# Three Locations For NFAA Outdoor Field Nationals



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

It looks like with the cost of traveling so far the NFAA nationals needs to be in three locations,
One on the east coast Eastern Section One in the Center of the us, Middle Section, and one on the
West Coast, Western Section. This would get a lot more Archers shooting the Nationals, Some of
the NFAA Sectionals are all ready doing this for their shoots, and a lot of the states are also doing
this, I think this would be a win win for the shooters so they could get back to work, If you will
look at where most of the shooters are from most of them are close to the area where the Nationals
are held any way.


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

Wouldn't that in fact be regionals? It's not real if everybody isn't in the same place, under the same conditions.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

We kind of have that now.. Mechanicsburg, PA, Yankton, SD and Darrington, Wa..... Wait you mean at the same time? NO! There is no way you could compare scores from 3 different locations and weather to each other site.


----------



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

distributor said:


> It looks like with the cost of traveling so far the NFAA nationals needs to be in three locations,
> One on the east coast Eastern Section One in the Center of the us, Middle Section, and one on the
> West Coast, Western Section. This would get a lot more Archers shooting the Nationals, Some of
> the NFAA Sectionals are all ready doing this for their shoots, and a lot of the states are also doing
> ...


Or have the NFAA outdoor nationals in the most central location of the population in the US.
and still keep in one locatation, Look at all the nationals that have been on the west coast
a very low turnout.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Really? Have you compared the last 10 years? Also, then why is the marked 3D Nationals in California drawing 1500 shooters???


----------



## Eriks (Nov 8, 2011)

California does this with the state field championships. It's a mess. 

I shot Mt Madonna. It was cold, foggy, and misty, with a breeze. There are lots of hills. 

I was shooting against a guy at Yolo who had a flat course and 100 degree temps.


----------



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

rsarns said:


> Really? Have you compared the last 10 years? Also, then why is the marked 3D Nationals in California drawing 1500 shooters???


I am not talking about 3D archery in the south ASA 3D draws 1000 to 1500 shooters.
also this was on another thread about the nfaa sectionals or some of the sectionals having 
their shoots in more than one locatation but a lot of archers said that was ok, now if it is ok
for the sectionals to do this then It could be ok for the Nationals to do this. I am not for this
one way or the other just I would like to hear what archers think about this.


----------



## dragonheart II (Aug 20, 2010)

NFAA 3d nationals at Redding combines the best of both worlds. This is a marked distance event (field archers love it) with a dot. You have a generous point (kill zone) area with a one point reward for getting in the dot. I have never shot Redding, but I suspect that it draws so many due to its dual appeal. You are also shooting at 3-D animals which makes it interesting for alot of people. I think what California Archery and the west coast did many moons ago with the "Safari" style of shoots gave the best of both worlds, an appeal for the bowhunter and the tournament archer. I have heard of the record number of archers that used to attend Fresno Safari. 

As far as having nationals in different locations, archers are shooting under too many different conditions for that to be fair. I don't think the location is the issue with the lack of attendance.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

If the NFAA had of relocated their headquarters to Kentucky, they would have been within a day's drive of 90% of the population of the U.S. 

I would have no problem with split sites. It has had a big impact on attendance for the S.E. sectional, its up about 35% since they've gone to split sites.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

distributor said:


> I am not talking about 3D archery in the south ASA 3D draws 1000 to 1500 shooters.
> also this was on another thread about the nfaa sectionals or some of the sectionals having
> their shoots in more than one locatation but a lot of archers said that was ok, now if it is ok
> for the sectionals to do this then It could be ok for the Nationals to do this. I am not for this
> one way or the other just I would like to hear what archers think about this.


Distributor, If revenue is the only consideration for getting people to a "Nationals", then split sites would probably be the best way to do that. Personally, I hope the Nfaa never gets to that point because I am a strong believer that the National Championship should be a head to head competition. Some years back, because of the length and width of our state, California went to multiple sites for its state field championships and it was a good move in terms of generating revenue as we would get upwards of 300 people participating at around 7-10 sites throughout the state. The problem was that it no longer had the feel or respect associated with a state championship shoot. This year California voted to go back to the 1 site concept starting in 2014.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Distributor, watch what you are asking for because if we go to one location it will be in Yankton due to the fact we own it and their is no sharing the money. I know you said a central location as far as number of archers go but that won't happen, not any time soon anyway.


----------



## Eriks (Nov 8, 2011)

ccwilder3 said:


> If the NFAA had of relocated their headquarters to Kentucky, they would have been within a day's drive of 90% of the population of the U.S.


California has 15% of the US population all by itself so I think your numbers are off.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

Eriks said:


> California has 15% of the US population all by itself so I think your numbers are off.


You are correct. I just did a search.

Last year I was reading something about Louisville that said that 90% of the population lived within a 12 hour ride.


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

Eriks said:


> California has 15% of the US population all by itself so I think your numbers are off.


maybe ccwilder3 is not counting illegal aliens...:shade:


----------



## Eriks (Nov 8, 2011)

carlosii said:


> maybe ccwilder3 is not counting illegal aliens...:shade:


You're thinking of Texas.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

itbeso said:


> Distributor, If revenue is the only consideration for getting people to a "Nationals", then split sites would probably be the best way to do that. Personally, I hope the Nfaa never gets to that point because I am a strong believer that the National Championship should be a head to head competition. Some years back, because of the length and width of our state, California went to multiple sites for its state field championships and it was a good move in terms of generating revenue as we would get upwards of 300 people participating at around 7-10 sites throughout the state. The problem was that it no longer had the feel or respect associated with a state championship shoot. This year California voted to go back to the 1 site concept starting in 2014.


I do believe that servicing your members is more important than try ing to make the tournament more prestigious . This day & age people won't or cant afford to travel. It is more important to give an opportunity for participation. Wait and see how many show up at one site. Under ideal situations, the one site is better,how ever the real world is not ideal.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

rsarns said:


> Really? Have you compared the last 10 years? Also, then why is the marked 3D Nationals in California drawing 1500 shooters???


It doesn't . The draw is the Trail shoot that the 3D piggy backs on. You must sign up for the trail shoot to shoot the NFAA 3d.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

ccwilder3 said:


> If the NFAA had of relocated their headquarters to Kentucky, they would have been within a day's drive of 90% of the population of the U.S.
> 
> I would have no problem with split sites. It has had a big impact on attendance for the S.E. sectional, its up about 35% since they've gone to split sites.


