PDA

View Full Version : Follow up on different pay schedule post



dustyswb
05-25-2006, 09:48 PM
I have to agree with Bill that one color impressions reek of a mainstream mindset.

Even Dusty's (and you know I respect you) comment that "we've been doing that for years" reaks of mainstreamspeak.

If folks won't do both kits, then perhaps it is time that they pay more to come to events.

As it makes the organizers and coordinators work harder to facilitate good force ratios.

$15 to attend, with a $20 premium for a prefered impression sounds about right.

Pards,
__________________
S. Chris Anders
CVG
www.chesapeakevolunteerguard.org
www.wmhf.org
ltcolcsa@hotmail.com
Authenticity Glorifies the Campaign



I've got another idea about how to get larger events to be more authentic, camping wise. Let's charge folks like modern camping places do. Here's how:

1) Come up with a target number of participants
2) Figure out the costs to put on the events i.e. wood, water, insurance, toilets
3) Divide the costs by the number of participants to get the first part of the registration "fee" for the event.

4) After getting this base amount that everyone attending will pay; let's say $10 per, you then set "Camping Fees" for participants.

a) Fee + $2 for guys that will sleep on their ground cloth under the stars.
b) Fee + $5 for guys that will sleep with a shelter half or two
c) Fee + $10 for guys that bring an A Frame
d) Fee + $20 for family camping (large tent, fly, camp furniture, open air kitchen, parking space next to tent)

You will be given a colored piece of paper as proof of the type of camping you've paid for.

5) Flat fee for each cooler brought into the event ($5 per)

6) Wood is distributed by a quartermaster department on a per person basis (five pieces per person for a summer weekend) You get a "wood" ticket at registration and turn it in to get wood.

This seems like a fair way to allocate the expenses of resources (space or square footage) and their use.

flattop32355
05-26-2006, 02:09 AM
4) After getting this base amount that everyone attending will pay; let's say $10 per, you then set "Camping Fees" for participants.

a) Fee + $2 for guys that will sleep on their ground cloth under the stars.
b) Fee + $5 for guys that will sleep with a shelter half or two
c) Fee + $10 for guys that bring an A Frame
d) Fee + $20 for family camping (large tent, fly, camp furniture, open air kitchen, parking space next to tent)

So, in effect we penalize someone for using an A-frame at an early war event when such shelter was appropriate. And we give a break to the yahoo who camps out under the stars when he should be in the A-tent, as some scenarios call for, and reward the real genius who uses an inappropriate shelter half. Shall we also penalize officers for using wall tents? How about Sibley's?

I guess (or at least hope) you're being a bit tongue-in-cheek, here. No camping method is appropriate all the time, not even bivouac.

We might as well have a sliding fee schedule for those with non-defarbed vs defarbed long arms, or for those not having properly sewn trowser cuffs. Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum...

Once the sublime becomes the rule, the ridiculous cannot be too far behind.

madisontigers
05-26-2006, 07:35 AM
Sir,
I believe Mr. Chapman is just making an example of how unwise it is to penalize a reenactor for deciding to do one impression.Mr. Chapman is as good as the come, and I'm sure he uses whatever is authentic at events.

David Long

dustyswb
05-26-2006, 07:48 AM
Bernard,

I should have stated in my suggestion that this scale was designed for those events that I would call "megafest" in the same vein as the annual Gettysburg event or the 140th megas in the east.

Of course, one should follow the established camping guidelines on an event by event basis.

Mr. Long, not sure I've ever met you, but I'm only as good as I can be. I don't own a tent or shelter half, so I usually sleep in the open, regardless of the event. Of course, the 140's were my last megafest, so I haven't found the need to own either.

Pvt Schnapps
05-26-2006, 08:05 AM
I kinda like Dusty's idea, whether it's tongue in cheek or not. There is a direct relationship between the amount of canvas per capita and the drain on event resources, so it really does make sense to make those who consume more pay more.

The point about early vs. late war is relevant, but you could adapt the fee schedule accordingly to reflect whether there are one, two, or four soldiers in an A tent, or whether that Sibley has a dozen infantrymen or an officer and three civilians.

