# Animal Targets



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Trivial? Ask Jesse and Cuz what they think about how trivial it was after four days of spot shooting that it came down to how many of the little spots they could shoot on the animals to determine a national Pro championship....


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Dots*

I like the dots. When we used to shoot the animals with no dots I always felt it was a waste of time. With the dots you stand a chance to make up a little ground.
Jbird


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

Don't like the DOTS. With the dots why even shoot the animals. I can't even tell you what animal I was shooting at. If the dot is sooo important why not just shoot an expert round in its place? As for JEsse and Cuz, well they are both great shooters and if a tie occurs then make them shoot it off like every other venue. I think it just takes away from the shoot. My opinion only. See you at the Glen. Ed


----------



## mnjeff (Jun 19, 2004)

*dots*

i could do with out them. when i shot with scope i did not see it as animal target just aim at dot. now shooting bowhunter i would rather not try to aim at dot. scoring ring for extra point is enough.


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Expert Round*

I would go for the expert round to replace the animal round. The animal round without the dots with freestyle compounds is pretty much fluff anyway.
Just my opinion, not a deal breaker for me either way.
Jbird


----------



## bowhnter7 (Dec 6, 2004)

Arrow said:


> Would you like to see the dots removed from the animals? They have a scoring ring now and that could be used for the bonus point.
> 
> I miss the old school of pick a point to aim at and let it rip. I feel that the dot has made the round even more trivial for the freestylers and Pros.
> 
> Arrow


Maybe you could shoot some good ol fashion 3D then.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rattleman said:


> Don't like the DOTS. With the dots why even shoot the animals. I can't even tell you what animal I was shooting at. If the dot is sooo important why not just shoot an expert round in its place? As for JEsse and Cuz, well they are both great shooters and if a tie occurs then make them shoot it off like every other venue. I think it just takes away from the shoot. My opinion only. See you at the Glen. Ed


About the "expert round"....that indeed WAS DONE for a few years a long time ago. The "pros" didn't think the animal round was competitive, so they elected to shoot he "expert round" on Friday of the NFAA Outdoor Nationals.

That was competitive...but then, when it came to scores posting....nobody understood why the "joes" were shooting 560's on Friday...and the PROS scores...were way less than that on score! Because you couldn't have PRO scores LOWER than the Joe's scores....So, that idea was abandoned.

The "expert round" is still on the books...but frankly...I haven't shot an expert round in years (20 more more), and don't know of anyplace where the expert round is being used!

The animal round needed a shot in the arm, IMHO, and to be something MORE than a formality...and not something that after a full week of hard shooting would cost a person a national title because you lost 4 (or now 2) points on one shot for only a slight miss. The bonus point gives a huge incentive for accuracy and a means of "catching up"....It is NOT 3-D....

Besides, the old NFAA animal rounds ALL had an "aiming point" on them...if you paid attention to those animals at all....it just wasn't a "dot" per-se.

Doing away with the dots on the animals would be taking a giant step backwards, IMHO.

But doing away with the never used "expert round" ????

Better idea...change ALL the scoring on FIELD AND HUNTER ROUNDS to "expert scoring"...5-4-3-2-1 and USE THE RINGS, since they are there on the field face anyways, why not?! Simple to put the lines on the hunter faces...and make 'em PAY for missing the 5-ring way out in la-la land...by losing TWO points instead of only one for a 6-inch miss! I'd be all FOR 5-4-3-2-1 scoring. Then....make additional rings on the ANIMAL targets too...but invisible from the shooting positions...and score them 20 18 16, 14, or something like that for the first shot, and 16, 14, 12, 10 for the second shot (if needed) and 14, 12, 10, & 8 for the third shot (if needed)...and you PAY dearly for a wider miss!

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## rudeman (Jan 25, 2006)

What's the problem we're trying to solve, here? It sounded like the original poster just didn't like shooting at a dot. 

The discussion has morphed into changing the scoring for what purpose? There is already a tie-breaking method (X's) on the books. Use it. I perused the results the last couple of years and see nary a tie at the top of any categories, so why are we proposing changing the scoring rings? Just to make the gap even greater in results between "pros" and "Joes"? Why try to fix a problem that doesn't even exist?

