO do. I have had the conversations. It is a non-starter for some. Remember, I agree that the rule should be changed and I am in favor of it. To get it changed requires the right strategy...arguing that it is what the ASA and IBO do is not a winning stratgey for some, especially if that is the only argument that is made.

You have been around long enough to know and understand that. I even think I remember you echoing those sentiments, or something similar in the past. Not that you agree with it...just that it is the argument. If not, I apologize.

I am well aware of what other orgs rules are too...but that goes bback to remembering what side of the fence I am on. As the great generals always knew...the strategy to winning is knowing the hearts and minds of the oponents. What I have said, is at least in part, exctly that...the motivation and position of some of those opposed. Now, a strategy needs to be adopted to win that part of the battle. You know all of this.

And quit going back to the "general membership" thing...I have explained it and why it was used. To even get a sampling of what the active general membership wants, it at a minimum requires an agenda item. Going at a 15 signature item, as I indicated above, is a good wayt to exclude the opinions of the gemeral membership, and their opportunity to weight in. No one has said or implied this is what the general membership want because at least in recent history, it has never been asked to the general membership. It may have been discussed on the state level, but not nationally...recently.

As to your direct question to me...well as you recognized long ago...that position is bound by the will of the State...or has this changed. Does that mean that there is not a conversation about it within the state...nope, not a bit. Does that mean there is not an effort within the State to change its position...nope it doesn't...in fact, I can assure you there is. See...sometimes things get done in mysterious ways properly...that doesn't mean that anyone needs to get on AT and espouse their individual efforts...in fact in many circumstances, that has an opposite affect. But apparently, and based on the tone of your question, none of that probably matters to you cuz you haven't understood a lot of what I have said...

And were back to the other orgs...let me state clearly...this is not my arfgument or my sentiment...but it is the belief held by others...and quite frankly, I get the impression that they don't care who came before them, they care about who came after...and quite frankly...the NAA and FITA are somewhat of an afterthought in the American archery scene...the NFAA may well be on the same path, it may not, but stagnation is not a good position. and I say AGAIN...this is the position of others, not mine...it is not hard to understand that.

As an aside...you were vocal, if I remember correctly, about the arrow size restriction debacle...favoring the 9.3 rule because that is what some of the other orgs did...yet the ASA and IBO both adopted the 27xx as the rule...and so did the NFAA...so which rule...whuich org should the NFAA be in-line with...just an example.

Participation...I'm not sure that this specific rule change will greatly enhance it...I think it requires much more. Field archery is almost dead...I have no idea why, but it is. The NFAA has becom predominantly an indoor archery promotion as a result of this evolution. There's simply a whole lot more going on in the dynamics to conclude that changing the senior age willl significantly change particiupation...at least IMO.

I also agree that the more people that ther is that work to promote archery the better. But I also know that this promotion can easily slide to demotion. I ask again...what promotion does your "golden boy" statement provide to archery as a whole or the NFAA? What factually, not perceived, but what factual information was it based on? You say it is calling the kettle black...but isn't that just an opinion, and not necessarily one based on facts?

Want to reasonably discuss the age issue...I'm all for it...let's do it...lets talk about the pros and cons (little IMO) of doing it...lets talk about the arguments that are going to be used to try to stop it...but no...it digresses to what it has become becazuse people don't fully comprehend what is being discussed...remember...you are the one that went from a hypothetical IF and converted it into a statement of actual fact...

Right...active participation ios a good thing...but with that comes a responsibility to become educated about the issue and be able to reasonbably discuss it...if thi cannot happen...there will be nothing productive that occurs...heck...DB is personally arguing with me even though we agree on what the outcome should and needs to be...you are too. If you fail to understand what those opposed to an idea think about it...you will fail to ever change it...calling the kettle black may feel good...but it sure does nothing to accomplish the goal either...does it?

Now...as far as you bashing things...the only reference I have given to that is your "golden boy" (or whatever it was) comment...a comment which you acknowledged was out of line...so...which is it?


----------



## field14

Rolo,
Thanks for the enlightenment....I apparently misconstrued your thinking process.
I would still like to know how it could be worked to come about a general membership ballot in this very issue. Somehow, the results of this "poll" showing 70% responding being in favor of this age change should be incorporated into the process. There has got to be a work-around so that "potential participants" and the general archery population don't have ALL the say, but do have some "data support" for the numbers. While we might only get 30% of the entire NFAA general membership to vote on the ballot, that is better than getting "some States" with people responding and others with non responding and leaving their Director high and dry out on the fence, know what I mean?
The NFAA wants Guidance from the general membership? Then fine...but sometimes, like it has only a few times in my tenure with the organization, a general membership vote may well be in order.

With regard to me being vocal about arrow size...you betcha...I believe in standardization, and once again, the USA has separated itself from the rest of the archery world with regard to shaft size. So be it, what's done is done, the mold is cast and as Jean Paul Sartres so eloquently put it in his screenplay and book, "Les Jeux Sont Faits"! So, we are stuck with what it is and will remain to be....UNLESS....Another subject entirely, ha.


We agree that the issue should be resolved....but what are the options to bring it to the forefront and allow public polls to be part of the consideration?
We cannot ever "prove" that any change will for certain result in increased participation, now can we? BUT continuing to do the same old thing the same old way and expecting different results obviously doesn't work either? Standing alone on something almost never works either...you get bit in the end.


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> Rolo,
> Thanks for the enlightenment....I apparently misconstrued your thinking process.
> I would still like to know how it could be worked to come about a general membership ballot in this very issue. Somehow, the results of this "poll" showing 70% responding being in favor of this age change should be incorporated into the process. There has got to be a work-around so that "potential participants" and the general archery population don't have ALL the say, but do have some "data support" for the numbers. While we might only get 30% of the entire NFAA general membership to vote on the ballot, that is better than getting "some States" with people responding and others with non responding and leaving their Director high and dry out on the fence, know what I mean?
> The NFAA wants Guidance from the general membership? Then fine...but sometimes, like it has only a few times in my tenure with the organization, a general membership vote may well be in order.
> 
> With regard to me being vocal about arrow size...you betcha...I believe in standardization, and once again, the USA has separated itself from the rest of the archery world with regard to shaft size. So be it, what's done is done, the mold is cast and as Jean Paul Sartres so eloquently put it in his screenplay and book, "Les Jeux Sont Faits"! So, we are stuck with what it is and will remain to be....UNLESS....Another subject entirely, ha.
> 
> 
> We agree that the issue should be resolved....but what are the options to bring it to the forefront and allow public polls to be part of the consideration?
> We cannot ever "prove" that any change will for certain result in increased participation, now can we? BUT continuing to do the same old thing the same old way and expecting different results obviously doesn't work either? Standing alone on something almost never works either...you get bit in the end.


If you hadn't kept me busy all morning explaining that I was explaining the arguments of SOME against the rule change...(remember, I stated from the get go my personal opinion about the desire for the change...I am really not sure how explaining the opposition meant I changed my mind)...I might have had the opportunity to look it up. :tongue:

However, I do agree that unless electronic balloting coulfd be employed (which is subject to abuse) it probably isn't economical. I think the obligation falls back to the Directors and State associations to seek the input...it may be pulling teeth though.

I think this poll is a very useful tool...both on the State and National level...it is already being used by some. Again...it is a process. I think you are beginning to see that...

Standing alone...that is probably what doomed this issue in the past...an appearance of standing alone, or that a certain group was pushing it. Do you realize how easy it is to create yet another NFAA Division for the AMS, and how hard it is to create one for the Pro class? Quite astounding...but it goes to the sentiments of some...Speaking of classes...if the NFAA wants to get on board with the rest of the world...elimination of them, not additions may go a long way...I will not be the lone person that suggests that...

Here's what I see as troublesome...you said you have tried to change things in the past...got kicked in the teeth...and at least to me, have created the impression that you have abandoned all hope and given up. Why? Change never comes easy and always has to be worked for. As a bad compareison to a much more important issue...imagine what this world would be like if seperate but equal was still the law of the land...what if certain people stil weren't thought of as a whole person? A 100 or so years of people not giving up and striving for change...surely you and DB and others can stick around for a few more and help with this change...


----------



## field14

Rolo said:


> If you hadn't kept me busy all morning explaining that I was explaining the arguments of SOME against the rule change...(remember, I stated from the get go my personal opinion about the desire for the change...I am really not sure how explaining the opposition meant I changed my mind)...I might have had the opportunity to look it up. :tongue:
> 
> However, I do agree that unless electronic balloting coulfd be employed (which is subject to abuse) it probably isn't economical. I think the obligation falls back to the Directors and State associations to seek the input...it may be pulling teeth though.
> 
> I think this poll is a very useful tool...both on the State and National level...it is already being used by some. Again...it is a process. I think you are beginning to see that...
> 
> Standing alone...that is probably what doomed this issue in the past...an appearance of standing alone, or that a certain group was pushing it. Do you realize how easy it is to create yet another NFAA Division for the AMS, and how hard it is to create one for the Pro class? Quite astounding...but it goes to the sentiments of some...Speaking of classes...if the NFAA wants to get on board with the rest of the world...elimination of them, not additions may go a long way...I will not be the lone person that suggests that...
> 
> Here's what I see as troublesome...you said you have tried to change things in the past...got kicked in the teeth...and at least to me, have created the impression that you have abandoned all hope and given up. Why? Change never comes easy and always has to be worked for. As a bad compareison to a much more important issue...imagine what this world would be like if seperate but equal was still the law of the land...what if certain people stil weren't thought of as a whole person? A 100 or so years of people not giving up and striving for change...surely you and DB and others can stick around for a few more and help with this change...



