Any way with all that said my beef is that the AMA has become a "self aware entity" and therefore practices "self preservation tactics" and excluding other viable insurance is one of those tactics. Since the AMA does indeed provide coverage at a separate charge for the club and land owner they could open their doors to other insurers for club members that meet their minimums but instead they practice exclusionary tactics instead.
That's the thing. It's not exclusionary. There's nothing stopping non-AMA members from working out an agreement with the landowner under which they would provide their own insurance.
It would be really nice if they also worked out an agreement with the club that does all the work to maintain the site. I mean, would you like it if you spent tons of time and money to develop a facility on loaned/leased land for your personal use, only to have the landowner go over your head and tell other people that they can use the facility YOU worked so hard to develop?
"Preservation tactics." Give me a break...