 And what town in KY would have done for the NFAA what Yankton has done for it


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

Why not have qualifers around the U.S. then the top 5 or 10 top finishers in each class would go to the nationals.
I think that would work.
Don.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm pretty sure the lowest turn out in the last ten years was Yankton


----------



## Eriks (Nov 8, 2011)

zestycj7 said:


> Why not have qualifers around the U.S. then the top 5 or 10 top finishers in each class would go to the nationals.
> I think that would work.
> Don.


The top 10 finishers in each class would be 720 people


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

ccwilder3 said:


> If the NFAA had of relocated their headquarters to Kentucky, they would have been within a day's drive of 90% of the population of the U.S.


At the time, NFAA was and still is a big deal to the city of Yankton and Yankton County. There were no other localities that welcomed NFAA with the level of open arms as Yankton.

There were many people on AT that suggested various locations but no proposals were forthcoming. And, like I said, we ARE a big deal to Yankton.


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

Eriks said:


> The top 10 finishers in each class would be 720 people


 Yeah, and your point is?
Thats not really that many when you break it down.
We get a little more than 1/2 that at a regular club 3-D on Sundays.
Don.


----------



## LongTime (Feb 17, 2005)

Field archey as it is set up now is dead stick a fork in it


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

brtesite said:


> I do believe that servicing your members is more important than try ing to make the tournament more prestigious . This day & age people won't or cant afford to travel. It is more important to give an opportunity for participation. Wait and see how many show up at one site. Under ideal situations, the one site is better,how ever the real world is not ideal.


Mike, I can't beleive you just said that . The National tournament should be the most prestigious tournament that the Nfaa puts on, hence the name National Field Archery Association. Your attitude reflects that of many of the officials of this organization who have never been in a position to challenge for a National Championship. Do you think that those people who vie for that award spend all of those hours practicing just so that officials and past officials like yourself can have a position to dictate to them? This is one of the main reasons the Nfaa has failed us, they have put the importance of the officials ahead of that of the archers. By the way, making the Nationals more prestigious IS servicing the members, something that you and your successors should grasp if the Nfaa is to keep on keeping on.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

zestycj7 said:


> Yeah, and your point is?
> Thats not really that many when you break it down.
> We get a little more than 1/2 that at a regular club 3-D on Sundays.
> Don.


Don, I think the point he was trying to make is that 720 would be an improvement over what we are getting now.Ben


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

:thumbs_do. Wrong!!!!!!


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

No ... No ... No

I would say NO to having the Outdoor Nationals shot at multiple locations in the same year. There is too much variability in terrain, weather, and competitive conditions to have a valid National Championship spread across multiple locations. 

AND where would be the incentive to visit new places and meet new people, if you could shoot in your home state or nearby every year. Might as well shoot in your home country and mail in the scores and call it a World Championship.

As to the other side of the coin, having a single, central location as a permanent site (and regardless of the fact it would probably end up being Yankton), I say NO to that also.

I live in Washington, and Darrington is just 200 miles from me (in fact, I'm a member of the Club), but if Nationals were there every year, I wouldn't attend (almost) every year like I do now. Going to the same place and doing the same thing year after year would get boring. It ISN'T Vegas with the glitter and shows, it ISN'T Redding with the big, unique 3D targets, it's just Field and there is some limit to the attractiveness of Field if it is the same course all the time.

Other side of that coin ... we had about 100 archers from Washington at Nationals this year (out of 326 total participants). Many of those - my son and grand daughter included - would never have experienced attending a National Championship if it wasn't in their home state. They were not going to get on a plane and fly to Yankton, or Mechanicsburg, or Louisville ... but since it was right here, they came and shot. SOME of these people will go to Nationals again, when it is somewhere else, but this might be their only shot.

So ... 

Keep the NFAA Outdoor Nationals a single-site event AND keep it rotating to different venues in different regions of the country.

Do I feel strongly about this? YES!


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

WA-prez, you described the reason why it rotates across the US, so more people get a chance to attend and maybe they will travel to one of the other locations. Good post


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

All the sites are in the far north of the country. None are within driving distance of folks living in the southern part of the U.S.

Its the same way with the NAFAC. Its held in the southern tip of Florida and look how low attendance is. If you want to increase attendance have some of these things in the central part of the country.


----------



## Eriks (Nov 8, 2011)

How does NFAA membership break down by state or region?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> :thumbs_do. Wrong!!!!!!


Bob, which post are you referring to?


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

Eriks said:


> How does NFAA membership break down by state or region?


The only two I know of is that CA has the most members and FL the second most.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Ben it was for LONGTIMEs comment......


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

itbeso said:


> Mike, I can't beleive you just said that . The National tournament should be the most prestigious tournament that the Nfaa puts on, hence the name National Field Archery Association. Your attitude reflects that of many of the officials of this organization who have never been in a position to challenge for a National Championship. Do you think that those people who vie for that award spend all of those hours practicing just so that officials and past officials like yourself can have a position to dictate to them? This is one of the main reasons the Nfaa has failed us, they have put the importance of the officials ahead of that of the archers. By the way, making the Nationals more prestigious IS servicing the members, something that you and your successors should grasp if the Nfaa is to keep on keeping on.


 1rst of all who ever you are ,since I don't know your name & you do know mine, I was not referencing the National tournament. It was the Ca. state shoot that I referred to since most of the thread was aimed at how they were going to 1 location for their state tournament. It was my mistake that I didn't make it more clear & I apologize for it . I would never try to mess with the Nationals. I pushed the 5/3 day in an effort to get more attendance. Nothing else was ever done to try to boost the attendance. Surly not the debacle that was past this year by increasing the amount possible champions. What have you ever done? I ask you this because I don't know who you are. You may have done great things for the NFAA, but since you are anonymous I can't give you any credit.

As for your tirade about officials or past officials that have never tried to be a national champion not knowing what they are doing when trying to guide he organization, I do take offense & I'm sure others do also.. I gave more than 25 years to the organization with only one thing in mind, & that was to try to make things better.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

brtesite said:


> 1rst of all who ever you are ,since I don't know your name & you do know mine, I was not referencing the National tournament. It was the Ca. state shoot that I referred to since most of the thread was aimed at how they were going to 1 location for their state tournament. It was my mistake that I didn't make it more clear & I apologize for it . I would never try to mess with the Nationals. I pushed the 5/3 day in an effort to get more attendance. Nothing else was ever done to try to boost the attendance. Surly not the debacle that was past this year by increasing the amount possible champions. What have you ever done? I ask you this because I don't know who you are. You may have done great things for the NFAA, but since you are anonymous I can't give you any credit.
> 
> As for your tirade about officials or past officials that have never tried to be a national champion not knowing what they are doing when trying to guide he organization, I do take offense & I'm sure others do also.. I gave more than 25 years to the organization with only one thing in mind, & that was to try to make things better.


