K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

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.

If we throw out those Novices, which aren't any appreciable
number,
then the percentages look like this:

Extras: 25.52%

Advanced: 25.91%

General: 16.25%

Techs: 30.65%

...or leave the Novices in...it only changes the percentages by
1/10th or thereabouts of a percent...

Nonetheless...The Techs DO comprise a significant membership
base
in the ARRL...Enough to be a significant voting block if they wanted
to.

So why don't they?

Why should they? Do the Techs have some big problem with the League
which went over my head?

Lennie and Brain contend that they are somehow a repressed
subset
of the membership,

Those two "contend" a lotta things which are bass ackward and/or
off-the-wall. They're your turf, enjoy, I can't be bothered.

yet there's not a single impediment to ANY person
with ANY specific interest in ARRL policies or programs from pushing
for changes in those programs and policies if they so choose.

If anything, we should be asking why are the Generals so
inequitably represented in the ARRL membership.

Fixing that gross inequity will involve the creation of yet another
department at HQ based on the next PBI which we haven't seen yet.


The ARRL is, afterall, a membership organization. If in this day
and age there's not been some major effort to organize a major change
to the ARRL's policies and programs, then apparently they ARE
representing the opinions of their demographic fairly evenly.

AMEN, that's the whole point and the only point which actually matters
in the context of this thread.

If there was such a disaffection for the ARRL, where's the
"alter-ARRL"...?!?!

Been tried several times and they all died almost on the spot.


73

Steve, K4YZ

w3rv

From: on Mon,May 9 2005 1:32 pm

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



I went for the actual numbers.

That is to your credit. Applause.


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

None of us can work without REAL numbers to compare
and we are all stuck with ARRL's own numbers.

One problem is that August 1996 is about 8 1/2
years ago.

Okay, the "proportions will not have changed
'dramatically' since then" but 8 1/2 years is a
rather long time. In the dated March 2005 page
of ARRL's Sworn Statement, ARRL indicates a total
number of members as of 31 Dec 04 of 151,727 or
roughly a thousand LESS than the number in 1996.

Not "dramatic." :-)

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.

Not "dramatic?" :-)

While it was good that you contacted ARRL folks
direct, there's still the problem of trying to
connect 1996 numbers with 2005 numbers. Things
don't match for either "dramatic" or even mellow-
dramatic comparison. :-)

As an example, I quoted www.hamdata.com numbers
as of 7 May 2005 in here. On that day there were
a total of 723,570 amateur radio licensees (less
club calls). The total number of Technician class
licensees were, on that day, 350,455. That's
48.43 percent of the total. Compared to the 30.53
percent of Techs as ARRL members of only 30.53%
in August 1996, I'd say that comparison IS
"dramatic."

But, the "high rank" ham licensees are going to
bitch and moan and rationalize the be-jeezus out
of those numbers and do some remarkable "numbers"
while performing on this stage...a sort of
"American Idle" show. :-)

Let's take raw numbers, such as 46,655 ARRL
member Techs in 1996. Compare those to 350,455
Techs as of 7 May 05 of 350,455. That's a delta
of a "mere" 303,800!

A few years ago, I thought that it would be
"remarkable" if just a quarter of all licensees
would be Techs. NOW it is edging up to HALF of
ALL ham licensees!

ARRL bias, as revealed through the pages of QST,
is still towards "working DX on HF with CW."
QST still has a column of "The World Above 50
MHz," as if that was still a strange planet. :-)

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

So I guess the upshot of all this is that the ARRL is going along
swimmingly, everything is just great.

Since the League represents its members accurately, we better not do
anything to change it. It's all good.

The loss in membership since 1997 is just some kind of aberration, and
besides, good riddance - we don't need *those* types anyhow.

An almost 13 percent drop in membership since 1997 is *nothing* to
worry about.




- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
From: on Mon,May 9 2005 1:32 pm

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



I went for the actual numbers.

That is to your credit. Applause.

