Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
. . .
On the other hand, I believe that we should have a good
mix of ages.
Sure - but how much is enough? If, say, 10% of the US amateur
population were under the age of 21, would that be enough?
What "dire fate" would befall ham radio if there wasn't a single
licensee under 21? What do they actaully bring to hobby which is so
important?? Sorry, makes no sense, I just don't get it.
If it's a numbers game why not shift gears and recruit retirees instead
of chasing kids? The retirees are far more independent than kids,
they're more mature, on average they don't care about nonsense like
instant gratification and peer pressure and they have the time the kids
don't have. And in most cases they also have the money the kids don't
have.
w3rv
I've often suggested recruiting people in the 40 to 50 year old range.
Their kids are grown or nearly so. They have a better income than when they
were younger and a little more free time than when they were younger. And
they are still young enough to have energy and enthusiasm for new
activities.
Absolutely, the 40 and up sector is where I expect most new hams will
come from. By a wide margin. There's another factor out there to
consider. The Boomers are coming up fast on their late 50s/early 60s
and this bunch is a whole *lot* more tech-savvy than my generation is
and I'm only a few years older than they are. They're some serious
candidates for recruiting into ham radio.
Personally I try to encourage everyone of all ages who shows even a hint of
interest.
I believe we all have some responsibility to Elmer newbies into the
hobby wherever they pop up. Which I call "passive recruiting". I'd like
to see some "aggressive recruiting" aimed this time at the "over the
hill gang". I don't think it's ever been tried before. Which is another
good reason to take a whack at it.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
w3rv