See red above: It got as bad as "personal threats of bodily harm", it got as bad as e-mails from an NFAA person in a higher position than general member, that "You (meaning me) have a personal agenda that is contrary to the best interests of the organization and to archery in general". Every time something like this comes up and either myself, Daniel Boone or a couple of others enter in, it is the fieldman, or Daniel Boone, or the few others that are told " contact your State NFAA Director and submit an agenda item"...I'm tired of it...it takes 50 states...why on earth does it come down to me and Daniel Boone (two states) having the entire shift? 
Doesn't anybody else live on this planet or something? It gets really old after awhile....so that is why eventually you just vent, maybe give a bash or three to try to kick start somebody to reality (hasn't worked yet, tho) and torque them off enough for THEM to try it instead of shoving it off on me.
Sometimes I'm like the Dennis Rodman of archery...but dang it, sometimes that is what it takes to at least try to get something going; stir the pot and hope.... but frustration so far has been the result; name calling, insults, threats (thankfully very few of those) and nasty e-mails.
You asked why? I told you...and will likely get bashed for telling the truth...but hey, I carry duck oil in one back pocket and Prep "H" in the other. :angel::77::cow::BangHead::icon_1_lol::set1_punch::weightlifter::set1_fishing::focus:
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## USNarcher

Well now that I am officially the Washington State Director I will be a thorn on this issue. So move over Rolo there will be a voice of reason. I ain't afeared. :tongue:


----------



## FV Chuck

USNarcher said:


> Well now that I am officially the Washington State Director I will be a thorn on this issue. So move over Rolo there will be a voice of reason. I ain't afeared. :tongue:


Awesome... instead of being a voice for your people and carrying their voices to the national...you going to be a thorn....sweet


----------



## USNarcher

Daniel Boone said:


> I got a few facts. Other Senior classes grow and NFAA does not. There a pretty important fact. Some seniors get punished for being a ASA Senior pro when 50 but yet Rolo keeps calling ASA a dictatorship which NFAA must think pretty highly of if there going punish one (some dont like that word but it honesty) for being a 50 year old senior in ASA and make him shoot in open pro class which is really fair. Makes one make a choice and sadly I had to make mine. If ASA so bad don't base your rules on ASA Pros period.
> 
> Really not sure why Chuck posted the poll. Thread isnt killed we can go on forever.
> DB


DB, this issue really has nothing to do with one organization over another. It is soley for physical equality in competition. A by product would be that all the organizations would align. Pure and simple.


----------



## USNarcher

Not even Chuck. I have talked to people and most are in agreement. The biggest oponents are those that are already 55 or older and their only arguement that holds water is that they had to wait so should everyone else. Trust me I have been pursueing this for years.

I'll tell ya what Chuck. I will take an official poll here in Washington. I will log the results and submit it with the proposal. Just like you I am new to the official process but I am willing to learn. One thing that I have noticed as someone on the outside looking in is that there isn't a whole lot of passion in the directors of past. They just fill the spot. I didn't ask for this job to be a spectator. Sorry.


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> See red above: It got as bad as "personal threats of bodily harm", it got *as bad as e-mails* from an NFAA person in a higher position than general member, that "*You (meaning me) have a personal agenda that is contrary to the best interests of the organization and to archery in general*". Every time something like this comes up and either myself, Daniel Boone or a couple of others enter in, it is the fieldman, or Daniel Boone, or the few others that are told " contact your State NFAA Director and submit an agenda item"...I'm tired of it...it takes 50 states...why on earth does it come down to me and Daniel Boone (two states) having the entire shift?
> Doesn't anybody else live on this planet or something? It gets really old after awhile....so that is why eventually you just vent, maybe give a bash or three to try to kick start somebody to reality (hasn't worked yet, tho) and torque them off enough for THEM to try it instead of shoving it off on me.
> Sometimes I'm like the Dennis Rodman of archery...but dang it, sometimes that is what it takes to at least try to get something going; stir the pot and hope.... but frustration so far has been the result; name calling, *insults*, threats (thankfully very few of those) and *nasty e-mails*.
> You asked why? I told you...and will likely get bashed for telling the truth...but hey, I carry duck oil in one back pocket and Prep "H" in the other. :angel::77::cow::BangHead::icon_1_lol::set1_punch::weightlifter::set1_fishing::focus:
> field14 (Tom D.)


I cannot comment on statements made to you that were not made by me...or that I heard made...statements as you describe are certainly out of line, and a few other adjectives...I have no idea if the issue was the age rule or anything else...I refrain from further comment...I can say that I have never received anything threatening from anyone at the NFAA saying similar things...

But...let's talk about bashing:

Remember...our conversation started when I posted actual facts of what occurred...not idea, theory or conspiracy...actual facts. I did that for the simple reason that you posted incorrect information, and then went off on a small venting (your word). Why vent about something that simply is untrue? Why stir the pot about something that is inaccurate? I don't argue facts that aren't true...that was met with these doozys...



Daniel Boone said:


> Did you really want input which it pretty obvious for several years now many have wanted this but nothing gets done? Poll shows it not even a close call but yet it always gets voted down. Dont see the promotion of NFAA myself. Easy to sit back and make post like Rolo when your not the one who doing the fighting for improvement.


So...an example of being told that I wasn't doing a thing without any factual information to support that...it is also completely wrong...who cares if we actually agree on the the isue that is being discussed...

And then from you...



field14 said:


> NONE of us, including YOU really knows if this last go around was a MAJORITY of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP of the entire NFAA or not. However, I know from EXPERIENCE that it is highly unlikely that the "NAY" your mentioned that State Directors gave out about a "majority" of their membership said no....is likely not the case at all.
> Yes, the majority of THOSE RESPONDING said "Nay" or "not on a 15-signature item" and I don't doubt that...but for you to construe that that information is from the MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP of the NFAA is NOT BELIEVABLE one bit...


Keeping in mind the statement that I am "ignoring the rest of the world", also made by you, and keeping in mind that the above quote from you completely misrepresents what I actually said, and keeping in mind that we agree on the age issue and others...my point...

If people are going to engage in misrepresentation and purveying inaccurate information...their credibility is incredible...quite frankly, I don't want incredible people helping me...even if we are on the same side...because their incredibility affects my credibility. I don't want people who stir the pot with inaccurate information on my side. I want people that are able to discuss the facts, reasoning, benefits and resolution, both pro and con on my side. It is a lot easier to get a desired outcome when rationality takes over...not when venting, stirring the pot, or anything else...thoise actions lose credibility, and do nothing to further the end goal.

I stated the arguments and feelings that some use to justify the current age restriction...I gave an example of the "simple" argument to the contrary...yet those simple and concise issues were attributed to me...as my feelings...why...probably because you and DB are so emotionally wrapped up in your feelings that logic and comprehension simply failed. Thjis is not intended as a "bash" but now...that you have hopefully calmed down...go back and read what it was I posted...if it is hypocritical, tell me. If it contradicts anything I have said about my personal views and understanding of the system as it currently is...tell me.

So...like I said...I can reasonably and objectively discuss this issue with anyone...for or against it...that reasonable discussion requires emotional balance and the ability to comprehend what is written, and if not understood, then ask for simple clarification...not a blatant mischaracterization of what was said, or a statement that I sit around and make outlandish statements and do nothing to help...these are non-starters for me...and in case you missed it, but I think you are beginning to see...where I stand on this issue is clear...

The funny thing...read your posts to me...the mischaracterization...the ignoring the rest of the world...now go back and read the highlighted portions of your quote above...see any similarities?


----------



## Rolo

USNarcher said:


> DB, this issue really has nothing to do with one organization over another. It is soley for physical equality in competition. A by product would be that all the organizations would align. Pure and simple.


Exactly, and a much better approach to the goal. :thumbs_up


----------



## rock monkey

field14 said:


> See red above: It got as bad as "personal threats of bodily harm", it got as bad as e-mails from an NFAA person in a higher position than general member, that "You (meaning me) have a personal agenda that is contrary to the best interests of the organization and to archery in general". Every time something like this comes up and either myself, Daniel Boone or a couple of others enter in, it is the fieldman, or Daniel Boone, or the few others that are told " contact your State NFAA Director and submit an agenda item"...I'm tired of it...it takes 50 states...why on earth does it come down to me and Daniel Boone (two states) having the entire shift?
> Doesn't anybody else live on this planet or something? It gets really old after awhile....so that is why eventually you just vent, maybe give a bash or three to try to kick start somebody to reality (hasn't worked yet, tho) and torque them off enough for THEM to try it instead of shoving it off on me.
> Sometimes I'm like the Dennis Rodman of archery...but dang it, sometimes that is what it takes to at least try to get something going; stir the pot and hope.... but frustration so far has been the result; name calling, insults, threats (thankfully very few of those) and nasty e-mails.
> You asked why? I told you...and will likely get bashed for telling the truth...but hey, I carry duck oil in one back pocket and Prep "H" in the other. :angel::77::cow::BangHead::icon_1_lol::set1_punch::weightlifter::set1_fishing::focus:
> field14 (Tom D.)



yanno, if thats how they wanna do ya.....out em.
i'm sure that this/these individual/s would just LOVE to face their constituents.

if you had bonafide proof such as an email or unbiased witnesses to the verbal exchange that just backs up your side.


in the grand scheme of things, i could care less about how this plays out. 50 or 55......doesnt bother me. the rules are the rules.


----------



## USNarcher

Just to let you know. I have presented this to the WSAA membership just like this poll. Granted the participation is small right now but it is 100% in favor. I told the membership that I was going to make this proposal to the NFAA no matter what because I believe that it should happen BUT that I would cast a vote as a result of the membership poll.

I also opened up a discussion thread for discussion on the issue. This is a quote from one of the responses. "I think the change should make the age limits conicide with all the other archery groups, 50-59 senior, 60-69 Master etc...." What are some thoughts about adding this to the original?


----------



## field14

USNarcher said:


> Just to let you know. I have presented this to the WSAA membership just like this poll. Granted the participation is small right now but it is 100% in favor. I told the membership that I was going to make this proposal to the NFAA no matter what because I believe that it should happen BUT that I would cast a vote as a result of the membership poll.
> 
> I also opened up a discussion thread for discussion on the issue. This is a quote from one of the responses. "I think the change should make the age limits conicide with all the other archery groups, 50-59 senior, 60-69 Master etc...." What are some thoughts about adding this to the original?


Once again, the hardest part is getting the membership to be involved and letting them know that each and every one of them is responsible for the 'inaction' they perceive from the NFAA Directors! Sure, 'some' of the Directors just don't get out and pound the bricks....but...I think that most all of them would be more active if the MEMBERS would just start giving a rat and show some support...instead of just lying back in their caves and letting the cookie crumble.
It cannot be up to USNarcher, DB, and the fieldman to honcho this big change.

Don't know the answer as to how to get membership involvement in the majority of the State Associations, but perhaps, just maybe, if ALL the Directors would take the initiative and send out the poll via e-mail to ALL the NFAA Members in THEIR State Association then just maybe the responses returned would be more in line with the REAL feelings of the general membership. Probably won't get an overall majority of members responding, but likely more than a handful would respond!
Just some initiative...and promotion...and then the MEMBERSHIP doing their job and responding!

