[Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 78, Issue 11

[Siegfried]

> I have been following this conversation and I must confess I am still
> confused in a couple of areas:

I will answer, with my own interpretations, as a senior marshal, but of
course final answer needs to come from Kynnyth or Allen:

> 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?

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you have 50yds to your range,
correct (Half of a field that is 50yds)?  The additional 50yds required
would be in a non-inhabited forest.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that the safety zone must be
'unobstructed view'.  Simply that it is a roped off and/or obvious
safety zone.  Therefore, if you control access to the woods, and have
50yds of additional space into the woods.  Then it would meet the letter
of the law.

Just as before, if, say, you were setting up a 40yd target on those
50yds of space, you had to have 30yds of room 'safe' in the woods, to
meet the 80yds total that was previously required.

> 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.

I agree with your concerns, and echo them.   A safety rule that is
waived 50% of the time, has a problem.

Siegfried


-- 
Barun Siegfried Sebastian Faust - Barony of Highland Foorde - Atlantia
http://hf.atlantia.sca.org/ - http://crossbows.biz/ - http://eliw.com/