Of course, we could avoid the issue entirely by going only to the "right" events, but this sounds like a good way to make other, larger, more commercial events a little less "wrong."

On the dual impression question, I don't believe in blanket condemnations of anyone but I have more sympathy with people who only do blue simply because of the numbers. I have a couple of Confederate uniforms but almost never get a chance to wear them. It's a shame really -- my wife thinks they're so much cuter. Is that why you guys do it?

Anyway, the spectators must often wonder how the Confederacy ever managed to lose when it had so many more men in the field.

TimKindred
05-26-2006, 09:25 AM
Comrades,

Federal-wise, you could simply enforce the 1863 regulations which specified that on campaign, soldiers were only allowed one shelter half. Company officers were allowed 2 shelter-halves each, and there were 2 small wall tents allowed for the regimental staff and hospital stores.

Officers were required to reduce their personal baggage to one valise and their blanket roll, to be carried on the wagon where possible. 1 wagon was allowed to each regiment.

Since most of our events supposedly replicate battles by forces in the field, then that's a pretty good reason to enforce these regs, for events from early 1863 onwards, anyways.....

As for confederates, simply follow what was most common for them: tent flys or no tents at all. Wedge tents were designed to sleep 5 men, so you could also limit them to one wedge tent for every 5 men in the unit, plus one for the officers.

Probably that's too much to ask, but i figured i would toss that out for comments.

Respects,

FWL
05-27-2006, 12:15 PM
Comrades,

Federal-wise, you could simply enforce the 1863 regulations which specified that on campaign, soldiers were only allowed one shelter half. Company officers were allowed 2 shelter-halves each, and there were 2 small wall tents allowed for the regimental staff and hospital stores.

Officers were required to reduce their personal baggage to one valise and their blanket roll, to be carried on the wagon where possible. 1 wagon was allowed to each regiment.

Since most of our events supposedly replicate battles by forces in the field, then that's a pretty good reason to enforce these regs, for events from early 1863 onwards, anyways.....

As for confederates, simply follow what was most common for them: tent flys or no tents at all. Wedge tents were designed to sleep 5 men, so you could also limit them to one wedge tent for every 5 men in the unit, plus one for the officers.

Probably that's too much to ask, but i figured i would toss that out for comments.

Respects,

Well said Tim you win, that was easy. Hope to see you in the field this year.

madisontigers
05-30-2006, 09:34 AM
I have found the large a-frames to be a serious problem as well, especially when they are known not to have been in use at the specific event they are used at.As we all know hundreds of A-frames tend to take up precious space. I recently was asked by a local historic site to help coordinate the living history, which was held this past weekend.I noticed several members of one of the local units were setting up A- frame tents. Not having full authority to not allow them to set them up, I instead queried them to why they felt that they needed these tents. The answer was simple: they needed the space to store their coolers, modern amenities, and other uneccesary items they brought along.I have noticed that this is a similar reason many maintreamers bring along large tents to events. After the event I had a long talk with the director of the historic site, and I am sure she will fix this problem next year.
Folks, the solution to this problem is simple. Someone just has to be the bad guy. As I have stated earlier: ENFORCEMENT of event rules & regulations will keep these monstrous tents(when not appropriate) out of events. Why charge someone more money to allow them to be less than authentic. If we allow someone to set up a historical abomination by paying more $...then we are simply accepting money to allow it to happen, in essence profiting by allowing inaccuracies into events. Let's start enforcing rules at events.If these people don't like the rules....then they wont attend..

Robert A Mosher
05-30-2006, 01:29 PM
Fellows -
Early in my reenacting 'career,' I remember looking across a field at a rail fence behind which clustered a group of Confederates with perhaps a dozen flags over their heads, while a bunc of us Yanks clustered behind our fence. There was a lulll in the action and I was looking at all those flags when I realized that I could never wear gray or butternut because if I did, I would be behind that other fence looking at a bunch of guys hiding behind their fence with a US flag waving overhead.