Mike,I responded to your post because it seemed you were referencing the Nfaa. Apology accepted.There was no tirade, Mike, Just hard cold truths. You say that you gave 25 years to the organization to try to make things better. Is the Nfaa better today than 25 years ago for the archers? I feel the answer to that question is no. As with any organization of this type, the focus should be on the members and not the officials, without the members there are no officials. The leadership of the NFAA does not now, nor has it in the recent past, seemed to grasp this truth. You get overly defensive when discussing the trials and tribulations of the NFAA. You ask what I've done, not much, but I have been a member and supported the Nfaa for 43 years. What you and others don't seem to grasp is that if all the members got pissed off tomorrow and quit, what would the Nfaa officials do then. We are not dependent on you, you are dependent on us. There are a lot of other organizations and games for us to join and spend our time on so get off your high horse. With that said, I would like to see the NFAA continue to flourish, I just don't think it will happen until someone takes the bull by the horns and streamlines all the classes and returns the focus to the archers.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Mike,I responded to your post because it seemed you were referencing the Nfaa. Apology accepted.There was no tirade, Mike, Just hard cold truths. You say that you gave 25 years to the organization to try to make things better. Is the Nfaa better today than 25 years ago for the archers? I feel the answer to that question is no. As with any organization of this type, the focus should be on the members and not the officials, without the members there are no officials. The leadership of the NFAA does not now, nor has it in the recent past, seemed to grasp this truth. You get overly defensive when discussing the trials and tribulations of the NFAA. You ask what I've done, not much, but I have been a member and supported the Nfaa for 43 years. What you and others don't seem to grasp is that if all the members got pissed off tomorrow and quit, what would the Nfaa officials do then. We are not dependent on you, you are dependent on us. There are a lot of other organizations and games for us to join and spend our time on so get off your high horse. With that said, I would like to see the NFAA continue to flourish, I just don't think it will happen until someone takes the bull by the horns and streamlines all the classes and returns the focus to the archers.


Itbeso I think you should be the someone that will take the bull by the horns and streamline all the classes and return the focus to the archers. 

I put Itbeso name in to be the head man over this project, Do I hear a second, ok all in favor of Itbeso vote please.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Archery Power said:


> Itbeso I think you should be the someone that will take the bull by the horns and streamline all the classes and return the focus to the archers.
> 
> I put Itbeso name in to be the head man over this project, Do I hear a second, ok all in favor of Itbeso vote please.


Archery Power, please take your sarcasm and put it where the sun doesn't shine. I would gladly take over the reins of the Nfaa, and if I did, I guarantee you there would be no more than 4 classes in a hurry. Then, instead of talking about the NFaa officials in every issue of archery magazine, I would return to formats of the 60s and 70s, where the individual champions of the Nfaa were articled and profiled so that the general membership could have someone on their level to relate to.. But those things are just a pipe dream because you and others like you are too afraid to rock the boat.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Archery Power, please take your sarcasm and put it where the sun doesn't shine. I would gladly take over the reins of the Nfaa, and if I did, I guarantee you there would be no more than 4 classes in a hurry. Then, instead of talking about the NFaa officials in every issue of archery magazine, I would return to formats of the 60s and 70s, where the individual champions of the Nfaa were articled and profiled so that the general membership could have someone on their level to relate to.. But those things are just a pipe dream because you and others like you are too afraid to rock the boat.


Itbeso If you can do what you say you can do you are the man. Go for it.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I realize that you mean styles instead of classes, pursuant to your earlier comment about freestyle compound, limited freestyle recurve (olympic), barebow compound, and barebow recurve, and agree that we should have a minimum of styles, although not necessarily those four.

The four styles you suggest appear to be oriented more toward USAArchery than NFAA, given that only one of those styles serves a vast majority of NFAA members. Looking at Jim Easton's vision for olympic gold medals, that may not be a bad thing, except that it does not adequately serve the NFAA majority.

Having one style for releases and three for fingers is not serving the members as a whole but catering to three minority groups and I do not see how it would work, unless NFAA were run by a single individual on a take it or leave it basis.

The problem is that such a change to the NFAA style structure would most certainly piss off many members and we likely would lose them. If we lose a lot of members through that sort of initiative, how would that be servicing our members?

It seems that we have ventured too far down the path of many different styles to retreat now, due to potential loss of membership. Ben (I figured out who you are. Why did you not just say so before?), if you can figure out how to do it, let's hear it, we can always argue later about what styles to retain.

Remember that we have a 50 member board of directors to work with and an 8 member cabinet that would likely be running things if the board of directors were abolished. Removing the board of directors is not likely since they would be voting to remove themselves.

There is a way that I will never discuss here but will say that, if I can think of it, so can Bruce.


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

Archery Power said:


> Itbeso I think you should be the someone that will take the bull by the horns and streamline all the classes and return the focus to the archers.
> 
> I put Itbeso name in to be the head man over this project, Do I hear a second, ok all in favor of Itbeso vote please.





itbeso said:


> Archery Power, please take your sarcasm and put it where the sun doesn't shine. I would gladly take over the reins of the Nfaa, and if I did, I guarantee you there would be no more than 4 classes in a hurry. Then, instead of talking about the NFaa officials in every issue of archery magazine, I would return to formats of the 60s and 70s, where the individual champions of the Nfaa were articled and profiled so that the general membership could have someone on their level to relate to.. But those things are just a pipe dream because you and others like you are too afraid to rock the boat.





Archery Power said:


> Itbeso If you can do what you say you can do you are the man. Go for it.


I wouldnt doubt he was being serious, and I agree with him. This forum seems to be full of people who have a ton of great ideas for "when they are in charge..." yet never seem to do anything drastic towards making it happen except get on here and complain. Oh, and before you accuse me, I am not saying your complaints are invalid... most I can agree with. Its just that ATers seem to have grandeur plans, yet just sit on them and never take the drastic next step.

I am reminded of what Andy Dufresne did in Shawshank Redemption. When he wanted a library for the prison, he wrote one letter a week for years. Finally he recieved a large shipment of books. When the guards asked him if he was done, he said no... Instead he was now going to write two letters a week. 
That takes dedication very few people on here know anything about.... (I am not soloing anyone out, and I do know there are exceptions)

B~


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FS560 said:


> I realize that you mean styles instead of classes, pursuant to your earlier comment about freestyle compound, limited freestyle recurve (olympic), barebow compound, and barebow recurve, and agree that we should have a minimum of styles, although not necessarily those four.
> 
> The four styles you suggest appear to be oriented more toward USAArchery than NFAA, given that only one of those styles serves a vast majority of NFAA members. Looking at Jim Easton's vision for olympic gold medals, that may not be a bad thing, except that it does not adequately serve the NFAA majority.
> 
> ...


