[Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 78, Issue 11
Michael C. Emrich
milesdelocwode at cox.net
Sun Mar 7 19:21:01 PST 2010
I have been following this conversation and I must confess I am still
confused in a couple of areas:
1. We have one event a year in Ponte Alto in which archery can be safely
shot. I have run this event at this site safely for 5+ years and I am not
sure if I will now need a wavier. Let me discribe the site, we occupy half
of a field that is about a 100 yards. We have roped off our half of the
field and shot the entire shot away from the rest of the event. In the
past, my safety zone has been the forest bordering our end of the field.
Now my questions is: does my 100 yards safety zone need to be unobstructed
view (flat, open field)? Or by shooting into the woods that we control
access to satisfy both the spirit and the letter of the rule?
2. It sounds as if many of us will have to get waviers for our practice and
event sites. Some of these waviers are for sites that are designed for
archery. Examples of this have been given throughout this thread. I would
ask if we are seeking a "wavier" for a significant number of our sites (far
more if the answer to question one is yes, you need a wavier). If we are
granting a wavier for 30-50% of the sites, is the rule still valid as
written? I can think of some legal implications if we reach significant
numbers of waviers granted and we have a incident on a range. The lawyers
will have a field day even if it doesn't have anything do with this rule or
a wavier to it. And if we don't grant them, many groups (mine among them)
will no longer have a archery program. I don't think this is the intent of
the ruling but it maybe the result and that is the shame of all this.
Thanks,
Miles de Locwode
-----Original Message-----
From: archers-bounces at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
[mailto:archers-bounces at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of
archers-request at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:53 PM
To: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Subject: Archers Digest, Vol 78, Issue 11
Send Archers mailing list submissions to
archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
archers-request at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
archers-owner at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Archers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Specifically, the 'written exception' rule (Kynnyth Pyke)
2. Re: Specifically, the 'written exception' rule (Greg Christensen)
3. Re: Specifically, the 'written exception' rule (Kynnyth Pyke)
4. Re: Specifically, the 'written exception' rule (jmu1861 at aol.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:59:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
Message-ID: <512252.52686.qm at web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
To: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 2:59:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
That isn't unreasonable at this point...
Practices that do not satisfy the basic rules must obtain a waiver. I
recommend you contact Allen immediately if you are in this case. It is up
to him to determine what level of documentation, if any, is required on his
part to provide the authorization. For static sites, there is no expiration
on the authorization. For sites where things change the waiver is valid for
the configuration that is described to the KEM. I would clarify this by
saying that you are receiving authorization for how you build out the safety
zone. If you change target layout in such a way that you can still take
advantage of the coverage, then that authorization will still be valid.
Kynny
----- Original Message ----
From: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 12:33:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
Noble friends,
I put in my two cents when this thread started and have watched it ever
since, keeping my peace. I don't begrudge anyone having their say, and agree
that a number of serious issues have been raised, but we're just spinning
our wheels. It is time that Lord Kynneth and Lord Allen stepped and made
their pronouncements, clarifications, etc., so we can all get our tape
measures, transecs, whatever, go measure our respective ranges, and start
writing our waiver requests.
Mungo the Grumpy
_______________________________________________
Archers mailing list
Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:16:56 -0500
From: Greg Christensen <gcjckc at hotmail.com>
To: <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>, <archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
Message-ID: <SNT102-W33C81C49AA77CDEA2CDAB9CA380 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
FYI, everyone and anyone can post anything regarding what was posted in the
ACORN, but it is not part of the "policy" until it is posted in the ACORN.
So, if an explanation of what the rule really should be is posted here, the
explanation can not be relied upon as policy and if there is an injury or
damage the marshal in charge could be libel.
So, since there are a lot of people are having trouble reading this rule
change it needs to be rewritten and published again, and possibly with with
notes/explanations.....
GREGGE the ARCHER
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:59:44 -0800
> From: scacynwrig at yahoo.com
> To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
> To: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 2:59:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> That isn't unreasonable at this point...
>
> Practices that do not satisfy the basic rules must obtain a waiver. I
recommend you contact Allen immediately if you are in this case. It is up
to him to determine what level of documentation, if any, is required on his
part to provide the authorization. For static sites, there is no expiration
on the authorization. For sites where things change the waiver is valid for
the configuration that is described to the KEM. I would clarify this by
saying that you are receiving authorization for how you build out the safety
zone. If you change target layout in such a way that you can still take
advantage of the coverage, then that authorization will still be valid.
>
> Kynny
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
> To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 12:33:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> Noble friends,
>
> I put in my two cents when this thread started and have watched it ever
since, keeping my peace. I don't begrudge anyone having their say, and agree
that a number of serious issues have been raised, but we're just spinning
our wheels. It is time that Lord Kynneth and Lord Allen stepped and made
their pronouncements, clarifications, etc., so we can all get our tape
measures, transecs, whatever, go measure our respective ranges, and start
writing our waiver requests.
>
> Mungo the Grumpy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachm
ents/20100305/7223f52f/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:44:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
To: Greg Christensen <gcjckc at hotmail.com>
Cc: "<archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>"
<archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
Message-ID: <977346.83603.qm at web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Actually, my interpretation of rules are binding, pending appeal to society.