Nah, no applause Sweetums, it's just and old engineer's trick which
apparently isn't used much these days. "If you don't have the info
simply get off yer butt and ASK somebody who DOES have info."


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

None of us can work without REAL numbers to compare
and we are all stuck with ARRL's own numbers.

One problem is that August 1996 is about 8 1/2
years ago.

Okay, the "proportions will not have changed
'dramatically' since then" but 8 1/2 years is a
rather long time. In the dated March 2005 page
of ARRL's Sworn Statement, ARRL indicates a total
number of members as of 31 Dec 04 of 151,727 or
roughly a thousand LESS than the number in 1996.

Not "dramatic." :-)

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is not
a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable level of
stability so all is well in Newington.


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.

Not "dramatic?" :-)

While it was good that you contacted ARRL folks
direct, there's still the problem of trying to
connect 1996 numbers with 2005 numbers. Things
don't match for either "dramatic" or even mellow-
dramatic comparison. :-)

As an example, I quoted www.hamdata.com numbers
as of 7 May 2005 in here. On that day there were
a total of 723,570 amateur radio licensees (less
club calls). The total number of Technician class
licensees were, on that day, 350,455. That's
48.43 percent of the total. Compared to the 30.53
percent of Techs as ARRL members of only 30.53%
in August 1996, I'd say that comparison IS
"dramatic."

But, the "high rank" ham licensees are going to
bitch and moan and rationalize the be-jeezus out
of those numbers and do some remarkable "numbers"
while performing on this stage...a sort of
"American Idle" show. :-)

Sweetums you silly old thing you blew it again, you missed the real
kicker in bush-league imbroglio. The gist of Hans' proposal being that
the League needs to reshuffle some of it's organization charts. His new
program would "fix" what he perceives as some huge lack of Techs'
interest in the ARRL and draw them into the Inner Sanctum. Welp, in the
end his perception ain't reality at all even with rough passes at rough
numbers yes? Fact is that ~17% of the pore downtrodden Techs are League
members whilst only around 13% of the "high-ranking" Generals are
members. Now what? Hmmm?

Let's take raw numbers, such as 46,655 ARRL
member Techs in 1996. Compare those to 350,455
Techs as of 7 May 05 of 350,455. That's a delta
of a "mere" 303,800!

Cut your smoke & mirrors act Sweetums, I did not just get off the boat.


A few years ago, I thought that it would be
"remarkable" if just a quarter of all licensees
would be Techs. NOW it is edging up to HALF of
ALL ham licensees!

Like I said, all is well in Newington. Hiram Percy would be delighted.

ARRL bias, as revealed through the pages of QST,
is still towards "working DX on HF with CW."
QST still has a column of "The World Above 50
MHz," as if that was still a strange planet. :-)

snore



w3rv

From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

wrote:
From: on Mon,May 9 2005 1:32 pm

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



One problem is that August 1996 is about 8 1/2
years ago.

Okay, the "proportions will not have changed
'dramatically' since then" but 8 1/2 years is a
rather long time. In the dated March 2005 page
of ARRL's Sworn Statement, ARRL indicates a total
number of members as of 31 Dec 04 of 151,727 or
roughly a thousand LESS than the number in 1996.

Not "dramatic." :-)

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not
a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable level
of
stability so all is well in Newington.

Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League. :-)



Sweetums you silly old thing you blew it again, you missed the real
kicker in bush-league imbroglio.

"Blew" WHAT, you silly old beeper geriatric? :-)

The gist of Hans' proposal being that
the League needs to reshuffle some of it's organization charts.

Tsk. It's a LOT MORE than that, "sweetums."

The ARRL has to have its MINDSET realigned and
recalibrated to fit this new millennium. It can't
continue on using the now-very-old standards and
practices of the 1930s in amateur radio...such as
the bias in favor of morsemanship over everything
else...such as the bias in favor of featuring the
HF bands over all other bands.

His new
program would "fix" what he perceives as some huge lack of Techs'
interest in the ARRL and draw them into the Inner Sanctum.