Now even after 30 years of government service, I'm not a flagwaver - heck, I even protested the Vietnam war years ago. Never burned or did anything to a flag, but I never got too riled up about it if somebody else did. And if somebody wanted to fashion it in to a fashion statement , okay - never saw much sense in the 'fashion world' anyway. On the other hand, having served much of those 30 years overseas, I always liked the look of that flag over an embassy or when I came back home.

So now I've been reenacting for a number of years, improving my kit, trying out harder and more realistic events, abandoning events that didn't try to improve their standards, and even practicing some first person - and now YOU want to bar me from events because I won't change the color of my uniform and shoot at that flag? That's an interesting turn of events and if it ever becomes a hobby standard then you can say goodby to one more reenactor because I'll just find something else to do and to spend my money and time on.

Robert A. Mosher

madisontigers
05-30-2006, 01:48 PM
Robert,
I don't think they were planning on banning anyone from events. I think the idea was proposed in order to demonstrate the difficulties we face with bad opposing numbers at events. I believe that simply haviung cut off numbers for CS or US troops, whichever is needed, should be enforced. This is obviously a simple problem to fix. Only problem is that event organizers would be turning down a reenactors registration fee, which would keep them from making anywhere from $10-25(in most cases). Look at Manassas for example. Let's say they have 6,000 participants. Imagine the profit they make off of reenactor registration fee, then include the amount they make off of the spectators bring in. I feel a lot of this is a $ issue.Most of your C/P/H events are geared towards preservation, so it's usually not as big a problem there(at least what I have seen).
My general rule is simple: if I don't like what an event offers...then I don't go. I encourage others to do the same. Instead, thousands of reenactors will flood the fields of events and give event organizers no reason to change their set up. This is why I have chosen to attend events like Shenandoah next weekend, and other quality events like Prelude to Chickamauga.

Again, if you don't like it; feel that you have been insulted, or believe you won't enjoy yourself; then don't go.

BTW: I agree, I dont think that the extra price for one impression reenactors is adviseable. Registration fees are already becoming high enough as it stands. I dont wanna beat a dead horse here, so I will not continue my argument over this idea.

Regards,
David Long

Thanks,
David Long

Bill_Cross
05-31-2006, 10:11 AM
There is a direct relationship between the amount of canvas per capita and the drain on event resources, so it really does make sense to make those who consume more pay more.
Leave it a ******************** clerk to have such a sensible conclusion!

On the dual impression question, I don't believe in blanket condemnations of anyone but I have more sympathy with people who only do blue simply because of the numbers.... Anyway, the spectators must often wonder how the Confederacy ever managed to lose when it had so many more men in the field.
Damned clerk, right on the money again!

I have a couple of Confederate uniforms but almost never get a chance to wear them.... It's a shame really -- my wife thinks they're so much cuter. Is that why you guys do it?
LOL.

Robert Mosher writes: There was a lulll in the action and I was looking at all those flags when I realized that I could never wear gray or butternut because if I did, I would be behind that other fence looking at a bunch of guys hiding behind their fence with a US flag waving overhead.
Properly portraying history often requires us to adapt ourselves to the period, warts and all. Union soldiers were often virulent racists, and portraying Rebel soldiers means accepting that they were fighting to preserve chattel slavery, one of the most odious things ever created by man (even marring the Bible, where it is condoned in the Old Testament). And this from the descendent of Southrons who fought!

But like it or not, I want to portray the soldiers and civilians of the period as correctly as possible. So when the Rowdy Pards show up at McDowell next Spring in gray (as we're planning to do), I will do my best to be as accurate in my impression as possible, including my politics.

Dusty's suggestions are interesting, but the problem is they would lead to mass mutiny by groups who plan their campaigns around the recycling of the same no-standards events. And if we really, I mean REALLY cared what the spectators thought, well, don't even get me started.

Robert A Mosher
05-31-2006, 10:57 AM
Bill -

You included a quote from my earlier posting but don't seem to then be making any response or comment in connection with it. So let me elaborate a bit, because otherwise I agree with your posting - the goal is that whatever we do in the hobby, we should be trying to get it right.

