Archery Talk Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I certainly hope that the selection of the 2006 Nationals in Yankton is not politcal.

I was there in Yankton when it was announced that Darrington would not be the hosting club for 2006 and was taken by surprise. Darrington did after all submit their bid which they had only received in mid-June and according to it's officers had it sent to HQ. before the nationals started. (As far as I read in the Constitution and by-laws there was no true deadline) I heard the rumors in Yankton that Darrington did not submit a bid and also that they did but it was late. Another rumor I heard was that Darrington's bid was too high.

From what I understand, the NFAA officials knew in the February meeting that Darrington was going to put a bid in for the 2006 Nationals so why would Yankton bid against them? Did they know what Darrington's bid was and underbid them? If this was the case, wouldn't that be illegal? Who made the decision to accept Yankton? Were all the officers votes counted? I doubt the president being from the Yankton area could vote on this matter. Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? I sure would like to see the minutes to this meeting! Is it possible?

The clubs that host Nationals don't do it to make money. In most cases they lose money. They prepare a year in advance with hours and hours of hard work. Why do they do it? They do it for us archers and if the NFAA can't see that, they are going to alienate a lot of archers. There are only a few clubs that are capable of hosting an event as large as the nationals and it seems year after year these clubs are refusing to host another. Darrington has held Nationals and World since 1982 and have done a superb job. They put in for 2006 and it was given to Yankton for a 2nd year in a row? Was it a bid war? Just add $4000.00 more dollars to Yanktons bid to cover the cost of toilets which was lacking there. Let's see now that should put it very close to Darringtons bid. Maybe over? (Is it possible to see their bid?) Add the lack of food that was advertised to be on the ranges everyday. I for one saw a cooler of sandwiches once the whole week and that was when I had two targets left to shoot! It's a good thing HyVee was in town where I could buy snacks to stuff into my quiver.

I'm not knocking Yanktons performace. It was obvious that a lot good people did a lot of hard work and tons preperation was done to put the tournament on. I definitly would love to go back, but...in three years. I for one would like to see nationals rotated around the country as it has since 1946. I'm sure some people are happy to see it back in Yankton as they only have a few hours drive. But for the rest of us who have to fly, it would be nice to have a short drive once every three years as well.

I've read comments that some people don't like the accomodations that Darrington has to offer ... lack of motels etc. Well yes, it is a 30 minute drive from Arlington which has a few motels there. In NY it took me 30 minutes to drive to the range from my motel....I didn't complain.

The one thing that I do miss at other national locations is the friendly atmosphere. In NY I would drive back to check the scores and nobody would be around. Maybe half a dozen people on the practice range. Same thing with Yankton. Where did everybody go? In Darrington because there are many people camping and people renting houses, there are parties and laughter everywhere. When they held World there, what an incredible fun time that was! (those Aussies and the California boys can party) I think Darrington has that cool factor!

If anyone has any information as to why Darrington was passed up for Yankton, I sure would like to know. Like I first stated, I hope it isn't political. As a long time NFAA member, I'd like to think that the officers representing the organization are fair and just.

Trevallygirl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,652 Posts
Why Yankton Again

TVGirl,
Not likely to get a definitive answer on a public forum. Call one of the Councilmen and get the straight scoop. I suspect that the shoot will go back to Darrington in 2007 and maybe even to Watkins Glen in 2008. My understanding is that Darrington dinked around with the contract too long and
the decision was made to go back to Yankton. Maybe they wanted to cement the relationship with the people in Yankton by going back next year. There was a TREMENDOUS amount of work done to come up with those 5 ranges and the shoot, (like Watkins Glen), is held on park land. By going back in 2006 we are showing the people of the community and the park authorities that we are serious about our commitment to bringing the Nationals and all the tourist business to the area on a regular basis.
Jbird
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Jbird,

You're probably right about not getting an answer here. However to set the record straight, I did speak to a Darrington officer and was told that they received the contract in mid June and it was signed and received before Nationals. I would hardly call this dinking around. The NFAA was aware of a bid from the club for 2006. In fact they had put in a bid for the 2005 year as well.

From what you stated about the NFAA showing the town of Yankton it's commitment to bringing back the shoot to boost tourism, it sounds like 2006 was a done deal. Why should one town be favored over another? Why accept any bids? Just announce that it will be held in Yankton for x amount of years or however many years the State Park was leased for. (I'm guessing it was leased as it has to be leased out here) Let's just not make it a permenant location. Rotation is good for the sport.