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Bobmuley

Rolo said:


> Honestly...the immediately effective solution is to gut the Constitution and By-laws and make it into a Dictatorship...wait, that's to get issues decided and determined in an efficient manner. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Some within the NFAA feel that perhaps the ASA and IBO should have considered what the NFAA was doing when those Orgs set their rules. The NFAA existed long before the ASA and IBO...so did its rules. When the ASA and IBO set their divisional ages, they are the ones that created the problem for their shooters with the NFAA.


Can I throw my name in the hat? 


If I'm not mistaken, Senior and master senior were designated until after other organizations did. I'm not 100% sure on this but don't remember any senior divisions through the '70s and '80s. Need a fact checker, but if that's the case, then the NFAA created it's own mess by going outside the others.

Getting it changed (best of luck and thanks to USN) is the only obstacle, and even though there are no valid arguments as to why it shouldn't be changed, I'll be surprised if it does.


----------



## field14

Bobmuley said:


> Can I throw my name in the hat?
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, Senior and master senior were designated until after other organizations did. I'm not 100% sure on this but don't remember any senior divisions through the '70s and '80s. Need a fact checker, but if that's the case, then the NFAA created it's own mess by going outside the others.
> 
> Getting it changed (best of luck and thanks to USN) is the only obstacle, _and even though there are no valid arguments as to why it shouldn't be changed, I'll be surprised if it does_.


IF it is NOT changed, it is but one more nail in the coffin of the NFAA! There are already more and more shoots that use age 50-59 for Seniors and 60+ for Master Seniors. This, as it continues to emerge will leave but a very, very FEW NFAA tournaments which will isolate its stand alone system even more.

Didn't Lancaster's go with 50-59 and 60+ either this past year or sometime even before that? I know of a few others that are giving this age thing strong consideration and are likely to change it on their own with or without the NFAA "rule" on age limits.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## rsarns

It should be changed 50-59 Senior, 60-69 Master etc...


----------



## AT_X_HUNTER

I just don't like the idea that I'll be a "senior" that much sooner. LOL.


----------



## Pete53

Maybe there should be a another class of 40 -50 too,it does not affect me at age 58 but that age of 40-50 does struggle too, maybe it would bring in more shooters too. why not have adult class to the age of 40,40-50,50-60,60-70 and the golden oldie class.i think this would keep people shooting more and having a great time with people of their age group better." we all know getting old ain`t for sissy`s ! " Pete53


----------



## USNarcher

I don't think that we need anymore divisions but the more I get into this the more people are coming out and voicing their oppinions which is great. You can't complain unless you are active and have a solution. Here in Washington the poll I started is overwhelmingly infavor of a rule change. Infact some of the resistance to this has changed as well when I talk to people and they actually find out that I am listening to them and want to be their voice. 

All that being said as I get ready to write this thing up there are several facets to this. Like Ren (rsarns) said if we are going to do this then lets align all the age groups. Then as a show of equality lets make sure that each age group still has all of it's classes. Why is it that a guy shooting traditional his whole life all the sudden is penalized when he moves up to MS and the trad class is dropped. They either have to shoot with senior trad or MS barebow.


----------



## rsarns

Matt,
Exactly, at the Indoor Nationals I think in the Senior division we had 4 for sure that were MS, but have to shoot as a senior even though they are older. Look at Gerald and the many others who have been forced to compete against 55 year olds and are in their 70's. I think we take baby steps and get the age groups lined up with all the other org's, then attack the MS Trad class. It would be nice to get both pushed through.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Though no longer with the NFAA and having served as on the Board of the IAA I had planned on returning this year. After seeing how the events were and were given I didn't join. 

Tom, field14, knows I've been there. Things need to change within the NFAA and that's for sure and the only way is to invade the Old Guard or take it over and that's on the state and national level. Has anyone noticed that a Zone Board member can't poll his or her own zone? And then, here in Illinois, it seems darn feel even care what happens here or even reads the Bulletin for that matter. For Illinois the "writing on the wall" is all but there to read. It exists, but not what I call in good surviving mode.

Well past 50 I'd still vote for 50 being the start for Seniors.

Still, change the age of for Seniors and something must be done for the older yet. And a problem is the number of classes and aged classes. I believe there is 74 as it is. IBO and the ASA have about a 1/3, 26 or 27 classes.


----------



## blueglide1

Hey guys Im 58 and Im all for the change to 50.Yes Tom,Lancasters is 50 and I like it because it brings waaaay more shooters in the class.On a good day some shoots will get 20,25 shooters in senior class.But at Lancasters I get to compete against about 70.It helps me bring out the determination to compete at a higher level,knowing Im going up against the younger guys.The only other two that I can think of that brings all my age shooters out is Vegas and Indoor Nats.
Thats at the Senior Pro level for Nationals.
Don W.


----------



## Daniel Boone

blueglide1 said:


> Hey guys Im 58 and Im all for the change to 50.Yes Tom,Lancasters is 50 and I like it because it brings waaaay more shooters in the class.On a good day some shoots will get 20,25 shooters in senior class.But at Lancasters I get to compete against about 70.It helps me bring out the determination to compete at a higher level,knowing Im going up against the younger guys.The only other two that I can think of that brings all my age shooters out is Vegas and Indoor Nats.
> Thats at the Senior Pro level for Nationals.
> Don W.


Recently in ASA/IBO your seeing guys like Tom Crowe on the upper age of that class win along with Randle Jones who in his mid 60's.
I know for a fact these guys can win against the 50 yr olds. 
DB


----------



## Pete53

i would vote for the 50-60 age being seniors,60-70 age being masters,70 and above super master`s.we do need to do something with the 40-50 age class lets not forget them,maybe called ??. one food for thought does anyone remember when Dave Barnsdale at over 50 years of age won two big shoots using his own Barnsdale bow just a couple of years ago in the male freestyle pro class ? one was Vegas other was Iowa pro am same year ? so you can`t always count the golden year boys out ! beside`s we have grown up and no longer wear dirty blue jeans at a world class shoot right chuck ?Pete53


----------



## USNarcher

Just to let everyone know I am submitting this as an agenda item. From the polls in my state this one and almost everyone that I have talked to there is an overwhelming demand for the change.


----------



## Rolo

USNarcher said:


> Just to let everyone know I am submitting this as an agenda item. From the polls in my state this one and almost everyone that I have talked to there is an overwhelming demand for the change.


Same here(as far as the polling goes). Glad you're submitting it. Should be an interesting discussion. :wink:


----------



## Daniel Boone

USNarcher said:


> Just to let everyone know I am submitting this as an agenda item. From the polls in my state this one and almost everyone that I have talked to there is an overwhelming demand for the change.


I figured it will change. Im turning 55, maybe that what need to happen for change! LOL Glad to see it regardless. Been fighting it for five yrs now.

Thanks DB


----------



## brtesite

Rolo said:


> Same here(as far as the polling goes). Glad you're submitting it. Should be an interesting discussion.
> 
> it will be an interesting agenda:
> I keep hearing that the NFAA is not with the rest of the world. Does any one here think that all of the archery orgs is the rest of the world. The reason that 55 was picked was because that is what "The Rest Of The World "considered what a senior is. I was there when it was voted on. I don't know of any cities or towns that will give you a senior discount at 50. there is a bunch that consider 62 the senior cut off. That was the rationale at the time
> Every one was flighted like always.Then we gave a complimentary 3 places medals for the seniors. Then came the senior division. Then the cry was for the master seniors. How about a cry for the super duper seniors. I'm 79 ,& I had to shoot against those 65 year old wet behind the ears "KIDS" at the Nationals. USN, you are trying to take care of the youngsters. i don't believe that a change to 50 will make all the other organizations flock over to the NFAA. it was the same rationale that changed the Heavy tackle division to Bow hunter div. It was said that all of bow hunters in the country would flock to the NfAA because they would Identify. That didn't happen.
> I wish you luck with the agenda. It will all come down to how well you can politic


----------



## Rolo

brtesite said:


> I keep hearing that the NFAA is not with the rest of the world. Does any one here think that all of the archery orgs is the rest of the world. The reason that 55 was picked was because that is what "The Rest Of The World "considered what a senior is. I was there when it was voted on. I don't know of any cities or towns that will give you a senior discount at 50. there is a bunch that consider 62 the senior cut off. That was the rationale at the time
> Every one was flighted like always.Then we gave a complimentary 3 places medals for the seniors. Then came the senior division. Then the cry was for the master seniors. How about a cry for the super duper seniors. I'm 79 ,& I had to shoot against those 65 year old wet behind the ears "KIDS" at the Nationals. USN, you are trying to take care of the youngsters. i don't believe that a change to 50 will make all the other organizations flock over to the NFAA. it was the same rationale that changed the Heavy tackle division to Bow hunter div. It was said that all of bow hunters in the country would flock to the NfAA because they would Identify. That didn't happen.
> I wish you luck with the agenda. It will all come down to how well you can politic


Mike...without getting into a long discussion about the merits of this agenda item, or a discussion about previous rationals...Isn't USN doing exactly what he is supposed to by bringing this agrnda item? It looks like the members of his State want this change, and are supporting it. Isn't it a Director's responsibility to bring the agenda item on behalf of their State if this is what that State wants? It will be then up to the remaining Directors to vote based on the desire of their State (at least that's how it should be) and not their personal opinions.


----------



## FV Chuck

Rolo said:


> Mike...without getting into a long discussion about the merits of this agenda item, or a discussion about previous rationals...Isn't USN doing exactly what he is supposed to by bringing this agrnda item? It looks like the members of his State want this change, and are supporting it. Isn't it a Director's responsibility to bring the agenda item on behalf of their State if this is what that State wants? It will be then up to the remaining Directors to vote based on the desire of their State (at least that's how it should be) and not their personal opinions.


.....ding ding ding ding.... we have a WINNER!!!


----------



## brtesite

Rolo said:


> Mike...without getting into a long discussion about the merits of this agenda item, or a discussion about previous rationals...Isn't USN doing exactly what he is supposed to by bringing this agrnda item? It looks like the members of his State want this change, and are supporting it. Isn't it a Director's responsibility to bring the agenda item on behalf of their State if this is what that State wants? It will be then up to the remaining Directors to vote based on the desire of their State (at least that's how it should be) and not their personal opinions.


rolo, Yes he is doing what is required. I just expressed my opinion as every one else here. Since I was involved with the situation, I thought I would give some of the history of it. It wasn't to deter USN from doing it.