My concern with the earlier discussion arose from the fact that here I am trying to do it right - portray a common soldier of the Union Army (usually a member of the Irish Brigade, want to talk about racist bigots?) - and now some seemingly self-appointed leader(s) of the hobby want to tell me that that's no longer good enough.

My real objection to wearing gray or butternut has nothing to do with anything beyond the fact that while wearing that uniform, I would be portraying someone who fought against the United States and therefore would be involved in situations in which I would be "shooting" at people carrying the US flag. That just goes past my comfort zone. As some one on this forum wisely says (even when I disagree with him!) "your mileage may vary."

I guess what really bothers me in a fundamental way about these ideas is that they are yet one more iteration of dividing the hobby into "us" and "them." Now I know full well that the hobby really is "us" and "them," to include multiple "us's" and "thems" - but that reality is mostly based upon self-definitions in the various shadings of hardcore, authentic, campaigner, progressive, family, mainstream, etc. I don't think any of us benefits from having anybody running around and telling other people that they are 'farb' or 'hardcore.' Given the difficulty of even agreeing on definitions of the labels, such actions are essentially meaningless.

I really prefer an approach to the hobby that skips the labels and focuses more on actions - i.e., does your kit reflect an effort to match the unit or even individual you are portraying? Have you learned the basics of soldiering from drill, to vocabulary, to how to skylark if you are a private? How much do you try to adjust all of these and other aspects to reflect the different periods of the war and whether you are portraying a veteran or a green troop? Etc.

We should be looking for ways to draw people towards doing it right - while not wasting sweat, energy, or worry on people who choose to go another way. I think it comes down to the well known argument - event planners should set clear standards and get them out there as early as possible - and then ENFORCE them without sticking labels on anyone beyond saying - "this is how we are going to do it here at this event" If you want to do it some other way, either go find an event that will let you do it that way or set up your own event and vaya con dios.

It is a free country - if people just want to go camping with their family while wearing wool, and maybe use their noisemakers while they are out there, okay. If you want to go for an activity or event that involves the effort and the discomfort of limiting yourself to the tools, gear, and equipment that the soldiers actually carried - good for you.

To paraphrase Clausewitz, in reenacting everything is very simple and the simplest thing is very hard: Look for the events whose standards match yours - based on your ideas and what people who have been there in the past tell you. And hold event planners responsible for failing to enforce their published standards. Very simple, very hard.

Robert A. Mosher

Regular3
05-31-2006, 11:41 AM
Comrades, Federal-wise, you could simply enforce the 1863 regulations which specified that on campaign, soldiers were only allowed one shelter half. Company officers were allowed 2 shelter-halves each, and there were 2 small wall tents allowed for the regimental staff and hospital stores. (snip)
Probably that's too much to ask, but i figured i would toss that out for comments.

Considering that an order very like that one was issued by McClellan, and was honored so much more in the breach than the observance that every succeeding GIC including Grant felt compelled to re-issue it -- Grant even going so far as to specify that anyone who wouldn't accept a shelter tent would not get any tent at all -- I would say it is too much to ask, and not put too much hope in enforcing the un-enforceable. Numerous photographs bear out that the common tent was very much in use right up to the very end, GO's and regs be d**d.

TimKindred
05-31-2006, 04:49 PM
Considering that an order very like that one was issued by McClellan, and was honored so much more in the breach than the observance that every succeeding GIC including Grant felt compelled to re-issue it -- Grant even going so far as to specify that anyone who wouldn't accept a shelter tent would not get any tent at all -- I would say it is too much to ask, and not put too much hope in enforcing the un-enforceable. Numerous photographs bear out that the common tent was very much in use right up to the very end, GO's and regs be d**d.


Comrade,

I am not implying that the common tent wasn't in use. Heck, thousands were "used up" AFTER the war by the railroads and their work gangs... but I digress...

If you are in an area where the wagons can come up and make contact with their brigades, then those units that had their tents on the wagons might well have access to them. That was what was going on during the Penninsula campaign, where many federal regimentds were without proper shelter because the wagons couldn't get up. It's a primary reason why the shelter tents began to be issued in April of 1862. Prior to then, it's just as likely that the soldiers had NOTHING tent-wise if the wagons were delayed or could not be brought up.