Jim, yes I did mean styles, thanks for the clarification. Like I said in a previous post, Unfortunately I don't have a magic wand to wave and make everything alright, but I am not afraid to sacrifice some of my biases to make things better for the Nfaa and its members. There have been a number of posters who have championed the ASA as a model organization. Mike Terrell is pretty much a one man ruler of that organization So I don't think your statement of having all the Nfaa power in one persons hand is all that far out there. You are right about the directors, but again I don't feel we, the general members, should be allowed to run the Organization, we haven't done a good job so far. As far as losing members, I am in disagreement with all those that say people will quit in hordes. We may lose a few initially, but in the long run, as new people come into archery and see structure and rules that don't change every year, I feel we will get and retain more people than ever. The reality is, as we have seen in these discussions, there are too many of us to agree, so my solution is to cut down the number of people that have to agree and let them make the rules


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Brad HT said:


> I wouldnt doubt he was being serious, and I agree with him. This forum seems to be full of people who have a ton of great ideas for "when they are in charge..." yet never seem to do anything drastic towards making it happen except get on here and complain. Oh, and before you accuse me, I am not saying your complaints are invalid... most I can agree with. Its just that ATers seem to have grandeur plans, yet just sit on them and never take the drastic next step.
> 
> I am reminded of what Andy Dufresne did in Shawshank Redemption. When he wanted a library for the prison, he wrote one letter a week for years. Finally he recieved a large shipment of books. When the guards asked him if he was done, he said no... Instead he was now going to write two letters a week.
> That takes dedication very few people on here know anything about.... (I am not soloing anyone out, and I do know there are exceptions)
> ...


Brad, I'm not sure who you were agreeing with, but it's not important because everyones opinion is just as valid as the next persons. You talk about dedication and I couldn't agree more. The problem is that a lot of the people who have dedicated years of VOLUNTARY service to the Nfaa are getting older or burnt out (or both) and there just doesn't seem to be enough new blood who are willing to give of their time and energy to fill those shoes. Fortunately, in my state, the Nfaa is alive and doing well but, I know we are one of the exceptions. That is my main reason for suggesting the NFAA be run like a Big business i.e. the PGA, let's have someone or a small board run this organization and everyone else follow the rules.JMO


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

itbeso said:


> Brad, I'm not sure who you were agreeing with, but it's not important because everyones opinion is just as valid as the next persons. You talk about dedication and I couldn't agree more. The problem is that a lot of the people who have dedicated years of VOLUNTARY service to the Nfaa are getting older or burnt out (or both) and there just doesn't seem to be enough new blood who are willing to give of their time and energy to fill those shoes. Fortunately, in my state, the Nfaa is alive and doing well but, I know we are one of the exceptions. That is my main reason for suggesting the NFAA be run like a Big business i.e. the PGA, let's have someone or a small board run this organization and everyone else follow the rules.JMO


Essentially I was agreeing with everyone. I know that changes can and probably should be made (to what level, I dont know). At the same time, I was also saying that those that have the valid opinions should step up and do something.... drastic even. 
I know that Archery Powers comments sounded sarcastic (and maybe they were), but as we all know, there is always some truth in jest. What if he was serious...? What big thing could/should/would you do?
As far as the older folks in the NFAA, I am beyond grateful for their service. I wouldn't have field archery and spots to shoot without them. On the other hand, I do think that some organizational changes would be nice, necessary even. The problem is that personally I don't believe its possible. There are just too many politics and big dollars involved to somehow capture sweeping, or even moderate changes within the organization. But again, thats my personal opinion and I have no interest at this point getting involved. If I did, I would have to give up my pro dreams and concentrate solely on that charge completely, not something I am willing to do.
All that to say, there are always some great ideas and changes that can be made. For once, I would love to see something come from a thread like this, and somehow make its way all the way up that 'organizational ladder' at the NFAA offices... (and maybe even have some lasting positive effect!)

B~


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Archery Power, please take your sarcasm and put it where the sun doesn't shine. I would gladly take over the reins of the Nfaa, and if I did, I guarantee you there would be no more than 4 classes in a hurry. Then, instead of talking about the NFaa officials in every issue of archery magazine, I would return to formats of the 60s and 70s, where the individual champions of the Nfaa were articled and profiled so that the general membership could have someone on their level to relate to.. But those things are just a pipe dream because you and others like you are too afraid to rock the boat.


Itbeso, Not trying to throw any sarcasm your way, Just saying if you can help NFAA in any way you say you can then I say go for it.

If you can take NFAA and put it back to where it was in the 60's and 70's then I will say again you are the man.

Also if this can be done then you will get my vote.


----------



## Gapmaster (May 23, 2002)

Itbeso couldn't be more correct. There really isn't enough room on this forum nor do people want to read again what's been said over and over and over. Anyone who has been involved as a member of the NFAA for a lengthy period of years can or should be able to remember what the NFAA organized shoots used to be like. Less styles, more attendance, used to be the norm. At least that is how I remember it. Shoot, they used to even promote tournaments and make them sound exciting. They also promoted the other programs they offered and the local clubs encouraged participation. When was the last time you seen or heard of someone applying for a 20 pin, or a small game award. That is one of the things I am currently working on in my club. Seems like half the members don't even understand, nor has anyone told them, what they should be NFAA members and the benafits and programs that come with the membership. It also seems to me that every idea they have tried over the years to make things better hasn't worked. In fact, it seems like it's only made things worse. Now I grant you, I'm no expert and not even close to knowing as much as a few of you guys on this board when it comes to the NFAA, but, at what point do you have to step back and look at what's going on in other organizations, see how well they are doing. Then as a NFAA official just ask yourself, " what are they doing to get that kind of participation, and what are we not doing that doesn't interest or attract archers? Well, if they are selling red cars and doing well and your selling blue cars and doing poorly at some point you have to think that maybe you need to add some red cars to your lot. It might be a poor analogy, but sure as heck someone will pipe up and say it's because more people want to shoot 3D's than anything else. And my answer to that is maybe, but I think the real reason is because 3D's are promoted and field targets are not, or not enough. Then throw in the State shoots at 8 or 10 different locations on different days but all competing for the same award and you can see the interest seems to be going away. Then throw in the amount of awards they give out to anyone who voices their opinion loud enough ( only orange bows is next) and it just becomes disheartening. I also see that a big problem is every time someone has a gripe of some sort someone is bending over backwards to make something even more fair. That could go on for eternity man. Too many styles, and too many if you did it for them you have to do it for me complaints. I just don't remember things that way. One location, same day everybody shoots, one range, less styles, just shoot what ya got or change to a different style. The whole thing needs reformatting. I know everything I might be saying isn't exactly included in what you guys have been discussing, but after reading all this, my mind just went to the world of somethings got to change and I think Itbeso is right in his assesments. I think some streamlining needs to take place. After all, all these great ideas that have been put into place over that last 25 or 30 years to make things better hasn't worked. We have lost many potential NFAA members to other organizations because I don't think NFAA promotes well enough, not do I think they make the effort to make NFAA National Winners proud to be a winner, excited to be a winner, not do they brag or promote their winners. Maybe I'm wrong and need to be straightened out. But I will tell you that there was a time when all I could think of all year long was to be able to get good enough to win the State Field and the Nationals. I still have that fire in me and would love to light it up, but the way the tournament formats are set up and the way the styles are set up leaves that spark hard to ignite. I agree and think a few might leave the organization for a while, but once things have been changed and are more consistant they will return. I know I won't leave. I like all forms of archery, including 3D, but I like shooting circles just as much. I think others would love it to if it was set up better. Sorry if I complicated or intruded on anything specific you guys were addressing. Gapmaster