I realize that this is your educated guess on the matter and it adds to my suspicion. Maybe it doesn't bother too many archers who attend these events and reguardless of where it is held they will go. Heck, I 'll return also but my beef with the matter is keeping it fair and legal. I very much dislike dishonesty.

I appreciate your comments and appologize if at any point I got out of line.
You appear to be a very decent guy.

Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I don’t for a minute believe the council’s vote to have the 2005 or the 2006 outdoor nationals in Yankton was because Yankton is the hometown of the NFAA President, or that the President’s pro-shop was hosting the tournament. I don’t always agree with the Council, but do give them more credit than to vote for a site based on those two criteria. As a State Director, I go to my Councilman quite often with questions, opinions, suggestions, etc. and if I thought that was why he or others had voted for Yankton....well, lets put it this way.....he would have a very small “behind”. LOL

My understanding is that there was no feasible bid for the 2005 outdoor national at the 2004 annual director’s meeting. That is when bids are due for the tournaments for the following year so tournament sites can be voted on and chosen. I don’t believe a bid has to be accepted because it is the only bid presented. The Council may negotiate bids or seek out other bids because of the many things to be considered such as the budgetary concerns, travel arrangements, accommodations, as well as location. So that the 2005 outdoor national could be held, I believe the Yankton bid was submitted and accepted.

My understanding with regard to the 2006 bid for outdoor nationals is that at the our 2005 annual director’s meeting, there was talk that Darrington was going to put in a bid. However, there was no actual bid that had been submitted so the Council and Officers would be actively working on negotiating, obtaining and accepting a bid. It was reported to me that between that February meeting and the July tournament, negotiations went on and for whatever reason, there was still no signed contract at headquarters by the evening of the Council meeting in Yankton. Accordingly, Yankton agreed to submit a bid and host the tournament one more year. For the Council to do other than what they did would not have been prudent. The archers needed to know where they would be shooting in 2006.

Now for some opinions and observations:

1) I think it was a good business decision to give the community of Yankton and the Parks Department another year to host this tournament. The tournament brought a lot of publicity to the sport of field archery. There were articles in newspapers in the state & surrounding states (possibly more) with segments on three television stations as well which exposed national tournament archery to people who didn’t even know the sport existed. Most archers in the upper midwest only hunt.

2) Do I believe Darrington & Watkins Glen should never be considered? Heavens no. Field archery is deeply ingrained in those communities and it would be a shame to not consider any bids those communities would submit.

3) Do I believe there should be 2 or 3 areas of the country considered and rotated for bids? No. The bid process is available and should be utilized by any community, club, state organization, or pro shop who wish host a national tournament. Afterall, this is what will help the sport of field archery to grow. By considering only 2 or 3 bid sites, the NFAA would be negligent in helping to promote the sport of field archery. From a business standpoint, consideration should be given to all bids. Also, I believe it is a challenging for the competitors to compete on new courses.

What a GREAT thing it would be for field archery to have 5 or 6 locations bid and actually want to hold a national field archery tournament in their community!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
On Monday at Yankton, the councilmen had an emergency meeting after the shooting. They had no signed contract for the 2006 Nationals. They asked Yankton if they would hold it again and they said yes. The contract for Darrington was mailed out in May. What they did with it we will never know. The contract showed up on Tuesday, July26 and was signed on the 7th of July. The 2006 nationals was already given to Yankton. Where was it until then. Somebody forgot to mail it back??? Maybe next year they will not fart around and sign it and send it back immediately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,652 Posts
Good Discussion