Maybe I'm being a naive newbie.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

field14 said:


> About the "expert round"....that indeed WAS DONE for a few years a long time ago. The "pros" didn't think the animal round was competitive, so they elected to shoot he "expert round" on Friday of the NFAA Outdoor Nationals.
> 
> That was competitive...but then, when it came to scores posting....nobody understood why the "joes" were shooting 560's on Friday...and the PROS scores...were way less than that on score! Because you couldn't have PRO scores LOWER than the Joe's scores....So, that idea was abandoned.
> 
> ...


Now I like that. That would make the game quite a bit tougher. Just need white lines on the hunter face.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

swerve said:


> Now I like that. That would make the game quite a bit tougher. Just need white lines on the hunter face.


As the previous poster said....in a nutshell...what for? SImply for the sake of change?

I only proposed what I did...because ridding the "dots" on the animal round after all the heck we've been through with the animal round and scoring in general...would morph the game BACKWARDS instead of forwards.

I also wouldn't mind the 5-4-3-2-1 scoring on field/hunter rounds...but then the separation would be increased between the Joes and Pros....and YES...the "leaderboard" in the JOES would be changed around a LOT...but probably very little change in the top 10 of the PROS would come about with expert scoring...those people (PROS) do NOT shoot arrows in the current 'outer 4-ring"....and neither do the TOP END "Joes"!

But making the game TOUGHER? That is NOT what is needed! It is plenty tough as it is. We talk out of both sides of our mouths when discussing this...or "speak with forked-tongue.":wink::tongue::zip:

There are more serious problems to deal with than ridding the animals of "dots" or changing the scoring outdoors to expert scoring for all rounds of field and hunter!

The 280 fps rule is OBSOLETE....most bows are rated...even in short drawlengths...well BEYOND the 280 fps max limitation that is now in effect! That needs to get out of the stone age and into today's REALITY.

I can see the 80 pound max poundage limit...but 280 fps? Heck, many shooters are having to crank their bows way DOWN to slow 'em up enough to shoot "legal" NFAA rounds for sanctioned shoots!

But...that has little to do with "dots" on the animals. I like 'em (the dots)...cuz now STRATEGY comes into play...and you CAN "catch up" by shooting more dots than the other guy(s)! Maybe they could put the "dots" off center or something to make the shooter think twice before trying for one? That would go over like a screen door in a submarine's hatch, a lead balloon, or sandpaper on a toilet seat, or a spare tire on a boat, wouldn't it?

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Make it Harder?*

I don't think we need to do ANYTHING to make the round harder and widen the gap between the Pro's and the Joes. Don't we ever learn anything? The last time this was done Field Archery took a major nose dive. I don't think we could survive another misguided attempt to change what isn't broken.
Just my .02
Jbird


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*280 Fps*

I don't see anything wrong with 280 fps max. It keeps old goats, kids, and women from trying to keep up with the Jones by shooting harder cams with harder draws. If you have to back your 70# bow off to get to the speed limit, buy 60# or 50# limbs next time. Your joints and ligaments will thank you for it. Keep people in the game instead of watching them fall out from injuries. By the way, I'm shooting 255 fps at 50#. What do you suppose I would have to do bow wise to shoot 300 fps? How would it make me shoot better at marked yardage?
Jbird


----------



## bowhnter7 (Dec 6, 2004)

jbird said:


> i Don't Think We Need To Do Anything To Make The Round Harder And Widen The Gap Between The Pro's And The Joes. Don't We Ever Learn Anything? The Last Time This Was Done Field Archery Took A Major Nose Dive. I Don't Think We Could Survive Another Misguided Attempt To Change What Isn't Broken.
> Just My .02
> Jbird


+1


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Jbird said:


> I don't see anything wrong with 280 fps max. It keeps old goats, kids, and women from trying to keep up with the Jones by shooting harder cams with harder draws. If you have to back your 70# bow off to get to the speed limit, buy 60# or 50# limbs next time. Your joints and ligaments will thank you for it. Keep people in the game instead of watching them fall out from injuries.
> Jbird


Jay,
The problem is that 280 FPS is SLOW...and will become "slower" with the advent of some of the new line of bows coming out for 2009.....365 FPS at 60 pounds and 29" draw...will be a "standard" on one particular bow line being unveiled for 2009!

