ARCH - Fw: Archery Safety?

Tue Apr 17 18:29:23 PDT 2001

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Larsen" <matt at ibizware.com>
To: <gilli at seacove.net>
Cc: "Matt Larsen" <matt at ibizware.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Archery Safety?

>
> > Greetings and Hi There,
> >
> > Thank you for such a prompt reply.
>
> No problem!  We're busy at times, but we do try to respond as quickly
> as we can.
>
> > May I have your permission to share your responce with others here?
>
> Yes, certainly.  In particular, please encourage people to write in with
> thoughts on issues that the Board is looking at.  Since I've been on the
> Board, I don't think that we've ever gotten as much as 1% of the
membership
> responding to any issue.  We do the best we can with what we know, but
> obviously if we better understand what people want, we can better do what
> people want.
>
> > Thank you all for all your efforts, not just with this matter, but with
all
> > the many things folks do.
>
> My pleasure, and I hope we can find solutions to this issue that everyone
> can live with.  And thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us!
>
> Matt
>
> > Thanks again
> >
> > Gilli
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matt Larsen" <matt at ibizware.com>
> > To: <gilli at seacove.net>
> > Cc: <meg.baron at experian.com>; <pafoster at eartlink.net>;
> > <matt at rdsolutions.com>; <clai_morgan at yahoo.com>; <bmorris at iamdigex.net>;
> > <keilynsca at hotmail.com>; <meloleary at aol.com>; <jartificer at aol.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 12:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: Archery Safety?
> >
> >
> > > Greetings Lord Gilbert,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback on the archery issue.  Feedback from the
members
> > > is very important to the Board.  We try to listen to as many people as
we
> > > can, but we are only seven people, and the more information we can
get,
> > the
> > > better decisions we can make.
> > >
> > > Regarding the archery issue in specific, the Society Earl Marshal has
not
> > > yet submitted a proposal concerning the issue, but we are expecting
one
> > > before the Board meeting this coming weekend.  The Board is aware of
the
> > > injuries at Gulf Wars and is very concerned about them.  We have not
yet
> > > discussed the issue in depth, but I can say for myself that saftey is
a
> > > major concern.  I believe that we will consider many options,
including
> > > ABDs, blunt nocks, saftey glasses, screen and other solutions in
trying
> > > to come to a balanced approach to the problem.
> > >
> > > I recognize your specific concern about our possibly marginalizing
combat
> > > archery, and while I can't tell you exactly how all the other
Directors
> > > feel about the issue, I believe that we all feel that combat archery
is
> > > a valuable part of our combat system.  I can say for myself at least
> > > that I have found it to greatly add to our wars since I first
experienced
> > > it on moving to the West Kingdom over ten years ago.  Your thoughts
have
> > > been read by all the Directors and will be weighed along with the
other
> > > information we have on the issue when we make our decisions.  Thanks
again
> > > for sharing those thoughts with us!
> > >
> > > Matt Larsen
> > > Director, SCA Inc.
> > > Ombudsman for the Society Marshal
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Unto You comes Greetings from the Honorable Lord Gilbert Ost Westley
of
> > the
> > > > Kingdom of Ansteorra,
> > > >
> > > > In the very near future the Society Earl Marshall will make a
decision
> > that
> > > > will have far reaching importance.  That decision will be how to
change
> > > > combat arrows used by Ansteorra and others so as to reduce the risk
of
> > eye
> > > > injury caused by bounce back.  However, I do not believe that is the
> > course
> > > > of action that will be the most effective in promoting eye safety.
> > > >
> > > > Current SCA rules provide for the wearing of personal eye
protection.
> > There
> > > > are several type that may be used; safety glasses, wire mess
screening
> > or a
> > > > Lexan type material. The current rules also allow for the use of
Anti
> > Bounce
> > > > back Devices or ABDs.  Both personal eye protection and ABDs are
> > allowed,
> > > > but not required.
> > > >
