ARCH - Fw: Archery Safety?

[Bob Dewart]

----- 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.