Now, in winter quarters, or in rear areas such as Division hospitals, supply depots, etc, it makes sense to have the common tents and certainly they were found in those areas, right up through the end of hostilities.

HOWEVER.... for those IN THE FIELD, the Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, there is very little excuse for not following the regulations.

If folks want to use common tents and wall tents in order to hide modern items, cots, lawn chairs iron forges and squirrel cookers and beer kegs, and family members, then that's all well and good. Be up front about it and tell the 'taters that that's why you have all those tents. Armies on campaign did NOT have all those tents up on the pointy end of the stick, at least not after the fall of 1862.

I own one shelter half. I carry it. Sometimes. Often it's just a groundcloth and a blanket. It has served me well for several years, and I suspect it well for many more. And if you are portraying the Regular Army, then odds are the Officers were DEFINITELY going to follow published orders. They were pretty serious about that sort of thing.

Respects,

madisontigers
05-31-2006, 05:21 PM
Well said Tim.

hanktrent
05-31-2006, 06:59 PM
To paraphrase Clausewitz, in reenacting everything is very simple and the simplest thing is very hard: Look for the events whose standards match yours - based on your ideas and what people who have been there in the past tell you. And hold event planners responsible for failing to enforce their published standards. Very simple, very hard.

Robert A. Mosher

Great paragraph. Couldn't agree more. Carve that sucker in granite and put it on display somewhere. :)

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

bob 125th nysvi
05-31-2006, 09:22 PM
is for people to stop trying to get organizers to impose their version of what is 'correct' on other people and just stop going to events that don't fit their standards.

Events that don't draw participans will die and events that draw a rave review will grow and evolve.

Personnaly I do what my unit says is the minimum standards they want and then I work in improvements in my gear and impression as they either appeal to me or I can.

I abide by the standards that the organizers set and if I don't like an event I vote with my wallet and my feet next year (aka DON'T GO).

Either way, I'm not going to tell you what you should do or what your impression is like. If you ask for an opinion I'll give it otherwise your enjoyment of the hobby is none of my business.

So for all those people out there who want to "improve" an event I have a suggestion. Organize you own event with your improvements and see how many people come out and play with you.

You'll either be pleasently surprised or seriously disappointed.

But you'll have your answer on how much of an 'improvement' other reenactors think your ideas are.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

bill watson
05-31-2006, 09:58 PM
"Originally Posted by Robert A Mosher
To paraphrase Clausewitz, in reenacting everything is very simple and the simplest thing is very hard: Look for the events whose standards match yours - based on your ideas and what people who have been there in the past tell you. And hold event planners responsible for failing to enforce their published standards. Very simple, very hard.

Robert A. Mosher"

Let me echo Hank, this is pretty much the answer and very well said.

Button Whizzer
06-01-2006, 07:55 AM
Look for the events whose standards match yours - based on your ideas and what people who have been there in the past tell you. And hold event planners responsible for failing to enforce their published standards."

The Holy Grail of reenacting has been found! In the past when those rotten event planners have their feet held to the fire for not delivering what was promised, was that often called evil hobby politics? It was! It was! By the same people calling for just that now! Isn't that called hypocracy! It is! It is!

Plenty of reenactments have promised to deliver great things, did not come close, and then when people started pointing at the emperor's new clothes, the wheels came off the buggy during the great flailing, backpeddling, fault finding, blame seeking, and excuse making. Maybe this doesn't apply to all event planners, but just a select few. This takes gall. Chutzpah even.

If a person has more than two impressions, does that make them a multi-impressionist? Since this august self-appointed all-knowing body of reenactors declared all those without a dual impression to be unfit for reenacting (last week's commandment from on high), can they declare all those without at least three impressions to be the new pariahs this week? Inquiring minds really and truly want to know.

Too funnny for words, but imagine if the focus was history instead of epistles!

Brandon

bill watson
06-01-2006, 08:37 AM
Never mind. I just remembered I don't respond to flame bait from anonymous posters.

bill watson
06-01-2006, 09:07 AM
Here's a better idea.