290 fps or even 300 is easily obtainable for even short-draw people at moderate poundages....that is, BELOW 60 pounds, and you don't absolutely have to shoot a harsh slam cam to get it anymore either! I shoot regularly with a guy that has his bow at 29" draw, 61 pounds, and is shooting a 2613....at 294 fps...and had to crank it DOWN so that he would be LEGAL for NFAA/ASA!

The technology developments have made the 280 max limit obsolete.

The questions now remain:.....

1. What has the NFAA done, or what is the NFAA going to do to make the rounds FUN?

2. What is the NFAA going to do to entice shooters to attend their outdoor events? Nothing more? Even less? Leave it alone since they feel it isn't really broken, so why mess with it?

3. When will we members realize that making the rounds MORE intimidating because "some" people can shoot perfect scores on them...so we have to stop that from happening...is NOT the course of action to take? 5 perfect 560 rounds on the hunter round since 1976....and people are talking changing it cuz "too many" perfects are being shot? Gimme a break? Change Vegas scoring or the target...cuz "too many" are shooting perfect 30X rounds.....only what, FIVE perfect 30X rounds have ever been shot at Vegas since this target was put in some 30 years ago? FIVE? and "some" want to make it tougher so that 30X won't happen so often?

Gimme a break...we need to address making the rounds FUN again. We need to address the complicated and antiquated old-school RULES that turn people away instead of bringing them into the mold. We need to address the situation of this being the 21st century where people want things YESTERDAY...and won't work hard for them...so...the NFAA needs to SIMPLIFY things, make it FUN, make it LESS intimidating, and figure out how to allow people to WANT to attend?

So far...nothing has really been done in the way of PROACTIVE thinking out of the box...but rather just plod along in the same ole way cuz it was always done that way...since 1939???? 

Trying to draw 21st century people in with 70 year-old means of thinking and operating just isn't going to cut it!

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## Arrow (Aug 30, 2002)

I think most of you missed the intention of my original post.

I like the bonus point, I like the look of the new animals, but the dot takes away from the animals and the archer just aims at a dot. I am asking if you folks feel that the dot (sticker, aiming reference) should be taken off the animals and the "ring" that is on them be scored still as a 21.

The animal round can then be about aiming in the middle of the kill without a definite reference. I like the bonus point, but do not like the dot. I know there is not a large charde for them, but for a small club, this could be a financial savior as well.

Again, I like the bonus point ring, just not the dot on the animal for reference. And, I want to know how you all feel about the dot, nothing more, nothing less.

Arrow


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Ok*

I like the dot. It gives you the opportunity to catch up. One major reason I like the dots is that I shoot a True Spot lense and the dot centers nicely in
the grind. Same goes for those who shoot a ring. If I wanted to shoot a dot on my scope or fiber optic I would shoot 3-D. Field is a target game and the dot fits in nicely with the format. Trying to romanticize the animal round as
hunting practice is a stretch for me.
Just my .02
Jbird


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Arrow said:


> I think most of you missed the intention of my original post.
> 
> I like the bonus point, I like the look of the new animals, but the dot takes away from the animals and the archer just aims at a dot. I am asking if you folks feel that the dot (sticker, aiming reference) should be taken off the animals and the "ring" that is on them be scored still as a 21.
> 
> ...


Gotta remember that the animal round is marked distance. Gotta remember that it is NOT 3-D. Gotta remember that it is normally a culminating round of a DOT TOURNAMENT.

That being given, if you take the DOT out and have no reference to aim at, then two things become evident:

1. Those that MEMORIZE THE TARGETS, or buy a complete set of them and practice them at all distances they are shot at...that is "study for the test" will be just like the 3-Ders...have an added advantage. Those with the best eyes, also have an added advantage.

2. Take away the reference of something to aim at...and hitting that area becomes just as much LUCK as prowess...and LUCK is NOT what field shooting is all about. When you have a visual reference and clearly visible point to aim at...you occasionally might "luck one in"...but over the long haul, your consistency, and PROWESS is what gets your shot into the dot...NOT BLIND LUCK.

