Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|