----------



## Rolo

brtesite said:


> rolo, Yes he is doing what is required. I just expressed my opinion as every one else here. Since I was involved with the situation, I thought I would give some of the history of it. It wasn't to deter USN from doing it.


Didn't think you were doing otherwise Mike. :thumbs_up That's why I left out any comments on a discussion of the merits (that's been hased and re-hashed on this post. A "historical perspective" is also good, and relevant to this discussion. I for one have always appreciated your opinions on these discussions, whether I agree with them or not. You have a lot more 'seasoning' when it comes to the NFAA than I do, which is also much respected by me. Doesn't mean you aren't wrong though. :wink: (It's a joke people)

However, I have also witnessed votes being cast based on the personal desire of the individual Director (actually stated as such) and have truly wondered (with good reason in 1 case) whether that was the desire of the State, or whether there had been any legitimate discussion of the Director with his State as to what was both in the best interest of the State and the NFAA.


----------



## brtesite

Rolo said:


> Didn't think you were doing otherwise Mike. :thumbs_up That's why I left out any comments on a discussion of the merits (that's been hased and re-hashed on this post. A "historical perspective" is also good, and relevant to this discussion. I for one have always appreciated your opinions on these discussions, whether I agree with them or not. You have a lot more 'seasoning' when it comes to the NFAA than I do, which is also much respected by me. Doesn't mean you aren't wrong though. :wink: (It's a joke people)
> 
> However, I have also witnessed votes being cast based on the personal desire of the individual Director (actually stated as such) and have truly wondered (with good reason in 1 case) whether that was the desire of the State, or whether there had been any legitimate discussion of the Director with his State as to what was both in the best interest of the State and the NFAA.


 unfortunately, you are correct about some of the voting that does go on. Some are self serving


----------



## USNarcher

Everyone has an opinion on this and those that "paid their dues" and waited until they were 55 argue the most. This will be my initiation at the convention. If you look at sports and sports only. Every sport that has a senior division has it at an age before NFAA. The current adult division spans 37 years, without a doubt the largest division. Sure us "old" guys have our day and can hang with the younger guys but for the most part we don't stand a chance. And this does not prevent anyone aged 50-55 from still competing with the adult class if they choose. 

I think that this will help the pro side more than anything. Infact I think that it will boost the pro senior numbers in the NFAA as well as promote those pro's that compete in IBO and ASA that are in the age group 50-55 to compete in more NFAA national events. This proposal will also adjust the master senior age to be 60+. I hope that the state delegates do poll their membership, un biased, and vote the wishes of the members. That is how it is supposed to be. When I presented this to Washington folks I said that I am presenting this agenda but will vote as the membership wishes.


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> Rolo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same here(as far as the polling goes). Glad you're submitting it. Should be an interesting discussion.
> 
> it will be an interesting agenda:
> I keep hearing that the NFAA is not with the rest of the world. Does any one here think that all of the archery orgs is the rest of the world. The reason that 55 was picked was because that is what "The Rest Of The World "considered what a senior is. I was there when it was voted on. I don't know of any cities or towns that will give you a senior discount at 50. there is a bunch that consider 62 the senior cut off. That was the rationale at the time
> Every one was flighted like always.Then we gave a complimentary 3 places medals for the seniors. Then came the senior division. Then the cry was for the master seniors. How about a cry for the super duper seniors. I'm 79 ,& I had to shoot against those 65 year old wet behind the ears "KIDS" at the Nationals. USN, you are trying to take care of the youngsters. i don't believe that a change to 50 will make all the other organizations flock over to the NFAA. it was the same rationale that changed the Heavy tackle division to Bow hunter div. It was said that all of bow hunters in the country would flock to the NfAA because they would Identify. That didn't happen.
> I wish you luck with the agenda.* It will all come down to how well you can politic*
> 
> 
> 
> This is the one thing that really bothers me. We have the old farts that "voted this in" that aren't about to change their position, regardless of what the membership has to say about it? USN is obviously doing what he is supposed to do, and by dang...if the majority of the states membership want the change...there shouldn't be ANY "politicing" required!
> Of course that remains to be seen, because first off...how many directors will actually get out and poll their members? Even if they do, how many members will give the necessary feed-back so the NFAA Director can "vote" by using the majority opinion of their members...instead of Politicing or just tossing out their own opinion/judgement about this volitale issue?
> 
> Seniors at age 50 is the "rule" in all the other organizations in archery (except maybe IFAA, who is a near mirror image of NFAA), and that issue is confusing everything. You won't get the "flock" from ASA, IBO, and WAA, USAA, but at least things would be standardized!!
> 
> I'm 65 so don't have a horse in this race, even tho I'm now "legally" a "Master Senior" for whatever that is worth, ha.
> 
> It has always bothered me in that such a very, very low percentage of the membership even bothers to give their Directors guidance and opinions...but will sure pee and moan about issues when the results of agenda items finally come out! They want their say...but won't get off their duffs and "tell" their Directors what to do/how to vote!!!
> Same ole, same ole....
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)
Click to expand...


----------



## USNarcher

Jeff people "flocking to the NFAA" is not the goal of this, though it may be a by product, not so much flocking but pulling in a few. The goal is to level the playing field. Archery is an endurance sport not a line at the 4pm buffet. There are physical inequalities between a 50 year old and a 30 year old. Sure we old farts have our days but for the most part we are not even close to the younger guys. I know guys that were in that "no mans land" 50-55 that half heartidly competed but when they hit 55 and could join their peers they got that competative spark back with a chance of a podium spot. Lets face it, competing and having fun should be why we do it but the goal to all competition is to win.


----------



## Daniel Boone

USNarcher said:


> Everyone has an opinion on this and those that "paid their dues" and waited until they were 55 argue the most. This will be my initiation at the convention. If you look at sports and sports only. Every sport that has a senior division has it at an age before NFAA. The current adult division spans 37 years, without a doubt the largest division. Sure us "old" guys have our day and can hang with the younger guys but for the most part we don't stand a chance. And this does not prevent anyone aged 50-55 from still competing with the adult class if they choose.
> 
> I think that this will help the pro side more than anything. Infact I think that it will boost the pro senior numbers in the NFAA as well as promote those pro's that compete in IBO and ASA that are in the age group 50-55 to compete in more NFAA national events. This proposal will also adjust the master senior age to be 60+. I hope that the state delegates do poll their membership, un biased, and vote the wishes of the members. That is how it is supposed to be. When I presented this to Washington folks I said that I am presenting this agenda but will vote as the membership wishes.


This is my stance on it for sure. Been preaching for years. It will diffidently increase the classes in seniors.
DB


----------



## sambow

I debated not even posting this on here, because I don't like dealing with arguments and disagreements over the internet, but I thought you would all like to know this. I am the new state *director for NY*. We had a nice long meeting last weekend and we were all in agreement that we are putting in an agenda item to change the senior age to 50. I didn't know any other directors were putting in this item, but 2 is better than 1! hopefully with 2 states support it will be a stronger argument from us.


----------



## Rolo

USNarcher said:


> Jeff people "flocking to the NFAA" is not the goal of this, though it may be a by product, not so much flocking but pulling in a few. The goal is to level the playing field. Archery is an endurance sport not a line at the 4pm buffet. There are physical inequalities between a 50 year old and a 30 year old. Sure we old farts have our days but for the most part we are not even close to the younger guys. I know guys that were in that "no mans land" 50-55 that half heartidly competed but when they hit 55 and could join their peers they got that competative spark back with a chance of a podium spot. Lets face it, competing and having fun should be why we do it but the goal to all competition is to win.


No biggie...but I think you are interpreting what Kime said to me because of the mixed up quote from Mike originally. How's that for muddy. Field may have done the same thing.

I personally agree a lot with the rest of what you have said though...:wink:


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> This is the one thing that really bothers me. We have the old farts that "voted this in" that aren't about to change their position, regardless of what the membership has to say about it? USN is obviously doing what he is supposed to do, and by dang...if the majority of the states membership want the change...there shouldn't be ANY "politicing" required!
> Of course that remains to be seen, because first off...how many directors will actually get out and poll their members? Even if they do, how many members will give the necessary feed-back so the NFAA Director can "vote" by using the majority opinion of their members...instead of Politicing or just tossing out their own opinion/judgement about this volitale issue?
> 
> Seniors at age 50 is the "rule" in all the other organizations in archery (except maybe IFAA, who is a near mirror image of NFAA), and that issue is confusing everything. You won't get the "flock" from ASA, IBO, and WAA, USAA, but at least things would be standardized!!
> 
> I'm 65 so don't have a horse in this race, even tho I'm now "legally" a "Master Senior" for whatever that is worth, ha.
> 
> It has always bothered me in that such a very, very low percentage of the membership even bothers to give their Directors guidance and opinions...but will sure pee and moan about issues when the results of agenda items finally come out! They want their say...but won't get off their duffs and "tell" their Directors what to do/how to vote!!!
> Same ole, same ole....
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Not sure if this was directed at me or Mike...since most of what was quoted was from Mike, and he was the onbe that introduced the 'politicing'...

As for the rest, it seems fairly easy, if the members don't provide feedback on issues, a Director's responsibility is to vote for what he/she believes is in the best interest of the NFAA, and therby the State affilliates. If members complain about results, after haveing been asked for input, but not giving any, the response to them is fairly easy...


----------



## brtesite

sambow said:


> I debated not even posting this on here, because I don't like dealing with arguments and disagreements over the internet, but I thought you would all like to know this. I am the new state *director for NY*. We had a nice long meeting last weekend and we were all in agreement that we are putting in an agenda item to change the senior age to 50. I didn't know any other directors were putting in this item, but 2 is better than 1! hopefully with 2 states support it will be a stronger argument from us.[/QUOT
> 
> Sam , don't worry about the same agenda coming from more than one place. What they will do is to roll them all into one. You don't want to have defeat one to try to pass the other one.


----------



## brtesite

Rolo said:


> Not sure if this was directed at me or Mike...since most of what was quoted was from Mike, and he was the onbe that introduced the 'politicing'...
> 
> As for the rest, it seems fairly easy, if the members don't provide feedback on issues, a Director's responsibility is to vote for what he/she believes is in the best interest of the NFAA, and therby the State affilliates. If members complain about results, after haveing been asked for input, but not giving any, the response to them is fairly easy...


not every state will give feed back. it is up to the presenter to politic the directors that don't have any feed back if their thoughts aren't the same.