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

First you must find a club with 5 ranges and wants to bid for the shoot


ccwilder3 said:


> All the sites are in the far north of the country. None are within driving distance of folks living in the southern part of the U.S.
> 
> Its the same way with the NAFAC. Its held in the southern tip of Florida and look how low attendance is. If you want to increase attendance have some of these things in the central part of the country.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Very well said


Gapmaster said:


> Itbeso couldn't be more correct. There really isn't enough room on this forum nor do people want to read again what's been said over and over and over. Anyone who has been involved as a member of the NFAA for a lengthy period of years can or should be able to remember what the NFAA organized shoots used to be like. Less styles, more attendance, used to be the norm. At least that is how I remember it. Shoot, they used to even promote tournaments and make them sound exciting. They also promoted the other programs they offered and the local clubs encouraged participation. When was the last time you seen or heard of someone applying for a 20 pin, or a small game award. That is one of the things I am currently working on in my club. Seems like half the members don't even understand, nor has anyone told them, what they should be NFAA members and the benafits and programs that come with the membership. It also seems to me that every idea they have tried over the years to make things better hasn't worked. In fact, it seems like it's only made things worse. Now I grant you, I'm no expert and not even close to knowing as much as a few of you guys on this board when it comes to the NFAA, but, at what point do you have to step back and look at what's going on in other organizations, see how well they are doing. Then as a NFAA official just ask yourself, " what are they doing to get that kind of participation, and what are we not doing that doesn't interest or attract archers? Well, if they are selling red cars and doing well and your selling blue cars and doing poorly at some point you have to think that maybe you need to add some red cars to your lot. It might be a poor analogy, but sure as heck someone will pipe up and say it's because more people want to shoot 3D's than anything else. And my answer to that is maybe, but I think the real reason is because 3D's are promoted and field targets are not, or not enough. Then throw in the State shoots at 8 or 10 different locations on different days but all competing for the same award and you can see the interest seems to be going away. Then throw in the amount of awards they give out to anyone who voices their opinion loud enough ( only orange bows is next) and it just becomes disheartening. I also see that a big problem is every time someone has a gripe of some sort someone is bending over backwards to make something even more fair. That could go on for eternity man. Too many styles, and too many if you did it for them you have to do it for me complaints. I just don't remember things that way. One location, same day everybody shoots, one range, less styles, just shoot what ya got or change to a different style. The whole thing needs reformatting. I know everything I might be saying isn't exactly included in what you guys have been discussing, but after reading all this, my mind just went to the world of somethings got to change and I think Itbeso is right in his assesments. I think some streamlining needs to take place. After all, all these great ideas that have been put into place over that last 25 or 30 years to make things better hasn't worked. We have lost many potential NFAA members to other organizations because I don't think NFAA promotes well enough, not do I think they make the effort to make NFAA National Winners proud to be a winner, excited to be a winner, not do they brag or promote their winners. Maybe I'm wrong and need to be straightened out. But I will tell you that there was a time when all I could think of all year long was to be able to get good enough to win the State Field and the Nationals. I still have that fire in me and would love to light it up, but the way the tournament formats are set up and the way the styles are set up leaves that spark hard to ignite. I agree and think a few might leave the organization for a while, but once things have been changed and are more consistant they will return. I know I won't leave. I like all forms of archery, including 3D, but I like shooting circles just as much. I think others would love it to if it was set up better. Sorry if I complicated or intruded on anything specific you guys were addressing. Gapmaster


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

2413gary said:


> First you must find a club with 5 ranges and wants to bid for the shoot


I understand the difficulty. 

How many acres do you think it would take to do 7 courses?


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

Gapmaster said:


> Itbeso couldn't be more correct. Gapmaster


I'm sorry, but your post is very hard to read without some breaks. Not picking on you, because lots of folks tend to do that.

I did reformat it and agree with many of your observations.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

ccwilder3 said:


> I understand the difficulty.
> 
> How many acres do you think it would take to do 7 courses?


If you are interested in this, there is some good reading in the history of Keowee Bowmen at Clemson. Sounds like a lot of work, but Bill Shane and the movers and shakers of that one club were able to pull it off. Shane was a professor of forestry at Clemson, S.E. pro rep, and a super nice guy.

http://www.keoweebowmen.com/Club_History.html


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

I'm gonna try and put the train back on ther tracks here. I know that some of what's been said in the last couple of posts is related to the big picture of the NFAA but still, this is a thread about a multi location National Tournament.

Now, I gotta say I can not get behind the idea of our National Championship tournaments being held at multiple locations. I know we do it here in NC for our Indoor State Championships and I know that Sectionals are held at multiple locations but our State Outdoor Championship is held at one place and I believe Nationals should be the held at one place for both Indoor and Outdoor. 

There is more to a National Championship than just lobbing arrows at a dot. The biggest difference is shooting with your peers. If you are sitting at one location and your nearest competitor is at another location there isn't as much pressure on you or them. Standing next to the guy you are actually competing against adds a lot to the mix. At an Indoor event, theoretically all conditions are the same everywhere, but toeing the line with the folks in your class and being able to know exactly where you stand makes a difference. Some people crumble under the pressure and some thrive on it. Being able to handle that pressure should be a requirement for a National Championship. Afterall it is a NATIONAL Championship, not some random club shoot.

