[Qcwa] ARRL Membership Numbers

[Gene A. Nailon]

FROM: Gene Nailon  K5DLE
Edmond, OK  
2 Sep. 2002

Larry;

A may I remind you that to be a QCWA member, you shall have been licensed
at least 25 years ago.  A large percentage of the membership is retired. 
I trust
you have no problem with that.

It is only natural that most of the QCWA members have retired from the
events
you speak of.  These should be turned over to the younger folks.  I have
students
from my license classes that are now QCWA members.  

Are you saying I should now get out and do more license classes?
I guess most of the membership should come out of retirement and go back
to work.

I hear this same line from time to time and don't understand where it
comes from.

QCWA IS NOT IN THE BUISNESS OF RECRUITING NEW HAMS!!
QCWA SHOULD DAMN WELL STAND UP FOR STANDARDS!!

New hams will not be elgiable to join QCWA for 25 years.  In that period
of time 
lots of things can happen.  Amateur radio could disappear, QCWA could
disappear,
or QCWA could become the FYWA  Five year wireless associction.

Best regards,

Gene Nailon
=======================================================
> John, W2AGN says: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> YES, the Amateur Radio Service is in trouble.
> NO, it is not because of QUANTITY but because of QUALITY!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Perhaps, but I have seen some really terrific new hams; ones who 
> really
> enjoy amateur radio and respect their licenses.  Sure there are the 
> "other
> kind" too, as there were when it was when the requirement was 
> tougher.  I
> can tell you that those of us involved in special events, public 
> service
> (walks, runs, motorcyle and bicycle events, Salvation Army, etc.) 
> would be
> in bad  shape if we had to rely on QCWA members for support.  
> Hopefully
> this is only a local issue.
> 
> Another question: Should the League directors and officers have 
> limited
> terms of office?  
> 
> Larry (W0AIB)
> _______________________________________________