As of 7 May 2005, the actual license numbers from
the FCC database, as shown on www.hamdata.com, show
that 48.43% of all U.S. amateur licensees are in
the Technician class category. [wait a few days
and the percentage will get higher... :-) ] At
the present rate of growth of Technicians...and at
the present rate of attrition in all the other
classes, the MAJORITY of U.S. amateur licensees
will be Technicians in another couple of years.

Regardless of not fitting YOUR perplexed paradigm
on What Ham Radio Should Be, the unalterable fact
is that the ARRL only pays lip-service and spins
"approval" of those "lower classes" insofar as
what the League thinks Ham Radio Should Be. If
you would get away from sniping at others not
sharing your concepts of hamdom, you could note
the "survival syndrome" exhibited by the ARRL and
its BoD...they just don't like CHANGE and want to
keep things cozy and comfy as THEY like it in the
hobby.

Welp, in the
end his perception ain't reality at all even with rough passes at
rough
numbers yes?

Using survey numbers of 1996 in the year 2005 isn't
even close to your "engineering way," "sweetums."
It certainly would NOT be good business sense.
Don't forget that the League gets millions out
of their PUBLISHING and product sale/resale end
of operations. [check out their Federal income
tax statements for the real numbers]

Fact is that ~17% of the pore downtrodden Techs are League
members whilst only around 13% of the "high-ranking" Generals are
members. Now what? Hmmm?

Cut your smoke & mirrors act, "sweetums." :-)

Let's take raw numbers, such as 46,655 ARRL
member Techs in 1996. Compare those to 350,455
Techs as of 7 May 05 of 350,455. That's a delta
of a "mere" 303,800!

Cut your smoke & mirrors act Sweetums, I did not just get off the
boat.

An aircraft carrier is NOT a "boat." :-)

Your glasses must have fallen in the water then,
since you can't understand that USING 8 1/2 year
old data to make your point (preceding) and now
saying that this data is no good...that only makes
you an intellectual hypocrite. Or a PCTA (they
are very similar in that regard).


Like I said, all is well in Newington. Hiram Percy would be delighted.


Tsk. You are still mumbling Maxims?

Maxim DIED over a half century ago, "sweetums."

ARRL membership is STILL LESS than a quarter of
all licensed U.S. amateurs. [21.1% to be more
exact]

ARRL bias, as revealed through the pages of QST,
is still towards "working DX on HF with CW."
QST still has a column of "The World Above 50
MHz," as if that was still a strange planet. :-)

snore

Poor baby...strain too much for your ancient bones?
Can't handle controversy? Think you are "better"
than the average ham hobbyist? Of course...you
are morse code tested!!! That makes you "superior!"

[superior...like the lake...all wet? :-) ]

Quit chomping them hoagies, old timer, they give
you gas and make you fall asleep in your rocker.

wrote:
From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable level
of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable
level
of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Apologies for being repetitious here but sometimes that's what it takes
.. . When I asked Sumner for the by-class breakdown he wrote that the
last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

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

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up with
Sumner.

w3rv

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable

level

of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Apologies for being repetitious here but sometimes that's what it takes
. . When I asked Sumner for the by-class breakdown he wrote that the
last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

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

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up with
Sumner.

From the ARRL Annual Report for 1996 source

http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/

On page 5, they announce the numbers:
175,023 members

The following year was the year that the ARRL experienced its all time
peak membership:

177,396.


So whether I'm boring you or not, you were the one bragging about your
smarts in going to "the source". I went to a source too. Mine aren't
broken down by class, but you would have to admit that 22,214 is a
significant difference when the total numbers are compared.

One of us is wrong with the numbers. Maybe your source made a mistake?
Or maybe *all* those annual reports were wrong. Which do you think more
likely?


- mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

And that same child is more likely to be an HF-licensed Radio
Amateur in that time frame than you are, Lennie.

Embarrassing, ain't it...

Steve, K4YZ