Outdoors brings about a whole new set of issues. I know Sectionals is shot at multiple locations now. And truthfully the participation is probably higher because of it. However, I can promise you that the courses are different in Florida, North Carolina, and Kentucky. I've never been to the courses in KY or FL but I can assure you they are gonna be different from the course I shoot here in NC. I'm not gonna say which is tougher or easier because I don't know, but they are different and that I do know. Even if the courses were identical, weather conditions will be different. I mean how is it fair that one archer has to shoot the 80 WU with a 20* up angle in the rain and someone else get to shoot that same target on the flat in 80* and sunny?? Not for a National Championship Tournament. 

Silver Bowls should be one of the most coveted prizes in archery and I believe it really is. They only give one out per class every year. If you don't get it this year, then you have to wait until next year. In order to get it, you should have to stand next to your competition on the same course in the same conditions. In order to claim the title of Best Archer in the US in your given class and style, you should have to stare down the person who finishes second and still put more in the dot than they do.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

itbeso said:


> Mike,I responded to your post because it seemed you were referencing the Nfaa. Apology accepted.There was no tirade, Mike, Just hard cold truths. You say that you gave 25 years to the organization to try to make things better. Is the Nfaa better today than 25 years ago for the archers? I feel the answer to that question is no. As with any organization of this type, the focus should be on the members and not the officials, without the members there are no officials. The leadership of the NFAA does not now, nor has it in the recent past, seemed to grasp this truth. You get overly defensive when discussing the trials and tribulations of the NFAA. You ask what I've done, not much, but I have been a member and supported the Nfaa for 43 years. What you and others don't seem to grasp is that if all the members got pissed off tomorrow and quit, what would the Nfaa officials do then. We are not dependent on you, you are dependent on us. There are a lot of other organizations and games for us to join and spend our time on so get off your high horse. With that said, I would like to see the NFAA continue to flourish, I just don't think it will happen until someone takes the bull by the horns and streamlines all the classes and returns the focus to the archers.


Ben, i don't know if i can answer this in order, because there are so many threads here. 
Are we better off now than before? ABSOLUTELY. In one word, Yankton. All the NFAA ever had was a few acres in Ca. most of it rock. Now there is a facility that you will always have a place to shoot. No other town in the country would have given to the NFAA what Yankton has given. 
That all was accomplished with the help of the council, which I am proud to have been a part of, but mostly because of Bruce. These are the officers that you say are not important as the the members. You need the officers to do the work that is involved to provide all of the things that are needed for you the members to be able to shoot & have an organization. AND the officers need the members to make up an organization so that they have something to administer. Ben do you shoot vegas? That was another item accomplished by the officers. I'd like to believe that in my 25 years that I have helped make the NFAA & archery better thru some of my work & agendas that got passed.
What I'm saying, it is a two way street.

Now is every thing perfect, hell no. The biggest problem is Field archery. I agree with you in the strongest sense that it is so far out of whack. 
You said that if you took over the reins that you would only have 4 divisions. Lots of luck. There is no way that could ever happen as long as the NFAA is in the control of the directors. Unless they would give control to the board to shape it up like the WAF it will stay this way. Look at the debacle that they passed for this year. How many more classes did they add? Every one has to be a winner. Get Tom D. to put an agenda in to roll back the classes & see how far it gets. 
Over the years I've seen directors take the job to be self serving. The members complain about some of the rules that get put in, but it is the wishes of some of the members that have the directors put those agenda items in. Evan tho it is the directors who do the voting , some of the blame can be shared by the officers. They may not be able to vote, but they are able to express their opinion on the floor . All they have to do is to get a director to relinquish their time to them. I know that I did when I was councilman. 

If it be up to me there would be no styles. Shoot what you bring & shoot against a score. That would not happen either.
When I started, there were 3 div. BB, FS, & heavy tackle. The BB was the National champion. 
You are correct that every one knew who the champ was. Now every one knows when Jesse wins. You know the winner in your own style. There is no prestige any more except to the winner. 

So Ben the next time you see your name on the leader board or some one hands you your bowl, it will probably be one of the officers
Remember that we need each other.


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

Spoon13 said:


> I'm gonna try and put the train back on ther tracks here. I know that some of what's been said in the last couple of posts is related to the big picture of the NFAA but still, this is a thread about a multi location National Tournament.
> 
> Now, I gotta say I can not get behind the idea of our National Championship tournaments being held at multiple locations. I know we do it here in NC for our Indoor State Championships and I know that Sectionals are held at multiple locations but our State Outdoor Championship is held at one place and I believe Nationals should be the held at one place for both Indoor and Outdoor.
> 
> ...


Best post yet on topic....!!

B~


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

brtesite said:


> Ben, i don't know if i can answer this in order, because there are so many threads here.
> Are we better off now than before? ABSOLUTELY. In one word, Yankton. All the NFAA ever had was a few acres in Ca. most of it rock. Now there is a facility that you will always have a place to shoot. No other town in the country would have given to the NFAA what Yankton has given.
> That all was accomplished with the help of the council, which I am proud to have been a part of, but mostly because of Bruce. These are the officers that you say are not important as the the members. You need the officers to do the work that is involved to provide all of the things that are needed for you the members to be able to shoot & have an organization. AND the officers need the members to make up an organization so that they have something to administer. Ben do you shoot vegas? That was another item accomplished by the officers. I'd like to believe that in my 25 years that I have helped make the NFAA & archery better thru some of my work & agendas that got passed.
> What I'm saying, it is a two way street.
> ...


And regards to the off topic, topic... this summs it up best of all....

Mike, thanks so much for all your years of serivce. I can only hope I get to do a half of what you were able to do...

B~


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

brtesite said:


> Ben, i don't know if i can answer this in order, because there are so many threads here.
> Are we better off now than before? ABSOLUTELY. In one word, Yankton. All the NFAA ever had was a few acres in Ca. most of it rock. Now there is a facility that you will always have a place to shoot. No other town in the country would have given to the NFAA what Yankton has given.
> That all was accomplished with the help of the council, which I am proud to have been a part of, but mostly because of Bruce. These are the officers that you say are not important as the the members. You need the officers to do the work that is involved to provide all of the things that are needed for you the members to be able to shoot & have an organization. AND the officers need the members to make up an organization so that they have something to administer. Ben do you shoot vegas? That was another item accomplished by the officers. I'd like to believe that in my 25 years that I have helped make the NFAA & archery better thru some of my work & agendas that got passed.
> What I'm saying, it is a two way street.
> ...


Mike, We are on the same side and whether you realize it or not, you reinforced one of my strongest points. The Nfaa needs to be run by a Person or board, not by its members. As a whole, the members have run this organization backwards and the current way of voting, i.e. state directors doing the bidding of their constituents, is not a viable way of putting the NFAA back on track. Most of your others points, I agree with.


----------



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

I think that we have got a way off of the topic that we were talking about.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

distributor said:


> I think that we have got a way off of the topic that we were talking about.


