Originally Posted by jcmors

To me, just my opinion mind you, trying to mandate membership through government regulation was more than a misstep, it was highly unethical, unconstitutional, and contrary to how an organization of people in any hobby should operate. Imagine if the ARRL tried to make it mandatory for Ham radio operators to join their organization to be allowed to operate on Ham frequencies. Or the NRA said you had to be a member to own a gun. You can't drive a motorcycle unless you belong to the American Motorcycle Association (another "AMA"). Imagine needing to be a member of a boating organization in order to take your boat out on the water?

So what should a hobby organization do to attract members? There should be some value add in membership that makes it worth becoming a member in order to join. For many of us there is value. I enjoy flying at the local club I belong to with a great group of guys, so for me there is value. But to attempt to force membership through regulation is just not right. Then to further advocate that anyone not joining our hobby association should be prosecuted as a criminal by the government, well that was just way out of line. Again, all just my opinion.

Originally Posted by jcmors

I agree that it was out of desperation in an attempt to bring in more money due to declining revenue. Therein lies some of the problem, it was all about the money and very little about the hobby. Yes having more members and more money is a good thing, but many use the declining membership and lack of funds as an excuse for the failure in dealing with the FAA on our behalf. On the surface this sounds logical, and then I look at what a 12,000 member organization (10% of what the AMA has), MAAC, has accomplished with their regulating body in Canada having gotten an exemption for their members, without trying to compel membership through the law and without calling non members rogues and criminals and calling for their prosecution by the government!