wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

If, as you state, *half the ARRL members are Techs* then what's the
point to this whole thread?? Or is it me again?

w3rv


If Hans is correct about the scarcity of Techs in the ARRL
membership, he
proposes a way to attract them is all. I simply indicated that his
original
premise may or may not be true. Thus it should be checked. I don't
know
what the numbers are. I simply thought I saw something on it but
haven't
checked it. It is my point of view that the ARRL ought to try to get
the
involvement of more hams of all classes.

I went for the actual numbers.

I tossed an e-mail msg at Dave Sumner requesting a breakdown of ARRL
memberships vs. their license classes which he came right back with.
The last time these numbers were pulled together in detail at HQ was in
August 1996 as reported in the February 1997 issue of QST. He added
"The proportions will not have changed dramatically since then."

Extras 38,852
Advanced 39,430
General 25,245
Tech Plus 22,634
Tech 24,021
Novice 2,627

Total members = 152,809

Total Techs = 46,655 or ~30% of the ARRL membership are Techs vs. ~50%
of all licensees. There's a shortfall of Techs within the membership
but certainly not any sort of "yawning gap" in the representation of
Techs at the ARRL (or vice versa) as Hans has implied.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv


Thanks. I appreciate your getting that info. Basically that puts it
somewhere in the middle of what I thought as compared to what Hans thought.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE