I'm sorry but, can people quit using the analogy of comparing r/c to golf. Someone may pay through the nose for golf, but they physically see something for their "green's fees" - property in the form of a manicured golf course, club house, etc. And the money is locally spent.

As for the cost of r/c compared to other hobbies - some of us choose to invest only $200-$300 others, into the thousands of dollars. So why compare $800 clubs, when a person can still golf on a set of $95 Wilsons?

I'll be the first to admit that I compared the AMA to AOPA. Maybe it is apples and oranges, but it's still an avaition entity aimed at general aviation, not the pros. My point was, that lower fees can be done. Sure we don't have the population base as general aviation, but then respectively limit our scope. Forgive me for not knowing, but has the AMA ever come in with full guns (and congress) to keep an r/c airfield open; like Megis?

My honest opinion, is we just don't see anything tangible for a $58 a year AMA membership. Again, the insurance benefit is a secondary policy, not my primary. I don't like having to write my car insurance and homeowners checks out, but they are my primary policy. I don't carry a second homeowners policy or car insurance, just in case my primary doesn't cover it.

As for the magazine, make it self-sufficient. If it's coming from the HQs of r/c aviation, why shouldn't/couldn't it compete against RCM or MAN? Advertising from our favorite sources would obviously be there.

I would rather see the local clubs be responsible for the property and liability insurance and see AMA be concerned with national issues such as ensuring security of our frequencies and promoting/supporting (not forcing) the hobby on a national level.

Again, I'll still pay AMA because I'm required. But, comeon let's not hide behind the secondary insurance policy. Besides, when the AMA had good years on their investments, did the dues go down?