Pretty well summarizes what I have been told by people in the decision process that I talk to. I certainly would not want to see the shoot centralize in any one location. The rotation of the shoot from the west coast to the central states and then to the east coast seems fair to me.
Then everyone gets a shot at a Nationals every three years within reasonable driving distance. The National organization and the state level committees, and potential host clubs could do a better job of taking care of business in a timely manner and improving communication. A large part of the reason that we are going to have to mend fences with the folks at Watkins Glen if we are ever going to shoot there again is lack of organization and poor communication last year. They were told that the NFAA animal round and the IFAA animal round would be two separate events and then at the last second were told they would be shot concurrently on the same course and the targets would have to be changed between groups (which turned Friday into a marathon). They were also told that five courses would be sufficient and then at the last moment were told they would have to prepare a sixth range. I don't care if the contract says that up to 7 courses will be needed. If the people in control looking at the entries say five courses in enough all the way to the end and then move the goal posts, it pi$$es people off. Changing the animal round at the last minute pi$$es people off too. It is tough, sweaty, frustrating work to prepare for a National Field event and the last thing we need to do is keep changing the requirements and antagonizing the people that make the decision if we can return. Just my opinion after hearing from both sides.
Jbird
 

·
M4L
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
2006 Outdoor nationals

Jackie, Thank you for the professional explantion of the way the location was decided. As usual you are being very upfront and truthfull to the folks at AT and as a former Director I would expect nothing but that from an Officer of the NFAA. Could you please let the people that put in all the hard work at yankton that WE had a great time and are looking forward to going back in 06. :teeth: :teeth: :teeth:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Maybe Darrington is so remote that the only means of sending mail is by Pony Express. Do they still exist? (I hear they use mustangs)

Hey, interesting piece of information about the President being affiliated with a pro-shop in Yankton that helped sponsor the Nationals. "Not that there is anything wrong with that". Hmmmmm..... did not know that. I don't see a conflict of interest there do you? Is it really true that the President has ownership in the pro-shop or is it just hearsay?

I'm not here to make any accusations or p-ss anybody off. I just had some stuff bouncing around in my head that I felt I had to let out which was an obvious mistake. So right here, right now I am appologizing if I ticked anybody off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Yes, Bruce is one of the owners of Dakota Archery & Outdoor Sports which hosted the tournament. He, as a business owner, does a great job of promoting sports that he sells equipment for.

No, I don't believe there is a conflict of interest. Any club, state organization, community, or pro-shop can bid and host tournaments. There is nothing that limits the bidders to being a club or state organization.

Trevally, next year look me up. There were a LOT of people camping and get togethers going on through out the week. Some nights there were two things going on in the same night, but with different groups of people! I think the camping was just more spread out than what you're probably used to at Darrington.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
2006 nationals

Well what a huge dissapointment this is! I was planning on going to Yankton this year but it didnt work out, I was really looking forward to Darrington next year and now thats not going to happen either! I looked at the turnout for Yankton, it seemed to be pretty bad at least for my class. To me that should tell them that the location may be very difficult for people to get to. I myself will not be attending next year, it is to far to expensive and I have to take to much time off work. Having it rotate to the west coast then the East then in the middle of the country makes the most sense. At least then people who live on the left and right coast get a chance to go every 3rd year with out having to spend a fortune. This is a very bad mistake by the commitee in my opinion. It is leaving out a lot of people who would have gone to Darrington. On top of that Darrington puts on a top notch shoot, and as stated earlier the funtimes had by all is so apparent at Darrington. It seems that it is like a big fun party when it is at Darrington. Oh well I hope they get 2007 they deserve it and so do we as archers! Just my 2 cents!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,177 Posts
Wherever the Nationals are held is going to "leave some people out"...no matter what....

So, it isn't in Darrington for 2006...that leaves some people "out"...but if it WAS going to be in Darrington in 2006....THAT TOO leaves some people "out." Same with the Glen...if it is held there...some people are left out.

Never can please everyone.....

The decision had to be made...and I feel confident that the NFAA Board did it by the rules....and so, it is Yankton for 2006....and we have yet to find out, nor will we find out where it will be in 2007 or 2008....

field14
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Yankton is perhaps the best of all evils as it is centrally located which can serve both coasts better than a coast or other coast location. By the way, Yankton, I believe, had a larger attendance than any other location recently, and that would support the contention that a central location is favorable.

I don't mean to say that we should shut out the coast to coast rotation. However, the central location is a decent option. Darrington and the Glen both have some problems with attendance and housing, but are quite acceptable locations to most of us.

I liked the Yankton site and welcome the opportunity to return next year. If you missed this year, then perhaps next year will provide the chance for you all to come to SD. Unless the site is your home town, any venue is costly in money and time so I don't necessarily buy the argument that Yankton is an issue. If you live on the east coast and the tournament is on the west coast, then travel becomes a big issue, however.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top