WELL then, my opinion is that the NFAA nationals be held in only one location per year.


----------



## Gapmaster (May 23, 2002)

I agree completely. One location only.


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

I agree.. one location. Otherwise, whats the difference between the National Championships and the Sectionals?

B~


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

itbeso said:


> Mike, We are on the same side and whether you realize it or not, you reinforced one of my strongest points. The Nfaa needs to be run by a Person or board, not by its members. As a whole, the members have run this organization backwards and the current way of voting, i.e. state directors doing the bidding of their constituents, is not a viable way of putting the NFAA back on track. Most of your others points, I agree with.


Ben, I do realize what your points are. Unless the states are willing to give up their authority, it can't be done according to the Constitution. Before the federation of states came to being, there were section leaders. Sort of Like the council is today, only not as many. Any time there was something to be voted on, it was put into Archery magazine for the the rank & file to send in their votes. As usual, not every one voted. 

Like I said before, the WAF was set up just so the rules didn't have to go thru so many hands. Things got done in a timely manner & is a huge success.
Maybe a trial basis if it is feasible to have the council take over lock stock & barrel for a few years. It would mean a slash & burn of the constitution to get rid of some of the stuff that is in there now. Maybe the states may think what is better for archery than to protect their fiefdom. How do do you think your state would react to this?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

brtesite said:


> Ben, I do realize what your points are. Unless the states are willing to give up their authority, it can't be done according to the Constitution. Before the federation of states came to being, there were section leaders. Sort of Like the council is today, only not as many. Any time there was something to be voted on, it was put into Archery magazine for the the rank & file to send in their votes. As usual, not every one voted.
> 
> Like I said before, the WAF was set up just so the rules didn't have to go thru so many hands. Things got done in a timely manner & is a huge success.
> Maybe a trial basis if it is feasible to have the council take over lock stock & barrel for a few years. It would mean a slash & burn of the constitution to get rid of some of the stuff that is in there now. Maybe the states may think what is better for archery than to protect their fiefdom. How do do you think your state would react to this?


I don't have a feel for that right now, Mike, but I can sure find out. Interesting.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The organization Mike speaks about is basically the way it would be if the merger is accomplished. My understanding is that the states and their directors would function as now, except that the directors would not meet together to pass legislation. The cabinet would handle legislation. The directors of the sections would elect and advise their cabinet member.

Whether or not the states will go for the merger remains to be determined.

I think an eight member cabinet is too many, especially with Easton then effectively running NFAA and USAArchery through its purse strings. Or, maybe USAArchery would be running NFAA. Don't scowl, it could happen.

It is impossible for NFAA and USAArchery to be equal parts of a business without one having more control or there being a czar dictating to both.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

FS560 said:


> The organization Mike speaks about is basically the way it would be if the merger is accomplished. My understanding is that the states and their directors would function as now, except that the directors would not meet together to pass legislation. The cabinet would handle legislation. The directors of the sections would elect and advise their cabinet member.
> 
> Whether or not the states will go for the merger remains to be determined.
> 
> ...


 I was not referring to any merger with USA archery. I just mentioned the way it used to be & if it may be went back to the same system with the NFAA standing alone.
However, I have no info about a merger, but if it would be good for archery , then maybe it should happen. I don't think that equal authority is feasible. There always needs to be a head of an organization over the branches.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I understood what Mike was talking about, but the result of the merger would be somewhat similar except for the top level command over NFAA.

NFAA became an organization of states in 1966/1967 and served well until the target change thinned the membership drastically in 1977 and then rubber deer thinned it some more.

I think the NFAA that you, I, and many others fondly remember and Ben wants to go back to is an association to provide field archery at the local level with state, regional, and national level championships provided for those that are also inclined.

Within that context, multiple sites for championships does not fit the model envisioned above. Multiple sites would fit the business model of a tournament business trying to compete in a world where few, if any, events have adequate real importance to the membership.

Now, we have fifteen sites for the mid-atlantic indoor championship and we do have much higher attendance. But are the host clubs and shops better off? I think not because the attendance is spread out over so many sites that hosts are barely covering expenses.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Overall, NFAA has evolved more into a tournament business than remained a field archery association of states and clubs and what have we gained? Maybe nothing other than a top notch archery facility with office, indoor range, and outdoor ranges.

The facility and land in Yankton is owned by the NFAA Foundation, a 501c3 subsidiary of NFAA, itself a 501c4. The WAF, a subsidiary of NFAA, runs the Las Vegas shoot and the Classic in Yankton. NFAA owns a 25% interest in a campground purportedly with no downside liability if the campground goes defunct.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FS560 said:


> I understood what Mike was talking about, but the result of the merger would be somewhat similar except for the top level command over NFAA.
> 
> NFAA became an organization of states in 1966/1967 and served well until the target change thinned the membership drastically in 1977 and then rubber deer thinned it some more.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the additional information.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I thought you might like that.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Jim and Ben there has never been talk about a merger, the only thing that has been thrown around is an umbrella over the two groups with one name at the top and both groups keeping what they have now including the hierarchy. But what I am seeing USArchery may not be kosher with the idea even though they were to have an exploratory committee just like we did, USArchery has announced that to shoot in their tournaments you will have to be a full member of the USArchery so the way I am seeing it the agreement between the two organizations may be over.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

Bob, was USA Archery membership required just to shoot in their tournaments or to be eligible for national points and rankings? Just curious if the NFAA membership for USA Archery tournament participation has been eliminated or if you can get in the door, but can't get a seat at the table with just a NFAA membership? TKS


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

archer_nm said:


> Jim and Ben there has never been talk about a merger, the only thing that has been thrown around is an umbrella over the two groups with one name at the top and both groups keeping what they have now including the hierarchy. But what I am seeing USArchery may not be kosher with the idea even though they were to have an exploratory committee just like we did, USArchery has announced that to shoot in their tournaments you will have to be a full member of the USArchery so the way I am seeing it the agreement between the two organizations may be over.


I believe I saw on the FITA forum that USA archery was going to require NFAA members to sign up as a temporary member for each tournament they shot in but that the fee would be waived. I do not know if this temporary membership carries the same perks as the full time membership.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

This may be a separate issue, but I was concerned about getting my Coaching Certifications under the NFAA/USA Archery combo and only being an NFAA member. 
So, just to make sure, I went ahead and also joined USA Archery; this way as far as coaching certification goes, I'm fully "Covered."
If USA Archery requires NFAA members to "join", then the reverse will be true and here comes near complete separation between the two organizations yet again?