Further, there is nothing in my email that is contrary to the rules as
written.
This rule is in place now. I will, of course entertain suggestions and will
be monitoring things as we move forward.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Greg Christensen <gcjckc at hotmail.com> wrote:
FYI, everyone and anyone can post anything regarding what was posted in the
ACORN, but it is not part of the "policy" until it is posted in the ACORN.
So, if an explanation of what the rule really should be is posted here, the
explanation can not be relied upon as policy and if there is an injury or
damage the marshal in charge could be libel.
So, since there are a lot of people are having trouble reading this rule
change it needs to be rewritten and published again, and possibly with with
notes/explanations.....
GREGGE the ARCHER
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:59:44 -0800
> From: scacynwrig at yahoo.com
> To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
> To: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 2:59:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> That isn't unreasonable at this point...
>
> Practices that do not satisfy the basic rules must obtain a waiver. I
recommend you contact Allen immediately if you are in this case. It is up to
him to determine what level of documentation, if any, is required on his
part to provide the authorization. For static sites, there is no expiration
on the authorization. For sites where things change the waiver is valid for
the configuration that is described to the KEM. I would clarify this by
saying that you are receiving authorization for how you build out the safety
zone. If you change target layout in such a way that you can still take
advantage of the coverage, then that authorization will still be valid.
>
> Kynny
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
> To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 12:33:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> Noble friends,
>
> I put in my two cents when this thread started and have watched it ever
since, keeping my peace. I don't begrudge anyone having their say, and agree
that a number of serious issues have been raised, but we're just spinning
our wheels. It is time that Lord Kynneth and Lord Allen stepped and made
their pronouncements, clarifications, etc., so we can all get our tape
measures, transecs, whatever, go measure our respective ranges, and start
writing our waiver requests.
>
> Mungo the Grumpy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachm
ents/20100305/d08d51a3/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:50:44 -0500
From: jmu1861 at aol.com
To: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
Message-ID: <8CC8AEEF331F4ED-A80-C13C at webmail-m046.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I received my copy of the Acorn two days ago. The new policy is in there.
It is official even if you haven't gotten your copy yet.
I am still mostly clueless as to exactly how to use the rules. I also wish
we could keep mathematician/lawyers from writing our rules. Good lord.
Everyone on this list has posted excellent reasons why this new policy is
confusing, unworkable and ignores variables such as barriers, type of shoot
and bows (20lb. youth bows v. 100 lb. longbows).
We do not have an archery practice in my area of Windmaster's Hill because
we have no range and few marshals. I recently bought a new house with
pastures. While I have marked out a safe range, I do not think it qualifies
under these rules for an official practice. Too bad. I will have to shoot
alone now because I am not foolish enough to accept the liability for others
on my property.
btw, would any of you let me stand ten feet to the left of your line and ten
feet in front of it? Am I reading these rules wrong, or would that be
allowed?
Geoffrey ~
-----Original Message-----
From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
To: Greg Christensen <gcjckc at hotmail.com>
Cc: <archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org> <archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
Actually, my interpretation of rules are binding, pending appeal to society.
Further, there is nothing in my email that is contrary to the rules as
written.
This rule is in place now. I will, of course entertain suggestions and will
be monitoring things as we move forward.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Greg Christensen <gcjckc at hotmail.com> wrote:
FYI, everyone and anyone can post anything regarding what was posted in the
ACORN, but it is not part of the "policy" until it is posted in the ACORN.
So, if an explanation of what the rule really should be is posted here, the
explanation can not be relied upon as policy and if there is an injury or
damage the marshal in charge could be libel.
So, since there are a lot of people are having trouble reading this rule
change it needs to be rewritten and published again, and possibly with with
notes/explanations.....
GREGGE the ARCHER
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:59:44 -0800
> From: scacynwrig at yahoo.com
> To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
> To: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 2:59:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> That isn't unreasonable at this point...
>
> Practices that do not satisfy the basic rules must obtain a waiver. I
recommend you contact Allen immediately if you are in this case. It is up to
him to determine what level of documentation, if any, is required on his
part to provide the authorization. For static sites, there is no expiration
on the authorization. For sites where things change the waiver is valid for
the configuration that is described to the KEM. I would clarify this by
saying that you are receiving authorization for how you build out the safety
zone. If you change target layout in such a way that you can still take
advantage of the coverage, then that authorization will still be valid.
>
> Kynny
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
> To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 12:33:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
>
> Noble friends,
>
> I put in my two cents when this thread started and have watched it ever
since, keeping my peace. I don't begrudge anyone having their say, and agree
that a number of serious issues have been raised, but we're just spinning
our wheels. It is time that Lord Kynneth and Lord Allen stepped and made
their pronouncements, clarifications, etc., so we can all get our tape
measures, transecs, whatever, go measure our respective ranges, and start
writing our waiver requests.
>
> Mungo the Grumpy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now.
_______________________________________________
rchers mailing list
rchers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
ttp://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachm
ents/20100305/82444c0d/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Archers mailing list
Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
End of Archers Digest, Vol 78, Issue 11
***************************************
More information about the Archers
mailing list