"Dee Flint" wrote


Have you noticed how the majority of participants in non-repeater VHF/UHF/and
up activities are NOT the Technicians.

The Northern Lights Radio Society here in Minnesota is an organization of
operators who are active in weak signal (SSB/CW) work on the VHF, UHF, and
Microwave bands. I'm sure your OM has heard of the club. A significant number
of the members are Technician licensees.

May be different where you live, but in this area the Technicians do a lions
share of the work in Skywarn, Grandmas Marathon, Twin Cities Marathon, and a
host of public service events. During disaster recovery (floods and tornados)
events they are major contributors of time and talent.

Contrary to common sentiment, they are extraordinarily engaged in the local ham
scene and not just "shack-on-a-belt-repeater-lizards" as some like to
characterize them.

The sooner ARRL membership has Technicians as members in numbers proportional to
their population, the sooner ARRL will truly represent the full spectrum of
amateur licensees. My PBI seeks to make that happen.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote


Have you noticed how the majority of participants in non-repeater
VHF/UHF/and up activities are NOT the Technicians.

The Northern Lights Radio Society here in Minnesota is an organization of
operators who are active in weak signal (SSB/CW) work on the VHF, UHF, and
Microwave bands. I'm sure your OM has heard of the club. A significant
number of the members are Technician licensees.


And half our members are Technicians also. And almost half our officers are
Technicians. We've been very successful in getting them engaged in the
club.

May be different where you live, but in this area the Technicians do a
lions share of the work in Skywarn, Grandmas Marathon, Twin Cities
Marathon, and a host of public service events. During disaster recovery
(floods and tornados) events they are major contributors of time and
talent.



As they do here.

Contrary to common sentiment, they are extraordinarily engaged in the
local ham scene and not just "shack-on-a-belt-repeater-lizards" as some
like to characterize them.


The Technicians here are also quite engaged in all the public service,
community, and club activities. What the participation seems to lag here is
in the wide range of on air activities.

The sooner ARRL membership has Technicians as members in numbers
proportional to their population, the sooner ARRL will truly represent the
full spectrum of amateur licensees. My PBI seeks to make that happen.


I thought that I had seen a statistic where close to half of the ARRL
membership were Technicians. If so, then it simply means that the Techs
need to get more involved on the management side to make things happen.
Afterall there is no reason that a Tech couldn't be President.

Perhaps if this PBI were more aimed at expanding the membership at all
levels it would be more fruitful. Very little change would be needed to
what you propose other than seeking out non-members of all classes.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:



And half our members are Technicians also. And almost half our officers are
Technicians. We've been very successful in getting them engaged in the
club.


The Technicians have been kicked around by the 'higher class' licensees
or some time for some strange reason. There seems to be some elitists
attitude among some holding higher class licenses towards the Techs,
that they haven't quite attained the status of being a 'real ham' yet.
However, it seems that the Techs are doing one of the very things that
hams have long been noted for and helps justify our existance, that of
using ham radio for public service. They seem to be a class of folk who
aren't much interested in setting in front of an HF rig just to chat
with someone in the next state or country, but had much rather put their
energy into using ham radio to benefit others. Hooray for the Techs.

Dee Flint wrote:
"K=D8HB" wrote in message

.. . . .

The sooner ARRL membership has Technicians as members in numbers
proportional to their population, the sooner ARRL will truly
represent the
full spectrum of amateur licensees. My PBI seeks to make that
happen.


I thought that I had seen a statistic where close to half of the ARRL

membership were Technicians.

This thread was started by Hans who stated in so many words that Techs
are under-represented by the ARRL because they don't join in the
quantities other class licensees join that some changes need to be
made, etc., etc. ~Half the hams in this country are Techs. If, as you
state, half the Techs are also ARRL members then what's the point to
this whole thread?? Or is it me again?


If so, then it simply means that the Techs
need to get more involved on the management side to make things
happen.
Afterall there is no reason that a Tech couldn't be President.

Perhaps if this PBI were more aimed at expanding the membership at
all
levels it would be more fruitful. Very little change would be needed
to
what you propose other than seeking out non-members of all classes.
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

=20
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

"Senior moment . . . "

This thread was started by Hans who stated in so many words that Techs
are under-represented by the ARRL because they don't join in the
quantities other class licensees join that some changes need to be
made, etc., etc. ~Half the hams in this country are Techs.

Change to:

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

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

"Senior moment . . . "

This thread was started by Hans who stated in so many words that Techs
are under-represented by the ARRL because they don't join in the
quantities other class licensees join that some changes need to be
made, etc., etc. ~Half the hams in this country are Techs.

Change to:

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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

"Senior moment . . . "

This thread was started by Hans who stated in so many words that
Techs
are under-represented by the ARRL because they don't join in the
quantities other class licensees join that some changes need to be
made, etc., etc. ~Half the hams in this country are Techs.

Change to:

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.

OK, I'll see if I can get the numbers.

It is my point of view that the ARRL ought to try to get the
involvement of more hams of all classes.

I don't think you'd find anybody around here who wouldn't agree. With
one probable exception of course.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv

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

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?

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

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.

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

73

Steve, K4YZ

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. :-)