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

archer_nm said:


> Jim and Ben there has never been talk about a merger, the only thing that has been thrown around is an umbrella over the two groups with one name at the top and both groups keeping what they have now including the hierarchy.


Bob, an umbrella with one name at the top is effectively a merger under a czar. Furthermore, the one name at the top and the premise that "there can be only one" provides a hint of the reason for the apparent widening of the gulf between the two organizations.

I remember there was a long term agreement between the two organizations that provided for members of each organization to be allowed to compete in each other's championships. Apparently USAArchery has already abrogated that agreement. Do I remember correctly that this occurred in the early 1990s? NFAA had launched an initiative to become the representative of Olympic archery in the USA and the two organizations forged the agreement with the condition that NFAA would back off on the bid.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

I was a director at the time and yes that is what happened that is how we ended up with a representative on there board, but with the USAArchery requiring a full membership (if this is true) then a rep may also be in at risk.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Wow, have the black helicopters started circling again?  Some of you guys crack me up. Rather than tossing out theories about why USAA Archery is requiring membership why don't you guys just go over to the FITA forum and ask. Many over there don't sound like they like the changes coming about either and it has nothing to do with USAA Archery trying to set itself up to be THE only archery association and taking over the NFAA via some merger. Sounding more like they are being forced to go that route to appease USOC lawyers and something called Safe Sport, aka a CYA requirement forcing all USOC member orgs to require membership at their events, JOAD clubs, etc., in order to police or at least say that USOC is policing itself and its member orgs. Basically a possible liability issue that someone dreamed up. But then again, I could have been brainwashed into believing that was why USAA Archery was having to consider going the route of requiring membership in their org to compete at their shoots. I'm sure they are thinking that'll be a a big benefit to themselves when they possibly lose a couple hundred compound participants at their various tournaments rolleyes, lol.

>>-------->


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Jeff there is no doubt that USA Archery will require membership to shoot in their tournaments ( as per Denise's letter in June), I have another meeting in Oct and this will be part of the agenda I am sure. As far as the Black Ops group, the talk was about Bruce being number 1, that's what I got out of the post.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

From the Q&A section of Denise's blog on the matter: http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...SafeSport-and-Membership-Initiatives-for-2014

*Can an NFAA member shoot in a USA Archery sanctioned tournament?*
USA Archery recognizes NFAA membership at all of their national events with the exception of JOAD Nationals. This will not change in 2014. NFAA members will fill out the necessary paperwork for a temporary membership, but the fee will be waived in those instances.
NFAA membership is not valid for international teams or team selection events or for any of USA Archery’s programs. This also is not a change, and is how the reciprocity agreement currently operates.

We realize that some states and clubs have reciprocity in their communities and states and others do not. These partnerships have been negotiated locally, not through the USA Archery office. We are looking at options to help with this transition; _however, as of right now, starting in 2014, all participants in USA Archery sanctioned events will need to become USA Archery members_.

So, if I choose to play on the other side of the fence for some events starting in 2014, I'll have to carry double memberships-- my current lifetime NFAA and now also USAA!! How much more can the common, non-sponsored shooter be squeezed for event participation?


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

montigre said:


> From the Q&A section of Denise's blog on the matter: http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...SafeSport-and-Membership-Initiatives-for-2014
> 
> *How much more can the common, non-sponsored shooter be squeezed for event participation?*


*

You really have to ask?
How much do you have?
Thats how much it's going to cost.
Don.*


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

montigre said:


> From the Q&A section of Denise's blog on the matter: http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...SafeSport-and-Membership-Initiatives-for-2014
> 
> *Can an NFAA member shoot in a USA Archery sanctioned tournament?*
> USA Archery recognizes NFAA membership at all of their national events with the exception of JOAD Nationals. This will not change in 2014. NFAA members will fill out the necessary paperwork for a temporary membership, but the fee will be waived in those instances.
> ...


Good grief, If you want to be a member of an organization, pay the dues, otherwise stay home. Does your NFAA membership qualify you to be a member of ASA? No. Does your NFAA membership qualify you to be a member of IBO? NO. Archers are the cheapest group I have ever seen when it comes to supporting archery organizations, but will spend a years dues in one weekend on beer at a shoot. Most of these organizations rely on membership dues to function and I don't think it is out of the question to require them for entry into their tournaments.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

itbeso said:


> Good grief, If you want to be a member of an organization, pay the dues, otherwise stay home. Does your NFAA membership qualify you to be a member of ASA? No. Does your NFAA membership qualify you to be a member of IBO? NO. Archers are the cheapest group I have ever seen when it comes to supporting archery organizations, but will spend a years dues in one weekend on beer at a shoot. Most of these organizations rely on membership dues to function and I don't think it is out of the question to require them for entry into their tournaments.


 of course I would expect that USArchery members would be NFAA members to shoot NFAA shoots.

wonder what the ratio is for NFAA shooting USArchery vs USArchery shooting NFAA


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Does your NFAA membership qualify you to be a member of IBO? NO. Archers are the cheapest group I have ever seen when it comes to supporting archery organizations, but will spend a years dues in one weekend on beer at a shoot.


Actually, I believe there is membership reciprosity between NFAA and IBO, but I do not shoot foam, or drink more than maybe 1 beer every 2-3 months, so moot points!! 

And as stated in my prior post, I have already paid a lifetime NFAA membership... So, I am not a cheapo, by any means, I am simply bemoaning the loss of the membership reciprosity between NFAA and USAA... Take a powder, itbeso!!


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

brtesite said:


> of course I would expect that USArchery members would be NFAA members to shoot NFAA shoots.
> wonder what the ratio is for NFAA shooting USArchery vs USArchery shooting NFAA


Judging from my local area, more NFAA members shoot in USAA events than the inverse by a very large amount.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

montigre said:


> Actually, I believe there is membership reciprosity between NFAA and IBO, but I do not shoot foam, or drink more than maybe 1 beer every 2-3 months, so moot points!!
> 
> And as stated in my prior post, I have already paid a lifetime NFAA membership... So, I am not a cheapo, by any means, I am simply bemoaning the loss of the membership reciprosity between NFAA and USAA... Take a powder, itbeso!!


Montigre, please get your facts straight. There is still the same reciprocity agreement in effect, the only thing you can't do with that agreement is qualify for international teams, as it has been. By the way, which powder did you want me to take?:smile:


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

Come on folks. If you want to talk about all the short-comings of the NFAA, please by all means, START A THREAD ABOUT IT!!!!!! 

This thread is about a multi-locational National Championship. I know that all threads in here tend to get mildly de-railed from time to time, but we have more posts off-topic than on in this one. Let's please repect the OP and the intent of this thread by GETTING BACK ON TOPIC!!!!!


----------