----------



## Rolo

brtesite said:


> not every state will give feed back. it is up to the presenter to politic the directors that don't have any feed back if their thoughts aren't the same.


Mike, I understand well the world of politicing :wink: and ain't arguing a bit with what you have said about it. I feel like I'm getting it from both sides, and I am not the one who introduced the issue of politicing.

But based upon what USN and sambow have said, and based upon the polling that has been conducted here, there are at least 3 votes for the change.


----------



## USNarcher

sambow said:


> I debated not even posting this on here, because I don't like dealing with arguments and disagreements over the internet, but I thought you would all like to know this. I am the new state *director for NY*. We had a nice long meeting last weekend and we were all in agreement that we are putting in an agenda item to change the senior age to 50. I didn't know any other directors were putting in this item, but 2 is better than 1! hopefully with 2 states support it will be a stronger argument from us.


Hey Sam welcome to the discussion. I talked to your dad about this in Vegas this year. I am glad that you put it in as well. I think that the key here is to get a good feel from your members. The major resistance isn't from the members but from some of the directors and I feel that they may vote THEIR feelings on this not what the state membership wants. I hope that Chuck and the rest of the pro's can see how this can help them as well. Good luck.


----------



## target1

my only question is why not? It won't hurt anything and can only help.


----------



## blueglide1

As a Senior Pro,I can tell you that most of us support the 50 year age entry into the senior class.It will not only help our numbers but I think level the field for alot of the "younger,older shooters" We welcome them,and their money into our class. LOL Don Ward


----------



## field14

For those of you reading this thread, and looking at the results of the "poll"; if you are even remotely interested in having this potential change come about, then you obviously need to take the next step, and that is either e-mail or even call your NFAA State Director on the telephone and let your feelings on the issue be known. 77+% on the poll are in favor of the change? That is a pretty danged significant number...but it MUST be reflected from the paid NFAA members to their NFAA State Directors; otherwise the poll here on AT is useless!

Another thing that could be done is for you to simply write up some type of letter stating the case about lowering the age limit for Seniors to 50 and Master Seniors to 60 and then have people in your local area sign it. Then mail it to your NFAA State Director with an attached subject letter so that there is no doubt that the Director has at least 'some guidance' about the issue from which to draw conclusions.

It takes communications and actions on the part of the membership to the State Directors. That lack of communication makes something like this a lot tougher than it should be.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## USNarcher

blueglide1 said:


> As a Senior Pro,I can tell you that most of us support the 50 year age entry into the senior class.It will not only help our numbers but I think level the field for alot of the "younger,older shooters" We welcome them,and their money into our class. LOL Don Ward


Don I for one will join your ranks if this passes and I think that there a couple more here in Washington and Oregon that will as well.


----------



## str8arrow

Matt & Don, I will join the Senior Pro Ranks if this goes through.


----------



## sambow

str8arrow said:


> Matt & Don, I will join the Senior Pro Ranks if this goes through.


Oh cmon terry you can shoot with the regular pros!


----------



## str8arrow

Sam,

I just checked my NFAA card and it still has me down as a member of Double T. That would make you my Director! Thanks for standing up for the Seniors. I know I can donate my money and shoot with the Big Dog's, but I would just like a chance once in a while. 



Sam no love for WR Strings in the signature!


----------



## USNarcher

Heck Terry I thought you was already a senior under the old rules.


----------



## blueglide1

Matt and Terry ,I hope they do change it and I welcome you in the group if it comes about.We have alot of fun in this class and thats what its all about, but we have fun while we kick each others butt around the room of course,LOL This group is not a gimmie bunch,and its just as tough as the regular pros,maybe an X off here and there,and thats the only window ya get,LOL
Don W.


----------



## bowjoe1800

I plan on joining the Senior Pro's in the ASA & IBO in 2013, but I am not old enough to shoot that division in the NFAA. I sure hope they change the age limit because my 28 year membership with the NFAA could be in jeopardy if not.


----------



## USNarcher

blueglide1 said:


> Matt and Terry ,I hope they do change it and I welcome you in the group if it comes about.We have alot of fun in this class and thats what its all about, but we have fun while we kick each others butt around the room of course,LOL This group is not a gimmie bunch,and its just as tough as the regular pros,maybe an X off here and there,and thats the only window ya get,LOL
> Don W.


Don I know how good the old fart competition is. I shoot with a lot of the top dogs and I enjoy it every time. I'm not real good at political correctness especially in politicing but this is a no brainer and I not only hope, if I could demand, that every state director take an actual poll of their membership before they even discuss this pro or con. I will have documentation at the convention. And from what I have heard personally this will grow the senior pro division.


----------



## deadx

blueglide1 said:


> Matt and Terry ,I hope they do change it and I welcome you in the group if it comes about.We have alot of fun in this class and thats what its all about, but we have fun while we kick each others butt around the room of course,LOL This group is not a gimmie bunch,and its just as tough as the regular pros,maybe an X off here and there,and thats the only window ya get,LOL
> Don W.


Well that settles it! I am starting to do some pushups and chinups right now to get ready for all you young whippersnappersLOL (as soon as my shoulder quits hurting).


----------



## str8arrow

Don, and Steve,
I look forward to the day I get to shoot with you guys! I know it's not going to be a walk in the park. lol But I think I'm up to the challenge.


----------



## Pete53

my question is what is going to be the master senior`s 60-62 or 65.that age group should probably change too in fairness.the mid age still should be considered too the 40 age thing? to me in order to build numbers we all need to do more.


----------



## blueglide1

Master Senior would be 60 and over. Dropped from 65.


----------



## rts1950

deadx said:


> Well that settles it! I am starting to do some pushups and chinups right now to get ready for all you young whippersnappersLOL (as soon as my shoulder quits hurting).


I agree it is a good idea if they lower the age, it does make the group larger which is always good. But we now have to consider that there will be shooters in the Senior Pro class that will not be in pain while they shoot, so there should be an initiation fee for their first year, they supply the ibuprofen and Vicodin for those over 55 just to level the playing field a little. 
Dick


----------



## blueglide1

rts1950 said:


> I agree it is a good idea if they lower the age, it does make the group larger which is always good. But we now have to consider that there will be shooters in the Senior Pro class that will not be in pain while they shoot, so there should be an initiation fee for their first year, they supply the ibuprofen and Vicodin for those over 55 just to level the playing field a little.
> Dick


I have to agree with ya Dick,I eat 7 ibuprofen every morning to keep tha aches at bay.I think a modest fee to support the Medicare would be appropriate,LOL


----------



## Humdinger

Really what does it matter... Here in california in the Trad classes the guys that are 55+ still shoot Adult most of the time and shoot Senior occasionally. There is no one checking ages that i have seen. It seems they shoot where ever they feel the competition is. Besides the 55+ guys have all the skill and advantage here as they have been shooting 10+ years and destroy us 30 somethings. They pretty much go on what ever age you say you are... Hell they put my girlfriend in the male classes half the time... The real question is who is actually Checking anyways?? Maybe im out of line, But just my opinion. Ive only been shooting for about 8 months and this is what i see in Sw region.


----------



## USNarcher

Humdinger this proposal does not block anyone over the age of 50 from competing in the adult class. What is does do is allow those that want to compete and be more competitive with those in their peer group. Believe it or not as you get older some of your finer attributes, like eye sight and dexterity, stay in your 30's and 40's. Like I have said before and will continue to say. This just levels the playing field for those that feel they want to shoot with the geriatrics :wink: and it also allows those that are 50+ in the other organizations to come play with the same in the NFAA.


----------



## target1

This thread demonstrates exactly why it won't happen...politics

Again, my only question is why not? It won't hurt anything and can only help. 

Anybody want to answer the obvious.


----------



## USNarcher

target1 said:


> This thread demonstrates exactly why it won't happen...politics
> 
> Again, my only question is why not? It won't hurt anything and can only help.
> 
> Anybody want to answer the obvious.


 With my political tactfulness in Vegas I don't see how anyone could vote it down and Sam can be my muscle for the stubborn ones. :wink:


----------



## Daniel Boone

bowjoe1800 said:


> I plan on joining the Senior Pro's in the ASA & IBO in 2013, but I am not old enough to shoot that division in the NFAA. I sure hope they change the age limit because my 28 year membership with the NFAA could be in jeopardy if not.


If you do join the senior pro ranks in ASA. You will be told you got to shoot open pro in NFAA. 
DB


----------



## Archery Power

Senior :
Why in the world does a 50 year old shooter won't to shoot aganist 55 year olds?


----------



## Daniel Boone

Archery Power said:


> Senior :
> Why in the world does a 50 year old shooter won't to shoot aganist 55 year olds?


Because that what all other assc. do! It works best.
DB


----------



## woodsman78

Archery Power said:


> Senior :
> Why in the world does a 50 year old shooter won't to shoot aganist 55 year olds?


LOL because they think were eeeeasyyyy


----------



## USNarcher

woodsman78 said:


> LOL because they think were eeeeasyyyy


Well you are, everyone knows that. :set1_draught2:


----------



## USNarcher

Archery Power said:


> Senior :
> Why in the world does a 50 year old shooter won't to shoot aganist 55 year olds?


Why would a 50 year old shooter from IBO or ASA want to come to a field shoot and have to compete with 25 year olds?


----------



## woodsman78

USNarcher said:


> Why would a 50 year old shooter from IBO or ASA want to come to a field shoot and have to compete with 25 year olds?


I do agree with you there my own view is it should be 50 and I agree with what the IBO did by creating a master glass of 60 plus everyone knows as we aproach retirement things just arn't as good as they used to be!!!!


----------



## Archery Power

Daniel Boone said:


> Because that what all other assc. do! It works best.
> DB


 It don't make a lot of difference what the other associations does, but if you have to shoot with the old folks set it up 50 yr olds to 59, 60 to 69 and 70 to 79 but don't say there are too many classes if that is the problem just leave it as it is now.


----------



## Daniel Boone

Archery Power said:


> It don't make a lot of difference what the other associations does, but if you have to shoot with the old folks set it up 50 yr olds to 59, 60 to 69 and 70 to 79 but don't say there are too many classes if that is the problem just leave it as it is now.


Funny you say that. I had to shoot open pro in NFAA because I shot senior pro at age 50 in ASA.

So dont tell me it doesnt matter what other assc do it matters to NFAA.

Im 55 now and exspect this to diffiantly change now. Been fighting it many years. 

