No matter what you think, it's not as simple as, "I just want to fly." You can get insurance to fly from your local insurance agent. The hobby needs public exposure if it is to continue. Contests and fly-ins provide that public exposure. How long do you think the hobby will last if all we did was fly by ourselves? Most flying sites are off the beaten path because of the nusaince factor, not very accessible for spectators. Where else is the hobby getting public exposure, except in a negative light? Most commercials depicting R/C models depict them being operated in an unsafe manner, and are always advertising something else (e.g. Air Force recruitment, or sport-utility vehicles). You need public sentiment to be in your favor, or finding a place to fly will get awful difficult.

Without places to fly and new people taking up the hobby/sport to drive the industry, it will dry up. Sure, you have a flying site now, but nothing lasts forever. What do you do down the road when your lease runs out or development encroaches on your site to the point where it's no longer possible or safe to fly there? Sure, you have equipment now, and couldn't care less if the entire industry folded up and disappeared, but what about down the road when all your gear is broken down and worn out? Face it, contests are great advertising, and they do directly benefit YOU the average modeler.

Look, the magazine amounts to a whopping $7 of your annual dues. Most of the magazine is paid for by advertising.

To qualify as a not-for-profit organization, the AMA must publish a periodical newsletter. The magazine is that newsletter. Additional content is provided as a benefit to the members, and is primarily funded by the aforementioned advertising. No magazine, no AMA. It's that simple. It can't be optional, period.

If you think making the magazine optional would make things cheaper, think again. First, there's the added administration cost of keeping track of who does and does not want the magazine. Second, there's the new cost of publising a special newsletter for those that opt-out of the magazine. Third, there's the loss of ad revenue caused by the reduced readership of the magazine; you can charge more for an ad that reaches 136,000 than one that only reaches 16,000. In my club, running a bi-monthly newsletter that averages 3 double-sided printed pages costs way more than $7 per member per year.

Don't think the AMA hasn't considered your position. They are not FORCING you to receive the magazine; it's the most cost-effective way to fulfill their newsletter requirement while also providing content that could be useful and beneficial to the membership.

If most of you magazine naysayers had BOTHERED to ever read the magazine, you would realize it's not that bad, and you'd realize that in the coming year, they are changing the format of the magazine to better suit the majority of the membership. Many of the specialty columns will be reduced to bi-monthly, and more R/C content will be added.