[Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule

Fri Mar 5 19:53:13 PST 2010

Perhaps you all could help me understand something.  The difference between the two rule sets are:

1)  Remove:  "The zone will then extend straight back from those points for 40 yards, or half the distance from the shooting line to the target, whichever is greater."
2)  Add to it:  "The safety zone will then extend 100 yards from all points on the shooting line, or half the distance from the shooting line to a line parallel to the farthest target, whichever is greater."
3)  Add language to allow a waiver at the discretion of the DEM-Archery.
4)  Add: "The MIC-Target Archery will design the range with safety being the primary concern.  Range design will account for control of the shooters, visibility of the range and the surrounding area, site layout and foot and vehicle traffic patterns."

If everyone is baffled by the complexity of this rule then I'm interested in what you all were doing under the earlier rule set.  While I understand and am aware of the additional burden presented by the distance requirements there is nothing here more complicated than the prior rule.  What I am seeing, from several separate conversations is that the prior rules simply weren't known or being observed by some segment of the archery community.  That being said, he variables that you are concerned about are covered by the waiver.

The one point that I have seen that is accurate is that for targets at 200 yards the rules as presented need to be adjusted.

Geoffrey, if your range does not qualify to the current rules and you don't have a physical barrier then you are right, you may not have an SCA practice there.

It has been clearly demonstrated to me that 40 yards is an insufficient safety zone. "Common sense" and "trained marshals" are not a replacement for a well defined zone that takes in to account the weaponry being used and the risk we are assuming.

Please understand the following about the changes:

1)  I do not see me adjusting this rule to any distance shorter than it currently is.
2)  If you have a site that does not meet this rule you must work with Allen for a waiver.
3)  I recommend you engage Allen sooner rather than later.
4)  If your range does not comply with the above rules and if you can not satisfy Allen that the range is safe then you may not have an SCA activity with archery at that range.

Kynny

________________________________
From: "jmu1861 at aol.com" <jmu1861 at aol.com>
To: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 9:50:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule

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. 
_______________________________________________
Archers mailing list
Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org http://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/attachments/20100305/98e64b5a/attachment-0003.htm>