"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote:

I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more
requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to
discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad
practice...

Len, not to be argumentative, but there are numbers of hams who got
their license even under more stringent testing requirements than
the past few years, who are inactive and, of those still active,
have terrible, terrible operating practices.

You're right; it's a battle that can never be won. Refusing to fight
it only makes matters worse, unfortunately.

CW doesn't prove loyalty, staying active, or provide for positive
operating practices.

We won't know until we have hard data--which we won't have until the
requirement is dropped. Then we can ask: how many people got their
no-code extras? How many are active? How long did they stay active?

The issue is compounded because valid statistics on the current
situation are probably not available, so a comparison can never be
made. All we can do is theorize, which is (as one poster said) nothing
but blowing smoke.

Again, I don't believe in "weeding out" anyone who can and wants to
pass the requirements to get a ham license.

Me neither. I believe in "weeding out" those who won't. Exactly where
to place the bar is a danged good question.

And passing CW doesn't weed out anything, heck, listen to any of the
HF frequencies that we all have heard with the creeps and nitwits
on.

Let's go vigilante and give their names to Riley--you and me. Whaddaya say?

The only "area" in which the frequencies may prove out your belief
is, literally, on the CW bands, where--simply because of the mode of
operation--bad operating practices aren't easily facilitated.

That's one of the reasons I expect to use CW as my primary mode.

CW alone doesn't equal good operating, etc.

Never said it did. Raising entry barriers to the right level, on the
one hand, and beefing up enforcement, on the other, can sure help.

Regards,
Len.

PS Of course I'm also interested in CW for historical reasons, but
that alone probably wouldn't make me advocate it as a licensure
requirement.