> > > > At the recent Gulf War X, there were several injuries caused by the
rear
> > end
> > > > of a bolt or arrow entering the face grid of a helm in the region of
the
> > > > eyes.  None of the bolts or arrows in question had ABDs nor were any
of
> > the
> > > > victims wearing any form of personal eye protection. While it can be
> > argued
> > > > that had those bolts or arrows had an ABD the accidents may have be
> > avoided
> > > > or the damage reduced, had the injured person been wearing one of
the
> > above
> > > > mentioned forms of personal eye protection , the accident would NOT
have
> > > > happened at all.
> > > >
> > > > The question is "How safe is safer"? With the growing popularity of
> > combat
> > > > archery, it can be assumed that there will be more arrows on the
field.
> > > > There aren't any exact figures of how many arrows and bolts where
flying
> > > > around at Gulf War at any one time.  Estimates range any where from
> > 7,000 to
> > > > 10,000 arrows or bolts were shot at one point or another.  My group
> > alone
> > > > brought over 1,000.  I don't know the exact number of combatants on
the
> > > > field, 500 to 600 perhaps.   So, how safe is safer?
> > > >
> > > > There are a number of ABDs that have been designed.  They will all
> > reduce
> > > > the likelihood of  helm penetration or injury to some extent.  What
is
> > the
> > > > exceptable risk level?  A million to one chance, a billion, a
trillion,
> > zero
> > > > chance; just what level of safety is required?  Also, please
consider
> > the
> > > > fact that there have been, and can still be injuries caused by other
> > things
> > > > that can enter the face of a helm; tree limbs and sticks on the
ground,
> > dirt
> > > > and any number of other things. The point here is that all the ABDs
> > still
> > > > leave a risk to one's vision to be accepted and do nothing to
protect
> > > > against damage done by other foreign objects. Personal eye
protection
> > will.
> > > >
> > > > Is safety the point of this upcoming decision?  The archery
community
> > has
> > > > not been told what is the acceptable risk level; just the
threatening,
> > "Fix
> > > > it or I will" by the SEM.
> > > >
> > > > If, Eye Safety is the issue. Many believe that eye protection is the
> > > > answer; not modifying thousands and thousands of combat arrows and
> > crossbow
> > > > bolts.
> > > >
> > > > If liability is the issue, again eye protection is the answer.  It
is
> > > > already known that eye injuries occur on the field from other
causes.
> > Not
> > > > using this opportunity to correct the whole picture could be seen as
> > > > negligent at some future point.  As would implementing a partical
> > solution
> > > > when a total answer was at hand. Unless, of course, we really do
> > believe
> > > > our little blue waiver cards will save us from the court room.  If
that
> > is
> > > > the case, then current rules provide for one to protect themself if
they
> > > > feel there is a danger
> > > >
> > > > So, I ask you, what is the purpose of this upcoming decision?  Is it
> > safety?
> > > > Is it litigation?  Or, as many, myself included, believe it is a
bold
> > > > attempt to rid the Society of Combat Archery or at the very least
deal
> > it
> > > > such a blow that it will never again be a factor or any battle field
in
> > the
> > > > SCA. At the Gulf War, the SEM said that the archers would bear the
> > burden
> > > > not the heavy fighters, because he didn't want to upset the heavy
> > fighters.
> > > > Clearly a decision not based on safety; but not wanting to hurt the
> > feelings
> > > > of the larger group of members.
> > > >
> > > > If safety is the point of the Society Earl Marshal's decision, then
I
> > > > encourage you to encourage him to require all combatants to wear
some
> > form
> > > > of personal eye protection.  If it's litigation, again I encourage
you
> > to
> > > > encourage him to require the use of eye protection.  However, if
it's
> > not
> > > > for reasons of safety or litigation, then I ask you to stop his
action
> > > > immediately, if you please.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for you time.
> > > >
> > > > HL Gilbert Ost Westley
> > > > Bob Dewart
> > > > 2402 Live Oak Drive
> > > > Copperas Cove, TX 76522
> > > > (254) 547-9705
> > > > gilli at seacove.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.