Incident Analysis and Safety Measures Questions & Answers

Q1. What happened in 2012?

A. In April 2012, an incident was reported at the City-operated archery range in Kapiʻolani Park in which a stray arrow exited the designated range area and reached the adjacent tennis courts. Local media reported that the arrow traveled approximately 350 to 500 feet. Available reporting indicates that the arrow was released at an unsafe upward angle, allowing it to travel well beyond the intended target area.

Q2. Why was the archery range closed?

A. Following the incident, the City closed the range based on public safety concerns. The closure was not due to opposition to archery as a sport, but rather to concerns that the facility’s design and operational controls were insufficient to ensure public safety under the conditions that existed at the time.

Q3. What was the level of supervision at the range at that time?

A. Public records and City discussions indicate that the range functioned largely as a self-directed public facility and was not operated with continuous, trained supervision. After the closure, City officials discussed potential future measures such as certified monitors, permit systems, and user education programs, indicating that these controls were not consistently in place when the incident occurred.

Q4. Were there physical safety systems in place to contain arrows?

A. No, at the time of the incident, the range relied primarily on orientation and distance buffers. There is no documentation showing that engineered containment systems—such as side netting, overhead netting, or a modern backstop—were installed. Following the closure, the City discussed adding netting, fencing, barriers, and other containment measures as potential requirements for reopening, confirming that such systems were not in place beforehand.

Q5. What lessons were learned from this incident?

A. City discussions following the closure made clear that safe operation of a public archery facility requires:

• Engineered physical containment (such as netting and backstops),

• Continuous supervision by qualified personnel, and

• Clear operational rules and user education.

The issue identified was not the inherent risk of archery itself, but deficiencies in facility design and management.

Q6. How does the Honolulu Kyudojo address these concerns?

A. The Honolulu Kyudojo was designed from the outset with safety—both for participants and the surrounding community—as a core principle, directly addressing the issues identified in the 2012 incident.

• Engineered containment:

  The facility incorporates integrated side netting, overhead netting, and a full backstop system, ensuring there is no open path for arrows to exit the range.

• Safe orientation and layout:

  Shooting is directed toward fenced and restricted Board of Water Supply land that is rarely accessed. Archery activities will be suspended whenever personnel must enter areas of potential exposure. Targets are placed at ground level in front of a sand berm within a 12-foot-high structure, ensuring a consistently downward shooting angle.

• Multiple layers of safety:

  Primary safeguards include supervision and training; secondary safeguards include ballistic netting; tertiary safeguards include perimeter fencing, landscaping, and distance buffers.

• Continuous supervision:

  A qualified Rangemaster will be present whenever archery activities take place, and unsafe practices are not permitted.

• Mandatory training:

  All participants must complete a required safety orientation before being allowed to shoot.

  
  

Q7. What is the overall conclusion?

A. The Honolulu Kyudojo reflects the lessons learned from the 2012 Kapiʻolani Park incident by incorporating modern design standards, engineered containment, and rigorous operational controls. These measures ensure that the facility can be operated safely and responsibly, protecting both participants and the surrounding community.