DB


----------



## 3Dblackncamo

50 should be a level age for seniors and shooting, I am not 50 but I have seen a decline in my eye sight when I hit 44, I still shoot with some young guns but its a tough game and keen eyes is an advantage


----------



## Pete53

you 50 year olds think its harder to compete now wait tell your closer to 60 or even 70 thats when these human bodies go to hell.at 50 i could still compete ,at 60 years of age i can not ,i have no ideal whats going to happen at 70.but for the interest in archery or for the best lets make it 50 ,i hope archery continues to grow.good luck from a beat up 60 year old power lineman who climbed to many poles.


----------



## Archery Power

Dan I shot in the nfaa pro division at the age of 54 aganist all of the young guns and placed 3rd place and I know that it can be done, and I fell a lot better about that than I would have been
shooting aganist the seniors, now sence most of us old seniors are geting up in age we do not feel like a bunch of young 50 year olds should come in and cherry pick the senior division aganist the 60 and 70 year old shooters but if you have to have a place to shoot set up a 50 to 54 year old class and call it the in betweens the ones that is too young for the old seniors and the ones that is too old for the young shooters. Dan that is a class you could set up for the people that are almost seniors.


----------



## Archery Power

A good place to check how 50 year olds fair aganist the older seniors is at the national senior games the 50 to 54 year olds do some what better that the most of the rest
of the older seniors in the other age groups this is why I will say no to the change from 55 to 50 year old.


----------



## Daniel Boone

Archery Power said:


> Dan I shot in the nfaa pro division at the age of 54 aganist all of the young guns and placed 3rd place and I know that it can be done, and I fell a lot better about that than I would have been
> shooting aganist the seniors, now sence most of us old seniors are geting up in age we do not feel like a bunch of young 50 year olds should come in and cherry pick the senior division aganist the 60 and 70 year old shooters but if you have to have a place to shoot set up a 50 to 54 year old class and call it the in betweens the ones that is too young for the old seniors and the ones that is too old for the young shooters. Dan that is a class you could set up for the people that are almost seniors.



Lets do the math and figure out how many over 50 have placed in Pro shoots like Vegas and indoor nationals in the last ten years. Odds are very slim. 

What major tournament was this you shot against the open pros and won?

50 to 60 makes for a good senior class. Get inline with other assc for the improvement of senior class.

Often the senior class has very few in it. Moving it to 50 would put more into the class and thats always a good thing.

I figure it will happen for sure now that Im 55!:mg:


----------



## field14

Daniel Boone said:


> Lets do the math and figure out how many over 50 have placed in Pro shoots like Vegas and indoor nationals in the last ten years. Odds are very slim.
> 
> What major tournament was this you shot against the open pros and won?
> 
> 50 to 60 makes for a good senior class. Get inline with other assc for the improvement of senior class.
> 
> Often the senior class has very few in it. Moving it to 50 would put more into the class and thats always a good thing.
> 
> I figure it will happen for sure now that Im 55!:mg:


There you go, Dan! I couldn't agree with you more! The odds of anyone over age 45 (even) are slim to none to WIN shoots like Presleys, Iowa, Lancasters...let alone Vegas and the NFAA National Indoor, National Outdoor, Redding...and the list goes on.

I think we have ONE out of all these years that was over age 50 that won VEGAS in the Championship...Dave Barnsdale.

The problem is the old farts at 58 think they might "lose" something if a 50-year old comes into the Class...so? Same game..."it has always been this way and we at the top age of the division don't want people trampling on our turf, so dont you DARE change it".

Standardization across all venues of archery is desparately needed, especially in this Seniors and Master Seniors area.

37 year gap for Adult is way too wide, even 5 years barely narrows it up.
I'd even like to know how many aged 45 and over have won ANY of the MAJOR tournaments, indoors or out in the NFAA? Betcha you can count them on one hand (but don't know for sure).

The young bucks don't care...they're invincible, or so they think...give 'em a few years and they WILL be there, however.
Just sayin'

The issue may be resolved/decided very soon when the vote it taken on a REAL Agenda Item at the NFAA Director's meeting next month. Either way, however, if it fails, it will keep coming up every meeting...you can count on it.


----------



## Archery Power

Daniel Boone said:


> Lets do the math and figure out how many over 50 have placed in Pro shoots like Vegas and indoor nationals in the last ten years. Odds are very slim.
> 
> What major tournament was this you shot against the open pros and won?
> 
> 50 to 60 makes for a good senior class. Get inline with other assc for the improvement of senior class.
> 
> Often the senior class has very few in it. Moving it to 50 would put more into the class and thats always a good thing.
> 
> I figure it will happen for sure now that Im 55!:mg:


Dan that was the NFAA Nationals pro division 3rd place at age 54


----------



## USNarcher

Thanks for all the input. There are several polls out there and it seems to average slightly above 75% for the change. With this kind of input I do not see how we cannot make the change. I will be in the room voting so I will see first hand how it goes.


----------



## USNarcher

Well from the results of this poll and the 4 others out there all I see is overwhelming support for this agenda item. We shall see how it goes. I am off to Vegas in the morning. Thanks for all the inputs, I am glad to see participation.


----------



## field14

USNarcher said:


> Well from the results of this poll and the 4 others out there all I see is overwhelming support for this agenda item. We shall see how it goes. I am off to Vegas in the morning. Thanks for all the inputs, I am glad to see participation.


Yes, there is overwhelming support for the change....from polls...that the "old guard" won't go along with because "non-NFAA members" are part of those polls, so may (stressing "may") question the validity of said polls. I think that it really depends more upon how many paid up NFAA members used their responsibility to give guidance to their State's NFAA Director on how to vote on this agenda item, instead of giving no guidance and allowing the Director to vote based upon "gut feeling" or how bordering State Directors vote.

To those of us here and on other forums that read the polls and opinions, changing the age for Senior and Master Senior is a "no-brainer"...but that is about as far as it has gotten in the past.
The vote will be what it is, and once done, it will be that way until the next go-around. It will be most interesting to see how the hard work of several Directors that want to know and want to do the right thing has turned out.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## str8arrow

Good Luck Matt. I'll see you out there. Can't wait to hear how this turns out!


----------



## USNarcher

Tom it's 85% for WSAA/NFAA members here. And for all that I have talked to personally it is about the same. Even those that initially oppose it agree after listening to the logic and not just emotion and status quo. It has nothing to do with "youngsters" thinking that it will be easier pickings moving up at 50, it is pure and simply leveling the physical playing field.


----------



## Humdinger

I just want to older guys to move up already so i can stop getting my but kicked by the masters of the sport!!!! hahahaha.. J/k Weather they move the age down or not, they still have the option to compete in the Adult class anytime they want. In my category the Senior class is way tougher competition than the adult have the time.


----------



## rsarns

Humdinger said:


> I just want to older guys to move up already so i can stop getting my but kicked by the masters of the sport!!!! hahahaha.. J/k Weather they move the age down or not, they still have the option to compete in the Adult class anytime they want. In my category the Senior class is way tougher competition than the adult have the time.


I love the fact that there are so many great shooters in the Senior category... especially in the finger shooting world! If this passes there will be even more! Love the competiition.


----------



## field14

USNarcher said:


> Tom it's 85% for WSAA/NFAA members here. And for all that I have talked to personally it is about the same. Even those that initially oppose it agree after listening to the logic and not just emotion and status quo. It has nothing to do with "youngsters" thinking that it will be easier pickings moving up at 50, it is pure and simply leveling the physical playing field.


Sounds to me as if you really have your ducks in a row on this one. That bodes really well, and I'm obviously fully in support of your efforts to finally get something going on this and get at least something in the sport standardized across the competitive board! This is long, long, long overdue.

Good luck with this, and I'm looking forward to it PASSING! 

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Daniel Boone

Im 55 now and bet this passes! Just my luck!:mg:


Just when I think Ill be one of the young guys!:mg: Well Im getting closer to 60:wink: (not a good thing)


This is still a good thing for Seniors and been fighting for it for years.


Good Luck this year in Vegas
DB


----------



## field14

Daniel Boone said:


> Im 55 now and bet this passes! Just my luck!:mg:
> 
> 
> Just when I think Ill be one of the young guys!:mg: Well Im getting closer to 60:wink: (not a good thing)
> 
> 
> This is still a good thing for Seniors and been fighting for it for years.
> 
> 
> Good Luck this year in Vegas
> DB


Dan,
Yes, you and I, among many others have been on this issue like stink on manure for a long, long time. Just maybe this time it will pass and finally the NFAA leadership will see the light to modernize.


----------



## Daniel Boone

field14 said:


> Dan,
> Yes, you and I, among many others have been on this issue like stink on manure for a long, long time. Just maybe this time it will pass and finally the NFAA leadership will see the light to modernize.


Honestly Tom if something don't change are NFAA state assc going down ever year. Not sure how to light a fire under archers to come shoot indoor and field and 900 rounds. Few clubs are telling me they dont get enough archers to benefit having an event and I understand. Shame! Senior class in state may have three or five at most. 
DB


----------



## USNarcher

Daniel Boone said:


> Honestly Tom if something don't change are NFAA state assc going down ever year. Not sure how to light a fire under archers to come shoot indoor and field and 900 rounds. Few clubs are telling me they dont get enough archers to benefit having an event and I understand. Shame! Senior class in state may have three or five at most.
> DB


Dan take a look at what we have been doing here in washington and oregon the past few years. This year I think we gave away a total of about $20,000 and that is to everyone from the 260 shooters to the 300 shooters. We had over 70 shooters for the final shoot up and it gets bigger every year. This started to give folks the line experience before Vegas now everyone looks forward to this every year.

http://www.pnwshootup.com/?doing_wp_cron=1359825644.1380259990692138671875


----------



## ccwilder3

The voices have been heard. The change has been made. 50 is now in the senior division.

Age classes have been changed to match the other orgs.


----------



## Daniel Boone

Anyone else want to confirm this change
DB


----------



## str8arrow

DB,

I got this from Chuck Cooley on Facebook last night."I think it went GREAT! Pro Fingers back in, Senior at 50, 3 day Outdoor Nationals for Pros, and track the X at Outdoor Nationals for Pros all Passed.


----------



## Daniel Boone

str8arrow said:


> DB,
> 
> I got this from Chuck Cooley on Facebook last night."I think it went GREAT! Pro Fingers back in, Senior at 50, 3 day Outdoor Nationals for Pros, and track the X at Outdoor Nationals for Pros all Passed.


Thanks this is good thing for NFAA. Should have done years ago when it first was introduced.