Here's a sample of what folks are talking about, an event that has clear goals -- whether you support them or not.



Event Objectives


A. To bring together 500+ preservation minded reenactors, military, civilian & sutler, who will bring donations to help save the Cross Keys/Port Republic Battlefields. All donation checks will be made out to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation.
B. To seek a matching grant so that all monies collected can be at least doubled. It is hoped reenactor’s donations will total at least $40,000 and thus a matching grant could bring the amount to $80,000.
C. To further enhance reenactor rapport with the SVBF, building a partnership so that future reenactor access to battlefield land they possess in the Valley is a viable option.
D. To further enhance reenactor rapport with several local historical societies who are members of the Rockingham County cluster of the SVBF so that future mutual cooperative efforts are readily undertaken.
E. To further educate the local residents of Rockingham County about their historical heritage during the time period of the War Between the States and the threat development now poses to that heritage.

--------
Surely that's a clear set of objectives? Enough for folks to decide whether they want to go?
Goal one is already met.

Goal five is the only one that's fuzzy. We can see education made available, but I'm not sure we'll be able to measure whether it had an actual effect. The other four are, one way or another, measurable.

tompritchett
06-01-2006, 11:33 AM
It is interesting that you picked this particular event considering the beating that it took on at least two other forums because of what the detractors claimed to be false initial advertising as a "campaigner" event. I personally am supporting this event but find your choice very iluminating especially in light of another thread about what is wrong with this hobby. IMHO, this event never deserved the negative flack that it received. Unfortunately, over the past years I have watched other fine events with clear goals be similarly savaged here and elsewhere as if they were the ultimate farbfests, which they were definitely not based upon AARs.

Chuck A Luck
06-01-2006, 01:22 PM
IMHO, this event never deserved the negative flack that it received.

Darn Tootin'!

VaTrooper
06-01-2006, 01:57 PM
Personally I think this thread is a little goofy. But one post, well really a line, cought my attention. The one where "If you use more you should pay more" kinda thing. Should I pay more for bringing my horse? Or the artillery for bringing cannons? Lord help the mounted artillery. As for Shen 62 I was looking foreward to the event till the cavalry was phased out, at that point I was a little ticked. The officers can bring mounts still, so Im told. And if its a matter of getting feed for the horses I can carry oats and my horse does just fine on a picket pin.

Wild Rover
06-01-2006, 02:43 PM
Folks, the more we cut it up and split it, the less things make sense.

In the end, we need to -

A- keep the force ratios right
B- Keep the Scenarios right
C- Keep the moneychangers out of the temple
D- logistically support the troops in attendance
E- be honest and upfront about event goals and expectations

I think we have already come a long way, and barring some cyber thugs, everyoneis pretty dern happy about how one branch of the hobby has gone.

The other is still stuck in 1987, or actually 1993, as '87 had some good events...

Now that we have this program in place, we need to support those who embrace it.

And not those who do not.

Simple.

I guess I will see all of you tommarrow in Cross Keys.

Pards,

tompritchett
06-01-2006, 04:15 PM
E- be honest and upfront about event goals and expectations
While I can understand why some felt that Crosskeys failed the above test as far as the very early advertising, other campaigner events that I have seen savaged here in the past met all of your criteria. Sometimes, it just boils down to egos. Reminds me of a statement that Bear Bryant made after leaving the University of Kentucky early in his career as a coach. Basically he said that there was not room on the same campus for both he and Aldoph Rupp. ( I suspect the problem was not with the Bear, who, if I remember correctly, had just won a national championship but rather with the Baron.) Most of us know of a campaigner event that bit the dust last year for a very similar reason.

Pvt Schnapps
06-01-2006, 04:30 PM
Personally I think this thread is a little goofy. But one post, well really a line, cought my attention. The one where "If you use more you should pay more" kinda thing. Should I pay more for bringing my horse? Or the artillery for bringing cannons? Lord help the mounted artillery. As for Shen 62 I was looking foreward to the event till the cavalry was phased out, at that point I was a little ticked. The officers can bring mounts still, so Im told. And if its a matter of getting feed for the horses I can carry oats and my horse does just fine on a picket pin.

