# NFAA agenda Items



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

Thanks for the info Rattleman. If they allow a 7 pin sight in BHFS, I'm switching to FSU. This is just insane. They will have taken a once challenging style and ruined it!  Maybe it's time to blow the dust off that Sure Loc Supreme in the basement...:wink:


----------



## rudeman (Jan 25, 2006)

I sent my two cents on this and all the agenda items to my state president and director. I'd encourage everyone to participate.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Rattleman said:


> You NFAA shooters may want to contact your Rep and see what is being proposed. Looks like they want to take away some or combine some of the shooting styles. If you are shooting one of the lesser shot styles you could be in for a surprise. There is also an agenda item to allow for up to 7 pins on the BHFS and BHFSL divisions. IMHO you may want to rein this in. Every year you guys get closer and closer to the FS division with these new add ons. So, one of these days it will be easier to justify removing the BHFS and BHFSL divisions and put them into the FS or FSL divisions. I hate to see styles lost and it would be very hard to get them reinstated if they are removed. Just my 2 cents worth.


I'm not so sure that they want to reduce the categories, but there is indeed such a proposal. One of the proposed eliminations is Olympic style recurve.:sad:


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

Recordkeeper said:


> I'm not so sure that they want to reduce the categories, but there is indeed such a proposal. One of the proposed eliminations is Olympic style recurve.:sad:


Its that time of year RK where all of us NFAA members scratch our heads.  You look at the agenda items and wonder.  I've said it before...and I'll say it again...would a year where NO changes are implemented be a bad thing? :zip:


----------



## rudeman (Jan 25, 2006)

> I'm not so sure that they want to reduce the categories


Since a bunch of them start with "The NFAA Council unanimously agrees we have too many shooting styles. . ." I'd say, yah, they ARE trying to get rid of categories.

There are a lot of *proposed* changes but it's my understanding a lot of them get voted down. Seems to me this is democracy in action. Someone comes up with an idea, it's published and discussed and it gets voted up or down at the annual meeting. Far more open than most organizations I know.

No organization is perfect, but only by actively participating can you ensure it's the best it can be. If you have comments one way or another on the proposed changes, get them to your State Director now.


----------



## jarlicker (Jul 29, 2002)

How long are the NFAA Members going to allow the same old stuff to continue on.
There is not one agenda Item that I am for changing.
In my opinion and I have lots of others that agree with me.
The annual meeting were you get all the state directors together for this big rules changing party is almost pointless. A real total waste of energy and thought process. 
Yes, some things need to be simplified or clarified. 
Thats what the councilmen should do.

I feel if we were smart we would let the executive council make most of the decisions during the year. At the end of a year during the next directors meeting we could vote to or not to continue on with certain decisions that were made.

Why cant the Directors meeting be more pro active on working towards how we the NFAA are going to promote and expand our sport of archery.

Directors should be coming home with what tournaments each state got awarded and ways to make clubs more successful. 

Promote a national level indoor points shoot down style tournament starting in February.
Heck this could even be held at Gander Mountain Stores across the country.
Start with qualifiers and have regional finals that progress to a National Championship. Could end at the NFAA Indoor Nationals.
Regional sites to be piggy backed on existing tournament, Iowa, LAS, KC, Vegas ect.There four regionals right there.

Work on this National Field archery tour several of us have been kicking around for years. Several shoots could take place at tournaments that are already in place for instance sectional tournaments. Give each state a tournament to host if they choose. Post a national weekly tournament schedule starting in April or earlier in warm weather areas. Each section or couple of sections can get together and work the schedules out.

How about Outdoor Target Rounds- heck have one at a beach location.


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

*enough said*



jarlicker said:


> How long are the NFAA Members going to allow the same old stuff to continue on.
> There is not one agenda Item that I am for changing.
> In my opinion and I have lots of others that agree with me.
> The annual meeting were you get all the state directors together for this big rules changing party is almost pointless. A real total waste of energy and thought process.
> ...


Nicely said and I thought you were just some dumb old ex finger shooter.:wink:


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

rudeman said:


> Since a bunch of them start with "The NFAA Council unanimously agrees we have too many shooting styles. . ." I'd say, yah, they ARE trying to get rid of categories.
> 
> There are a lot of *proposed* changes but it's my understanding a lot of them get voted down. Seems to me this is democracy in action. Someone comes up with an idea, it's published and discussed and it gets voted up or down at the annual meeting. Far more open than most organizations I know.
> 
> No organization is perfect, but only by actively participating can you ensure it's the best it can be. If you have comments one way or another on the proposed changes, get them to your State Director now.


I agree. But, are these agenda items supported by the majority of archers in the region where they are generated...or just a small group?  I have a feeling I know the answer. :zip:


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Just because a specific agenda item is submitted does not mean that there is more than one director in favor of it.

Any director, councilman, vice president, or president may submit any agenda he or she wishes to, provided it is written up in the proper form and submitted to HQ by September 30 prior to the meeting.

Many agenda items really do have only one director in favor, the author.

Furthermore, of all agenda items submitted, only about 10 to 15 percent make it into the constitution and bylaws, either as written or amended.

The only way an agenda item can be submitted after the September 30 deadline is with 15 signatures of other directors. This occurs at the meeting.

That is the way the arrow size limitation will get to the floor, actually the only way now. That discussion is sure to be heated, maybe more so than the STS was last year.

The council may have submitted a slew of agenda items, but the council members do not vote, only the directors.

I seriously doubt if the 7 pin deal will even make its way out of committee.


----------



## archerycharlie (Nov 4, 2002)

You can see where at every shoot there is always a few classes with only 1 or 2 or 3 in it that could be combined with another class. I changed from fsl to fs because of this very reason. I hate to go to a shoot and no one else there to shoot with or against. AC


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

*vote*



FS560 said:


> Just because a specific agenda item is submitted does not mean that there is more than one director in favor of it.
> 
> Any director, councilman, vice president, or president may submit any agenda he or she wishes to, provided it is written up in the proper form and submitted to HQ by September 30 prior to the meeting.
> 
> ...


Jim.. It is my understanding that the votes are cast by the Reps as directed by the people that he represents whether or not he agrees with the outcome. Am I correct in assuming this reasoning. If so, if only a small faction votes then any outcome is possible. Thanks Ed


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Some states issue specific direction to their NFAA Director with no leeway while others issue no direction whatsoever. And others can be anywhere in between.

Then there is the issue of the 15 signature agenda items that are presented at the meeting long after the states may have issued instructions to their director.

The maximum arrow diameter is one such issue. That issue has come to front and center so recently that there may not have been time for directors to have received direction in speculation.

Hopefully, most directors will have the authority to deal with that as they determine best.


----------