Since it is a "spottie thing" and the point of the game is to hit what you are AIMING AT...that is a very small, defined point....then taking the dot out simply makes it a guessing match and puts way too much "luck" into it for those not super well versed in the whereabouts of that additional bonus ring...and gives advantage to those that can memorize, and hopefully remember where that 'general area' is...and luck 'em in.

Just my take on SEEING WHAT YOU NEED TO HIT...vs. shooting for 3-D mentality and shooting for a pre-memorized (hopefully) general area....where "close is close"....but may or may not be good enough.

Took us years to get the animal round back into being COMPETITIVE and not just a "filler"...and it was done with "bonus dots" that are defined and clearly visible to everyone...either you hit the thing or your don't...but EVERYONE competing can clearly see where they need to put their best shot! Either they execute the shot and get it...or they don't get their 'bonus point" cuz they missed what they intended upon hitting...NO GUESSWORK, NO "just about"...it is clearly defined. 

field14:tongue::wink:


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

And to add an agreement w/ Jbird's opinion, its not only those shooting the True Spot lens or circle reticles either that were having issues with the old animal format. Part of the reason the dot was put in place was not just to add a bonus point, but rather to offer an aiming spot since field archery is now largely freestyle archers. Face it, many of the animals, especially some of these newer series, don't even have any of the old style "aiming" points to reference off. Little difficult to shoot at something that is just a big black/brown/gray, etc., blob in your scope. Many in freestyle were either having to take their chances and hope they were centering up in many of the animal targets or were having to set up a completely different scope/lens/dot arrangement just to shoot 28 (or 14 for state/sectionals) shots. Hence the reason I prefer the dots remain on the animal targets now. 

If any changes were to be suggested for the animal round, I'd suggest going to a larger dot -- something closer in size to the actual field/hunter spot for the distance being shot and not the "x-ring" of that size spot -- and then shoot the round ala the Redding format. In other words, shoot 2 arrows per target, scored 11/10/8 for the spot, inner kill and body per arrow. This type of round (marked 3D, but use the current paper animal targets) already has rules in the NFAA books so not inventing anything new, spots would be a little larger and more conducive to hitting them (currently those little spots are a bit tough on average joes/less experienced archers and are hit more by luck than anything, imo), and we'd get to shoot more arrows. The last part being my personal favorite reason for going the route of the "marked 3D round" for the animals .

>>-------->


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Good Points Jeff*

Most people only shoot an animal round two or three times a year at the Sectionals, State shoot, and Nationals if they go. They don't shoot these faces often enough to be familiar with camoflaged aiming points.
Jbird


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

CHPro said:


> And to add an agreement w/ Jbird's opinion, its not only those shooting the True Spot lens or circle reticles either that were having issues with the old animal format. Part of the reason the dot was put in place was not just to add a bonus point, but rather to offer an aiming spot since field archery is now largely freestyle archers. Face it, many of the animals, especially some of these newer series, don't even have any of the old style "aiming" points to reference off. Little difficult to shoot at something that is just a big black/brown/gray, etc., blob in your scope. Many in freestyle were either having to take their chances and hope they were centering up in many of the animal targets or were having to set up a completely different scope/lens/dot arrangement just to shoot 28 (or 14 for state/sectionals) shots. Hence the reason I prefer the dots remain on the animal targets now.
> 
> If any changes were to be suggested for the animal round, I'd suggest going to a larger dot -- something closer in size to the actual field/hunter spot for the distance being shot and not the "x-ring" of that size spot -- and then shoot the round ala the Redding format. In other words, shoot 2 arrows per target, scored 11/10/8 for the spot, inner kill and body per arrow. This type of round (marked 3D, but use the current paper animal targets) already has rules in the NFAA books so not inventing anything new, spots would be a little larger and more conducive to hitting them (currently those little spots are a bit tough on average joes/less experienced archers and are hit more by luck than anything, imo), and we'd get to shoot more arrows. The last part being my personal favorite reason for going the route of the "marked 3D round" for the animals .
> 
> >>-------->


Great points, as usual, Jeff!

I certainly could agree with the 2-arrows per target format! That is only 56 shots for the entire round...and would probably not take any longer than the current 3-arrow max situation we now endure!