Penalizing cavalry and artillery wasn't my intention -- but I think that, after making all due allowances for horses and ordnance, the same principle might apply.

A unit that pitches dog tents for their men and pickets the horses should pay the basic rate. A higher rate should apply to the unit that brings wall tents big enough for the horses but fills them with coolers and camp followers instead.

But I admit I haven't yet figured out what to charge the unit that brings wall tents and actually uses them for their horses. That would be kind of sweet.

(Sorry to change the subject Chris -- FWIW, I agree with you.)

VaTrooper
06-01-2006, 04:59 PM
Penalizing cavalry and artillery wasn't my intention -- but I think that, after making all due allowances for horses and ordnance, the same principle might apply.

The MOMENT I have to pay extra for having a cavalry impression instead of a infantry one is when I quit the hobby. Its not bad enough that having a horse is so expensive on its own, now we should be punished for it?

$35,000 truck
$10,000 trailer
$7,000 horseflesh
$3,000 saddles and tack
winter feed bill, shoes, vet bill, must I continue?

And not to mention a gas bill 3X's as high to go to an event.

bob 125th nysvi
06-01-2006, 09:44 PM
The MOMENT I have to pay extra for having a cavalry impression instead of a infantry one is when I quit the hobby. Its not bad enough that having a horse is so expensive on its own, now we should be punished for it?

$35,000 truck
$10,000 trailer
$7,000 horseflesh
$3,000 saddles and tack
winter feed bill, shoes, vet bill, must I continue?

And not to mention a gas bill 3X's as high to go to an event.

Next time you want to acquire some horse stuff son give me a call.

My truck cost half.
My 4 horse stock trailer cost 40%
My draft horse TEAM cost less than 1/3 and I owned a champion saddlehorse mare that cost 1/3
The show harness costs 1/3.

You vastly overpaid for everything. Must have been dealing with a war-profiteer.

Got 40+ horses so I know what it's like to be "horse poor".

So based on that massive expense, what's a few extra centavous to keep having fun?

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

VaTrooper
06-01-2006, 10:05 PM
I was not complaining about the prices I paid for anything. I wanted the nicest truck, trailer, horses, and equipment the bank would give me LOL. The point was it would be an insult to charge the cavalry more than the infantry because we take up more space.

dustyswb
06-02-2006, 07:52 AM
in making the first post was to show how silly I thought charging different registration fees based on which side you were portraying was.

Can't believe there are three pages of comments on that.

MStuart
06-02-2006, 11:59 AM
Can't believe there are three pages of comments on that.

I can

Mark

RJSamp
06-02-2006, 12:08 PM
in making the first post was to show how silly I thought charging different registration fees based on which side you were portraying was.

Can't believe there are three pages of comments on that.

Suggested this back in 1998 Mike. I didn't think it was silly then, and don't think it's silly today. The yahoo factor is higher amongst the CSA crowd. They tend to refight the woah instead of reenact. The force ratios are out of whack for most events. The final clincher for me was NSA Raymond 2001......where we were all supposed to be 'campaigning' it...a true mainstream event (ala McDowell 2005) as opposed to the farbfests people call 'mainstream' reenacting. When we came to our campsite on Saturday night after fighting for several hours we had to go to an alternative campsite. The CSA Brigade COULDN'T move to their campsite...as in physically being unable to move.

The alternative of capping registration works as well....the unfortunate side effect is you get 'Battles of' with a few hundred rifles per side. That may be the intended 'targetted' force....but it's definitely not Authentic, Historical, PEC, et al.

If instead we did a free for USA, $25 for CSA, $200 per family camped on a military street my guess is that the force ratios might change......

at a 'mainstream' event.

RJ Samp

ewtaylor
06-02-2006, 12:21 PM
The yahoo factor is higher amongst the CSA crowd. RJ Samp

I tend to agree. When I first started reenacting I was told by some of the fellas they wanted to do CS impressions because you could wear what you wanted. The US impression required buying to much stuff and looking alike.

ew taylor

Bill_Cross
06-02-2006, 02:02 PM
$35,000 truck
$10,000 trailer
$7,000 horseflesh
$3,000 saddles and tack
winter feed bill, shoes, vet bill, must I continue?
I don't see anything there about insurance....

