[CW] Missouri SM Supports CW

[Alan KI7WO]

This is the reply I received from the Missouri Section Manager.
Alan  KI7WO@JUNO.COM

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dale Bagley <dbagley1@missvalley.com>
To: Alan KI7WO <ki7wo@juno.com>
Cc: k0ky arrl <k0ky@arrl.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:19:19 -0500

Hi Alan:
   I don't subscribe to the CW reflector on QSL.net, so thanks for the
info.

Even with my full support for having a CW requirement within the U.S. 
Amateur Radio Service Licensing program, I  know for a fact that the cw 
requirement hasn't kept a large number of  nuts out of the HF spectrum.  

I doubt that there would be any noticeable change on HF if the
requirement was eliminated, but I still see the value of having all
amateurs on HF being  capability of communicating using Morse Code. I
believe that when amateur operators have to earn their HF privileges by
learning the international language of Morse Code, they will hold those
privileges in greater esteem and have a greater pride in that
accomplishment. 

Most of the ARRL leadership I have spoken to are strong for keeping the
CW requirement, but they seem resolved to the fact that even if the U.S.
keeps the requirement, it will be eliminated in the remainder of the
world.  Amateur Requirements are always in a state of flux and reflect to
some extent the value placed on various aspects of Amateur Radio as seen
from the prospective of the Federal Government.  

Just before I got my first license, the FCC had required applicants to
draw circuit diagrams for Pierce Oscillators or similar electrical
circuits to get a license.  Today I noticed that there is an increased
emphasis on Safety and RFI exposure.  I know that 30 years from now there
will be topics and aspects evaluated on the Amateur Radio exam that I
can't even imagine at this time.   I believe that thirty years from now
those of us that enjoy CW will still be operating, just as one of my Ham
friends from high school are still enjoy operating AM Amateur Stations
today.   

Let's hope that the FCC chooses to maintain the CW requirement for HF
privileges, but I will not be blaming the ARRL if it is eliminated.  The
ARRL has worked harder than any other organization to keep CW as part of
the requirements for HF, but they are up against a powerful organized
against the Morse Code requirement.  Thanks again for the heads-up and
hope to see you at some upcoming Hamfest to continue the discussion.

73
Dale Bagley, K0KY
ARRL MO SM

Alan KI7WO wrote:

> Hi Dale,
> 
> I don't know if you are subscribed to the CW reflector on QSL<dot>NET
or
> not but there is great discussion about the ARRL and specifically the
> Section Mangers position, or lack of stated position on supporting the
> petition to disband the requirement & the associated "sub bands" used
by
> CW.
> 
> I am NOT a 100% CW fanatic, however I am more than 50% CW operator.
Just
> thought you should know what the "natives" are up to before it sneaks
up
> and bites you.
> 
> Alan  KI7WO@JUNO.COM
> Oak Grove, Missouri
> 
>