I give allot of credit to Chuck for polling archers and listening to what they thought and voted.

DB


----------



## blueglide1

New rules take effect on June 1st this year.So really no shoots are affected this year but O D NATs. Next year should be interesting for sure.


----------



## Daniel Boone

blueglide1 said:


> New rules take effect on June 1st this year.So really no shoots are affected this year but O D NATs. Next year should be interesting for sure.


I better get my butt to indoor nationals this year while 55 before young guns get on the line. LOL




DB


----------



## field14

Daniel Boone said:


> Thanks this is good thing for NFAA. Should have done years ago when it first was introduced.
> 
> I give allot of credit to Chuck for polling archers and listening to what they thought and voted.
> 
> DB


Chuck wasn't the only one polling archers....there were a couple of other NFAA Directors that made up some very interesting on-line polls as well. They were all instrumental in providing factual NUMBERS that couldn't be construed as "hear-say" or "how many of those were not NFAA members?" types of questions.

I'm curious as to what became of the Agenda item to ban the used of lighted nocks for indoor competition (or was it "all" competitions in the NFAA?). I had it on good sources that the lighted nocks would be bye-bye, so would like to know.

field14 (Tom D)


----------



## fmoss3

Lighted nocks are banned at ALL NFAA events. Takes effect June 30th. Same with sky drawing your bow.
Frank


----------



## field14

fmoss3 said:


> Lighted nocks are banned at ALL NFAA events. Takes effect June 30th. Same with sky drawing your bow.
> Frank


I sure hope to high heaven that the rules for "Sky drawing" are very clearly defined and....of course...that they will be ENFORCED no matter what the notoriety of the offending competitor. Can't be "wishy-washy" and enforce it for some and let others get away with it because "they are setting their bow shoulder" or some other lame excuse.


----------



## jbhoyt

So are the senior age groups going to be 50-59, 60-69, 70 and up as of June 1st 2013 ?


----------



## Unclegus

jbhoyt said:


> So are the senior age groups going to be 50-59, 60-69, 70 and up as of June 1st 2013 ?


Jim, I do believe that the changes happen on July 1st.


----------



## fmoss3

Draw your bow, bow hand above your head on a horizontal plane to ground ( for uphill / downhill ) first time warned second time cut the bow string. ( dQ'ed )


----------



## Unclegus

fmoss3 said:


> Draw your bow, bow hand above your head on a horizontal plane to ground ( for uphill / downhill ) first time warned second time cut the bow string. ( dQ'ed )



Only in WV


----------



## field14

Unclegus said:


> Only in WV


This type of thing in the picuture above should be an automatic, "either let the draw weight of your bow down NOW and control your bow, or..>GET OFF THE LINE, NOW, as in_ immediately_.
I'm seeing this sort of thing more and more and more...and a lot of it is younger kids being allowed to do this and TAUGHT to do it this way by their parents, and believe it or not some "coaches". Their reasoning? "the kid/shooter will eventually get used to the draw weight, so it is "temporary"...and besides, 40 pounds is the minimum weight for hunting so, he/she MUST be able to pull the bow."

Don't know if you know it or not, but WHEN a fluorescent light is shot out indoors, BY LAW, the area must be completely vacated for no less than 30 minutes, and then, whomever is assigned to clean it up MUST wear a protective mask, protective gloves, and protective clothing to clean the mess up. So, WHEN some idiot sky drawer shoots out a light during a tournament...kiss that line time good-bye...and the ones following that line time are also going to be shooting much later into the day than planned and everything gets backed up. The "stuff" inside those fluorescent or sodium vapor tubes is carcinogenic!
But nobody cares...of course, when the arrow is launched into the ceiling or wall, there could be personal injury by richochets, too. OR...worse...the arrow goes right thru the celing and roof, creating an expensive roof repair job.

BUT...sky drawers don't care, some top echelon shooters do this, so it is OK...nobody has been injured or killed yet, so until it happens..."we" have an impeccably clean record.

Check out why they did away with the 3-D competition at Vegas several years back....yep....arrow shot over the target area, to a window across the street, shattering the window...end of 3-D competitions at vegas.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## USNarcher

Well this agenda item passed with a ton of controversy and I think every senior pro in the NFAA is pissed off at me right now but I think in the long run it will be good and will help the sport. I understand their complaint that they had to wait and so should everyone else. I have been accused of being self serving and I do admit that may have been fuel to some of my passion and it too will benefit me sooner than later if I choose but I didn't pass this...the membership did. If any young gun (50) thinks that it will be a cake walk to jump up and kick the old guys butts has another thing comin. 50-59 is Senior, 60-69 is Silver Senior and 70+ is Master Senior. Also ALL shooting classes in each. I'm not going to get into that conversation even though that was also my agenda item. Thank you to all that gave their input.


----------



## Daniel Boone

USNarcher said:


> Well this agenda item passed with a ton of controversy and I think every senior pro in the NFAA is pissed off at me right now but I think in the long run it will be good and will help the sport. I understand their complaint that they had to wait and so should everyone else. I have been accused of being self serving and I do admit that may have been fuel to some of my passion and it too will benefit me sooner than later if I choose but I didn't pass this...the membership did. If any young gun (50) thinks that it will be a cake walk to jump up and kick the old guys butts has another thing comin. 50-59 is Senior, 60-69 is Silver Senior and 70+ is Master Senior. Also ALL shooting classes in each. I'm not going to get into that conversation even though that was also my agenda item. Thank you to all that gave their input.


Im 55 and I still think its a good thing. Kinda sucks for guys just turning 55 but in the long run it will get NFAA on track with other ascc. 
DB


----------



## just ulgy

Well i hope you are all happy now. Got the age thing where you want it . we have about 40 new classes now. Happy happy happy. More awards now everybody should get one now. Happy happy happy.

Mike


----------



## blueglide1

Ill tell ya right now,alot of us Senior Pros are all for the change and have been for a couple years now.But you cant please everyone.Its not MANDATORY that you move up to the next age class if you dont want to.And I think alot of people dont understand that.Ill shoot in the regular Senior Pro class as long as I can be competitive in that class.When the time comes I cant then Ill move up an age group.More people in the class ,more money put into the pot,farther pay downs also.Realisticly are you able to keep up with the top 15 in the class now? Or is it because the Master senior class seems to take you away from the spot light of the younger seniors.If you can hang in there with the best ,then by all means stay and take your lumps like I will for a little while longer. Don Ward


----------



## USNarcher

just ulgy said:


> Well i hope you are all happy now. Got the age thing where you want it . we have about 40 new classes now. Happy happy happy. More awards now everybody should get one now. Happy happy happy.
> 
> Mike


Mike I know what you are saying and part of me agrees but this sport is very diverse and to come up with ideas that make everyone happy is impossible. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I made a few comments in the field forum but here is something that I posted earlier. If you read all the comments about age and classes, someone on the outside looking in would make this observation.

*Seriously though. If you were an outsider looking in and read all of the constructive criticism on here you would come to the following conclusion. Beings how archery doesn't seem to be an physically enduring sport and the fact that there are really only 2 types of bows then all we need is 4 trophies. 2 kids trophies and 2 adult trophies. One for compound one for recurve. If we don't need more age divisions then why should we seperate male from female? If we don't need more classes then you shoot what you bring, it's your choice. Boy howdy would our sport grow then. Just that simple.*


----------



## Wyattwithabow

I think we should give participation trophies to everyone. Haha I think it's a good idea, I like the added class' as I get older it will only benefit me as an individual, and also help grow the sport. 
Matt we all know you've been wanting to get out of the adult class for some time now! This will not help you!


----------



## Mr. Roboto

Well, now that we have had this system in place for a couple years, how well has this worked out?

In my perspective its been a bust. People in their 50s/60s are now having to guess what age division to shoot in just so they can guess the right age division their competition is going to shoot in. Most of us want to EARN our awards as opposed to picking an age division where the competition is either thin or non existent.

There was this thread in the FITA group where there are people that really believe that if you are over 30 you have no chance at being able to shoot at the Olympic/World level. I know its crazy, but there are people that really believe that. So does that mean we should have an 18 to 30 age group for the Olympic caliper people and the 30 to 50 age group for the over the hill people? Its just crazy. Having a 50 to 55 age group is also just crazy. I am pretty sure that most shooters at 50 have the same physical capabilities at 55. I am 52 and I am shooting better now than I have in the last 10 years. Turning 50 didn't make me weaker, and Lord willing turning 55 isn't going to make me weaker. In the mean time, I will continue to shoot in the adult division with those 18 to 30 year olds "olympic" caliber people.

Pete


----------



## field14

Mr. Roboto said:


> Well, now that we have had this system in place for a couple years, how well has this worked out?
> 
> In my perspective its been a bust. People in their 50s/60s are now having to guess what age division to shoot in just so they can guess the right age division their competition is going to shoot in. Most of us want to EARN our awards as opposed to picking an age division where the competition is either thin or non existent.
> 
> There was this thread in the FITA group where there are people that really believe that if you are over 30 you have no chance at being able to shoot at the Olympic/World level. I know its crazy, but there are people that really believe that. So does that mean we should have an 18 to 30 age group for the Olympic caliper people and the 30 to 50 age group for the over the hill people? Its just crazy. Having a 50 to 55 age group is also just crazy. I am pretty sure that most shooters at 50 have the same physical capabilities at 55. I am 52 and I am shooting better now than I have in the last 10 years. Turning 50 didn't make me weaker, and Lord willing turning 55 isn't going to make me weaker. In the mean time, I will continue to shoot in the adult division with those 18 to 30 year olds "olympic" caliber people.
> 
> Pete


Say what? FINALLY after all the years I've been in archery, the age for SENIORS is standard world wide at age 50. The Senior's Division in the NFAA is growing rapidly, and now for the first times ever in the USA, at age 50, you can shoot ASA, IBO, NFAA, or whatever. In the past, the NFAA was the ONLY odd-ball with regard to this age grouping.
No more guessing where to go once you hit age 50!
Now, that being said, if you think you are still a hot enough "dog", you can CHOOSE to shoot with/against the younger people, nobody is twisting your arm to shoot Senior. Same with Silver or Master Senior, you can go back to "regular" senior if you wanna, or even to Adult or Male PRO...and compete with/against the younger hot dogs.
Go right ahead and shoot with the olympic caliber people if you want to. It is YOUR choice, But remember this, for now OLYMPIC caliber is ONLY for those shooting recurve bow with fingers on the string. COMPOUNDS for now are NOT allowed into the Olympics.
That being said, the USA Archery programs are already preparing for compounds in future olympic games and have selected some team members in preparation for when/if it happens. Or at least those are "qualifying" by shooting a given set of scores at a certain minimal score level.
The NFAA PROS do NOT however recognize Silver Senior or Master Senior in their Pro Level Divisions, and likely that won't happen anytime soon.
Don't forget, they have SENIOR Olympics in the United States...and to qualify to compete you only have to be age......50!!!
Again, up until a couple of years ago, the NFAA was the ONLY organization that had Seniors at age 55 anyways.