In addition..with your idea, there is absolutely NO CONFUSION as to how to score it. Right now, with the current scoring, what you get for score differs from whether it is your first arrow, 2nd arrow, or heaven forbid, your 3rd attempt...more people are confused than ever about what the correct scoring is...MORE CONFUSION...and more reason to gripe about the complicated rules and scoring, or worse yet to have some groups actually scoring it incorrectly due to the complicated system used!

I like your proposal....._perhaps you should consider entering this new scheme as an agenda item for consideration_...that is one of the best Ideas for scoring the animal round I've heard in a long, long time!

field14


----------



## red1691 (Jun 8, 2007)

*Dot or No Dot??*

I have missed the State Field for the past few years,(kid,Honey dues and such) This year was the first time seeing the Dot on the Animal target(herd about it but not seen it), as a FS shooter(in the past) I can see easy dial in the number and hit! But a few years back changed to BHFS, I was all around the Dot only hitting 1 of 14, lost a few $ to the guys in the group, one hit 2, the other 3(2 of which was 2nd arrow no big help on score). But still made it fun trying to hold that pin gap just right. Still had all first arrow kills:wink:.
I have to say I liked them.Dreaming of the $ I hope to win off of the next guy!!! Or not.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Brilliant idea, Jeff.

I've thought for a long time that more field clubs should explore the west coast "safari" type format. Orange dots and 11-10-8 scoring.

Few people realize that Redding isn't so much a 3d tournament as it is a field tournament in disquise.

In the meantime, keep the dots!


----------



## FitaX10 (Aug 1, 2002)

Here is another agreement for Jeff's idea. You should really consider sending that before the comittee. Might be worth a look. I know i would much rather shoot that.
Chris


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

*spots on animals*

What a thread I don't know what to say------------

Maybe I'll feel better about it if I go THROW UP


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Our State organization, in conjunction with a local club, put on a Marked 3D Trail Shoot last year and will be doing it again this year. It was laid out on two 28 target field courses and shot two arrows at each target. Scoring was 10, 8 & 5 like a lot of other 3Ds. With 28 targets we ended up with possible scores that compare favorably with a field shoot, i.e. 560 possible. It was very well received.

Dave


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

C Doyle 88 said:


> What a thread I don't know what to say------------
> 
> Maybe I'll feel better about it if I go THROW UP


I take it that you won't be shooting the Oregon Safari at Cascadian in a couple of weeks?

You do realize that the NFAA animal round has had spots for several years now?

Anyway, thanks for that well thought out and intelligent response.


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

ShakesTheClown said:


> I take it that you won't be shooting the Oregon Safari at Cascadian in a couple of weeks?
> 
> You do realize that the NFAA animal round has had spots for several years now?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for that well thought out and intelligent response.


The only thing lacking intelligence was to start changing something that wasn't broken in the first place, in 1976---and still can't get it right 30 yrs later, when there was NOTHING WRONG WITH ANY PART OF FIELD ARCHERY AT THAT POINT--it had been full serveing to all archers for 40yrs at that point, so where do you see any intelligence in all this useless crap that has been wrong at every atempt at a change for the better just to satisfy another winer about the sight won't work onthe animals/or I don't like loosing 2 points when I miss.

The only intelligence I see in continually changing the game is so no one will notice that the new hotshots/and general rank and file are not shooting any better than those in the past. So you can have new records every yr. on a whole new game, with no meaning at all.

Archery has no history if you change it every yr and that's why I gave you all my unintelligent responce to the continual distruction of MY BELOVED FIELD ARCHERY and what I'm doing is none of your business. butt addressing the thread is your business if you care to.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

The NFAA has been in a constant state of flux since 1962 changing targets or adding dots had nothing to do with the problem.. that can be blamed how the rules are made... a single meeting of 50 folks once a year will never be able to act... they can only react.. and a phone call will change their minds if it has the right "carrot" on the other end of the line...:wink:


----------



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

CHPro said:


