[Archers] New rule

[loreleielkins at aol.com]

Has anyone had any luck at all reaching Allen?  By phone, email or in person? Archery season is upon us, and we do need this resolved.

Lorelei







-----Original Message-----
From: WHITEGRIFN at aol.com
To: gcjckc at hotmail.com; siegfried at crossbows.biz; cogworks at triad.rr.com; durling at cox.net
Cc: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Sent: Sat, Mar 20, 2010 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Archers] New rule


I haven't seen anything about a need for inspections by the DEM-TA either.
 
I also haven't seen any updates since 3/8.  Also on that date, our Baronial Archer Marshal (Lodwig von Neusohl) submitted a waiver request to Allen by e-mail.  We had our Baronial Birthday event coming up the following weekend, and it looked like we might need one to hold our Baronial Archery Champion shoot.  We never got a response from Allen, but as it turned out, we had to move the event location because the original site got flooded out, and the emergency site had nowhere to shoot anyway.  The important point though, was that if we hadn't been flooded out, we would have had to cancel our archery shoot at a range that should have been acceptable, because we couldn't get a response from the DEM-TA.  I realize that normally a waiver should be requested more than 5 days before an event, but since the visibility requirement had just been addressed, and the event scheduled when it was, we didn't have more time.  Anyway, It's been 2 weeks now, and we still haven't heard anything at all from Allen.
 
I am still not entirely clear what situations actually require a waiver.    
 
As Siegfried pointed out, there is an obvious disconnect between what the rule currently says: "A waiver may be requested for shorter ranges provided there is a physical barrier, which will stop arrows", and what Kynnyth indicated is his and Allen's interpretation: " If you have a structure that provides the protection described in 3.9.3.2.3 you are alleviated of the burden to grab a waiver."
 
One problem is that, even though 3.9.3.2.3 gives a better definition of what is required than any other kingdom rule I could find, it still requires some judgement.  It states: "The barrier must completely cover the safety zone in order to count.  A small barrier that could be shot around is not sufficient."  To me, this says that the barrier must cover the entire width of the safety zone, but the height is apparently still left to the judgement of the MIC.  No practical barrier (other than one in an indoor site) will stop 100% of possible overshoots.  Even a 200 ft high barrier could conceivably be shot over, so the MIC has to make a judgement on what is reasonable based on the height of the barrier, how far it is down range, and other factors.  This rule (3.9.3.2.3) was fine when the local MICs were allowed to use their own judgement to determine if a range was safe, but it doesn't make sense to use it as a criteria for determining whether or not a waiver is needed.  
 
This comes into play with our local practice site.  We use a permanent archery range at a city park, which has a 6' to 7' berm behind the target butts.  Behind the berm is a very large, lightly wooded area with "Danger - Archery Range" signs all around.  The berm stops most overshoots, but because it also obscures our view of the area behind, a waiver might now be required (depending on interpretation).  We are working up a detailed waiver request, just in case, but regardless of the outcome, we are not going to stop using the range for practices.  The city of Newport News has an ordinance against archery, but has provided an exemption for this range.  If the DEM-TA deems that our range is not acceptable, then we will just make the practices "unofficial".  
  
Tnek 


_______________________________________________
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/attachments/20100321/8ef496ce/attachment-0003.htm>