It is done, it hasn't been a "bust" and the Senior Division in the NFAA is growing rapidly since EVERYONE is getting older, not younger. The Senior Pros are also growing and are a force to be reckoned with, too. Sooner or later those 18-49 year olds WILL be age 50...like it or not.
You aren't there yet, and I know you won't listen (younger folks NEVER do acknowledge older folks and their experience), but when you hit age 55 you WILL see a huge change in things, and by age 60, your fine twitch motor controls, stamina, flexibility, concentration, and your EYES will deteriorate, and with that your skill level. 
You WILL work even harder to try to stay up there, and you will fight a losing battle, too. I'm 67, and I'm here to tell you that things have changed rapidly since age 52. My brain tells me I'm gooder than I ever was...but those scores and how tough it has become both tell a completely different story!
I hear the young bucks say "no need for the age split, when you hit 50 or 55, just learn to shoot better. Suck it up and learn, suck it up buttercup". They'll talk out the other side of their mouths WHEN (not if) they turn 50, 55, and 60+ and suddenly the crap hits the fan.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Mr. Roboto

Ouch, sensitive topic.

Since when does the NFAA follow what everyone else does?

Is there any effort to try to make NFAA Traditional compatible with USAA/WA Barebow? And yet no NFAA Barebow shooter using a compound can shoot in a USAA/WA barebow division.

Anyways, I just comment from what I see. Everyone has different experiences.


----------



## gcab

field14 said:


> Say what? FINALLY after all the years I've been in archery, the age for SENIORS is standard world wide at age 50. The Senior's Division in the NFAA is growing rapidly, and now for the first times ever in the USA, at age 50, you can shoot ASA, IBO, NFAA, or whatever. In the past, the NFAA was the ONLY odd-ball with regard to this age grouping.
> No more guessing where to go once you hit age 50!
> Now, that being said, if you think you are still a hot enough "dog", you can CHOOSE to shoot with/against the younger people, nobody is twisting your arm to shoot Senior. Same with Silver or Master Senior, you can go back to "regular" senior if you wanna, or even to Adult or Male PRO...and compete with/against the younger hot dogs.
> Go right ahead and shoot with the olympic caliber people if you want to. It is YOUR choice, But remember this, for now OLYMPIC caliber is ONLY for those shooting recurve bow with fingers on the string. COMPOUNDS for now are NOT allowed into the Olympics.
> That being said, the USA Archery programs are already preparing for compounds in future olympic games and have selected some team members in preparation for when/if it happens. Or at least those are "qualifying" by shooting a given set of scores at a certain minimal score level.
> The NFAA PROS do NOT however recognize Silver Senior or Master Senior in their Pro Level Divisions, and likely that won't happen anytime soon.
> Don't forget, they have SENIOR Olympics in the United States...and to qualify to compete you only have to be age......50!!!
> Again, up until a couple of years ago, the NFAA was the ONLY organization that had Seniors at age 55 anyways.
> 
> It is done, it hasn't been a "bust" and the Senior Division in the NFAA is growing rapidly since EVERYONE is getting older, not younger. The Senior Pros are also growing and are a force to be reckoned with, too. Sooner or later those 18-49 year olds WILL be age 50...like it or not.
> You aren't there yet, and I know you won't listen (younger folks NEVER do acknowledge older folks and their experience), but when you hit age 55 you WILL see a huge change in things, and by age 60, your fine twitch motor controls, stamina, flexibility, concentration, and your EYES will deteriorate, and with that your skill level.
> You WILL work even harder to try to stay up there, and you will fight a losing battle, too. I'm 67, and I'm here to tell you that things have changed rapidly since age 52. My brain tells me I'm gooder than I ever was...but those scores and how tough it has become both tell a completely different story!
> I hear the young bucks say "no need for the age split, when you hit 50 or 55, just learn to shoot better. Suck it up and learn, suck it up buttercup". They'll talk out the other side of their mouths WHEN (not if) they turn 50, 55, and 60+ and suddenly the crap hits the fan.
> field14 (Tom D.)


You say your experience is "younger" folk never listening to the older, and my experience has been the older folks being the ones generally wanting things given to them and not earned. The posted you replied to was a great post... "earn the award". That's the way it should be. But nah, lets keep creating classes and water down the awards. Most males are in prime shape between 28 and 33.. so lets do a class from 18-23, and then a class from 23-28 since they cant keep up with those in their prime, and then 33-40 for the crowd that are still not in their mid-life crisis, then 40-45 for the mid life crisis people, then 45-50 for the pre-senior seniors, then 50-52 for the early seniors, then 53-55 for the mid seniors, then the 56-58 for the early silver hair seniors, then 59-61 for the silver haired, then 62-63 for the pre silver/thinning, then 64-67, for the thinned out seniors, then 68-75 for the cranky seniors, then 76+ for those that seniors that enjoy the sport. Then we can break that up into male and female, and then again for recurve, recurve with sights, recurve with sights and stabs, recurve with stabs and no sights, compound fingers, compound finger for those that want to shoot with 1 finger, compound open, compound open limited, compound with braces, compound with large peep, compound with tiny peep. I'm sure there are a lot of classes missing in there since it is time for everyone to be an award winner and not just winners


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> You aren't there yet, and I know you won't listen (younger folks NEVER do acknowledge older folks and their experience), but when you hit age 55 you WILL see a huge change in things, and by age 60, your fine twitch motor controls, stamina, flexibility, concentration, and your EYES will deteriorate, and with that your skill level.
> You WILL work even harder to try to stay up there, and you will fight a losing battle, too. I'm 67, and I'm here to tell you that things have changed rapidly since age 52. My brain tells me I'm gooder than I ever was...but those scores and how tough it has become both tell a completely different story!
> I hear the young bucks say "no need for the age split, when you hit 50 or 55, just learn to shoot better. Suck it up and learn, suck it up buttercup". They'll talk out the other side of their mouths WHEN (not if) they turn 50, 55, and 60+ and suddenly the crap hits the fan.
> field14 (Tom D.)


I'm not sure exactly where you are going with this, but it was the younger and newer members of the Board that were instrumental in getting the Senior age changed from 55 to 50. It was the older, entrenched board members who objected and lobbied for a new Division, the Silver Senior. Personally, I think it should have been 50 for Senior and 65 for Master Senior, with no SS division.


----------



## Daniel Boone

Was the right move! I was finally glad to see it happen. Senior class is larger in numbers and far more competitive!
DB


----------



## Affinity

Put all the winning a side. Whatever increases the number of shooters over all! Grow the sport. Increase the participation.


----------



## macolos

I'm 76 and almost 77. When I go to a shoot, I just shoot in standard men's and never in a special group. I would rather just shoot with my friends. Most of the time I am right up there in the X's and O's but most always never turn in a score card. I have a friend that comes all the way from SD for the R-100. We support it, pay our money but I have yet to even mark a score card. Now before you blow a gasket, I know there are many who have to keep score, sort of like the QDM. If you hunt on my land with my permission, you take home the trophy that you want, not the one that someone says is the only one you can shoot. I pass a lot of deer most every year, but mostly when the freezer is in good shape.


----------



## wa-prez

macolos said:


> I'm 76 and almost 77. When I go to a shoot, I just shoot in standard men's and never in a special group. I would rather just shoot with my friends.


One of the things I like about the Senior, Silver Senior, Master Senior groups (I'm in the middle of the middle) is the grouping. If I was to register as Adult, I might be in with some 19-30 year old ladies. As we get a little older, we move slower and the topics of conversation change a little. So at shoots with assigned grouping, the age divisions is more important socially than it is competitively.


----------



## brtesite

wa-prez said:


> One of the things I like about the Senior, Silver Senior, Master Senior groups (I'm in the middle of the middle) is the grouping. If I was to register as Adult, I might be in with some 19-30 year old ladies. As we get a little older, we move slower and the topics of conversation change a little. So at shoots with assigned grouping, the age divisions is more important socially than it is competitively.


the conversations are how many times you have to go to the doctor, how many pills do you take , & if you had a good bowel movement today


----------



## Pete53

some other things many of us seniors ask each senior archer is maybe a cooking recipe? for easy to make meals and did you have any major surgeries this year ?


----------



## bobcat102

I agree the current age of 55 is too high ahppy to aee the NFAA came around!


----------



## wa-prez

This change in age groups: 50+ = Senior, 60+ = Silver Senior, 70+ = Master Senior was enacted several years ago.

I don't know why this poll / thread is still a "sticky"!

Old News can confuse people.


----------



## kballer1

There should also be a Grateful Master Seniors 80+, come on NFAA get with the program.


----------



## Rabbit57

Yes to 50.


----------



## carlosii

kballer1 said:


> There should also be a Grateful Master Seniors 80+, come on NFAA get with the program.


Yes to 80. Age discrimination has no place in a free America........now....what was I saying?


----------



## My-Time

kballer1 said:


> There should also be a Grateful Master Seniors 80+, come on NFAA get with the program.


I agree, been down this road with Doug . My father is 90 and still competes.


----------



## rsarns

We have too many classes/divisions. (This is an old thread and is already changed to 50 as Wa Prez stated). However, the dilution of competition has resulted. It’s time to get rid of Silver Senior (my age group) and move Senior to 55-60. Another alternative is in classes which have low attendance, only have adult/master age classes. Or some derivative of that. It’s way past time to get the directors to take action. Why drive or fly to a National event and have two in Senior, 2 in SS and a couple in MS??? Heaven forbid as a competitor you ask those others to all move to Senior to have better competition! The sacrilege!!


----------



## c_m_shooter

I'm not sure why there needs to be senior specific divisions at all. Looking at the top competitors scores, they are equally competitive with the adult divisions.


----------



## rn3

c_m_shooter said:


> I'm not sure why there needs to be senior specific divisions at all. Looking at the top competitors scores, they are equally competitive with the adult divisions.


When you get to be a senior you will understand.


----------