> And to add an agreement w/ Jbird's opinion, its not only those shooting the True Spot lens or circle reticles either that were having issues with the old animal format. Part of the reason the dot was put in place was not just to add a bonus point, but rather to offer an aiming spot since field archery is now largely freestyle archers. Face it, many of the animals, especially some of these newer series, don't even have any of the old style "aiming" points to reference off. Little difficult to shoot at something that is just a big black/brown/gray, etc., blob in your scope. Many in freestyle were either having to take their chances and hope they were centering up in many of the animal targets or were having to set up a completely different scope/lens/dot arrangement just to shoot 28 (or 14 for state/sectionals) shots. Hence the reason I prefer the dots remain on the animal targets now.
> 
> If any changes were to be suggested for the animal round, I'd suggest going to a larger dot -- something closer in size to the actual field/hunter spot for the distance being shot and not the "x-ring" of that size spot -- and then shoot the round ala the Redding format. In other words, shoot 2 arrows per target, scored 11/10/8 for the spot, inner kill and body per arrow. This type of round (marked 3D, but use the current paper animal targets) already has rules in the NFAA books so not inventing anything new, spots would be a little larger and more conducive to hitting them (currently those little spots are a bit tough on average joes/less experienced archers and are hit more by luck than anything, imo), and we'd get to shoot more arrows. The last part being my personal favorite reason for going the route of the "marked 3D round" for the animals .
> 
> >>-------->


Jeff that is a very good ideal to have the same size dot of the distance on the field and hunter rounds on the anmals also I would like the two arrows per target also with each arrow being worth 10 points each to = 20 points per target. This would also take the luck out of the round of the undersize dots in the target, This would make the anmal target enjouable to shoot again.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

C Doyle 88 said:


> The only thing lacking intelligence was to start changing something that wasn't broken in the first place, in 1976---and still can't get it right 30 yrs later, when there was NOTHING WRONG WITH ANY PART OF FIELD ARCHERY AT THAT POINT--it had been full serveing to all archers for 40yrs at that point, so where do you see any intelligence in all this useless crap that has been wrong at every atempt at a change for the better just to satisfy another winer about the sight won't work onthe animals/or I don't like loosing 2 points when I miss.
> 
> The only intelligence I see in continually changing the game is so no one will notice that the new hotshots/and general rank and file are not shooting any better than those in the past. So you can have new records every yr. on a whole new game, with no meaning at all.
> 
> Archery has no history if you change it every yr and that's why I gave you all my unintelligent responce to the continual distruction of MY BELOVED FIELD ARCHERY and what I'm doing is none of your business. butt addressing the thread is your business if you care to.


The dot was added to the animal targets because the NFAA had become dominated by Freestylers and Bowhunter Freestylers. At that point the animal round became nothing more than an excercise in using the right pin or setting your sight correctly. It was meaningless and it was time to find something better or drop it.

Adding the dot actually makes the round interesting.

Of course, you know all this.

So, Doyle, how would you fix field archery?


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

JAVI said:


> The NFAA has been in a constant state of flux since 1962 changing targets or adding dots had nothing to do with the problem.. that can be blamed how the rules are made... a single meeting of 50 folks once a year will never be able to act... they can only react.. and a phone call will change their minds if it has the right "carrot" on the other end of the line...:wink:


I couldn't agree more.

Even when they try to be proactive, as in the arrow size thing, there is not enough time in a couple of days, once a year to adequately flesh out an issue and make the right decision.


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

ShakesTheClown said:


> The dot was added to the animal targets because the NFAA had become dominated by Freestylers and Bowhunter Freestylers. At that point the animal round became nothing more than an excercise in using the right pin or setting your sight correctly. It was meaningless and it was time to find something better or drop it.
> 
> Adding the dot actually makes the round interesting.
> 
> ...


The changes prior to '76 were miner compared to that target change, hind sight or not if NFAA had just said NO to the new division of PROs and left what wasn't broken alone there would be far more stability in all of archery today .

I'm not saying to change back, it would make no sence at this point.
I am saying the reasons for the change then are exactly the complaints right here and now so any further changes for the few at the cost of the much larger majority is absolutly distructive to the sport.

NFAA is not the sport the local clubs are, they must know they are represented, and they must know whats required of them to provide a qualified range to all shooters who shoot by those unchanging rules.

It simply all ties together or it all falls apart, as it is doing now, and has been sence that frame of mind was established 30 yrs ago. Its not just about grab all the money at the big shoots and pump up the turn out.
Because when the shoots over and the money is gone, what builds the ranges for all the archers to shoot on the rest of the season. This is the stability of the sport. It's call field archery not show archery.

Well you asked---


----------