"Road to Goldsboro" was going to set the organizers back $2K for equine insurance. We were SHOCKED when it turns out many of you cavalry-types don't have liability coverage. That would've been $2K less for preservation, but we were committed to pay for the horses the scenario required.

But for my next event.... Oh yeah, I want 1,500 pound malevolent five year-olds running around in the dark where they can step on someone, throw their rider (who could sue the landowner for his medical expenses), bump into another rider, etc.

Yessiree, where can I get me some of that there "attractive nuisance" (what insurance people call horses and swimming pools).

Next event I work on that has horsemen, there will be no one allowed unless they have individual or blanket liability coverage, because the Rowdy Pards' insurance SPECIFICALLY excludes them 4-footed 5 year-olds (to steal Mike Murley's description of a horse).

bob 125th nysvi
06-02-2006, 08:43 PM
I was not complaining about the prices I paid for anything. I wanted the nicest truck, trailer, horses, and equipment the bank would give me LOL. The point was it would be an insult to charge the cavalry more than the infantry because we take up more space.

Yeah for some reason people think because you have horses your rich. Even the bank.

Basically I agree that fees shouldn't be used to penalize people who don't meet your standards or to "discourage" your participation. Artillery and Cavalry often get bounties to encourage their participation because of the extra cost involved in equiping and transporting the unit.

The whole point of the thread (in my opinion) is wrong.

Instead of asking events to change to suit their particular tastes they should go to events that meet their own particular standards.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

MStuart
06-02-2006, 09:02 PM
Instead of asking events to change to suit their particular tastes they should go to events that meet their own particular standards.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

That idea has been bandied about for some time. But the formula just doesn't seem to take. Folks still gripe about events they say they don't go to, or will have nothing to do with. For what reason/s?

Mark

bob 125th nysvi
06-02-2006, 09:04 PM
I don't see anything there about insurance....

"Road to Goldsboro" was going to set the organizers back $2K for equine insurance. We were SHOCKED when it turns out many of you cavalry-types don't have liability coverage. That would've been $2K less for preservation, but we were committed to pay for the horses the scenario required.

But for my next event.... Oh yeah, I want 1,500 pound malevolent five year-olds running around in the dark where they can step on someone, throw their rider (who could sue the landowner for his medical expenses), bump into another rider, etc.

Yessiree, where can I get me some of that there "attractive nuisance" (what insurance people call horses and swimming pools).

Next event I work on that has horsemen, there will be no one allowed unless they have individual or blanket liability coverage, because the Rowdy Pards' insurance SPECIFICALLY excludes them 4-footed 5 year-olds (to steal Mike Murley's description of a horse).

For starters most people carry insurance for the horse based on 'normal' horse activities. Guess what reenacting isn't considered a 'normal' activity so acquiring "reenacting" insurance at an individual level is prohibative.

But then it sounds like you'd like all the horses to just stay home.

A few more pointers:

Riding horses don't weight 1,500 pounds your in draft territory there.

They aren't "malevolent five year-olds" they are actually quite intelligent and willing to cooperate when handled properly (I will admit that many times you are dealing with a fair number of too little rider for the horse).

The main problem is people who know nothing about horses doing something stupid around them not the horses themselves.

You also may want to consider your position you're starting on a slippery slope that may in the not to distant future find the "Rowdy Pards" out in the woods by themselves or very limited as to the scenarios they can stage.

Maybe what you need is someone with some horse knowledge who can evaluate the performance (not reenacting wise) of the horse units that participate in your reenactments. They get a grade, those units that fail aren't allowed back.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance NY

bob 125th nysvi
06-02-2006, 09:07 PM
That idea has been bandied about for some time. But the formula just doesn't seem to take. Folks still gripe about events they say they don't go to, or will have nothing to do with. For what reason/s?

Mark

Personally I don't give two cents (modern money) worth of thought to the opinion of someone who is critizing something they have not personally participated in.

Why would anybody?

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance NY