"Craig Freeman" wrote in message
om...
In the result's from the SSA club poll fourty seven percent of
responding club's said they did not want large numbers of new
members. Maybe the word "large" caused clubs who would want some
new members to answer in the negative. Maybe this indicates that
there is no more room in half of the responding clubs because
soaring really is popular and there are enough participants to keep
these clubs equipment utilized to the maximum. In this case there
should be enough demand for new clubs to form. But perhaps it's
true that at half of the soaring clubs in America they just don't
want any more members. If so, that is very sad and probably at the
root of the decline in soaring participants. I am wondering how
others interpret these poll results?

Craig-

I think that's a pretty good analysis, Craig.

About half of all clubs seem to suffer an endless internal political
struggle about who's in charge. Each faction fears that new members would
support their adversary. Therefore they oppose new members if they can't be
sure the new member will support their faction.

Sometimes it's overt opposition to growth stated in club policy but more
often it's covert taking the form of general nastiness toward prospective
new soaring pilots. The most severe nastiness will come from the
'no-growth' faction. The 'no-growth' factions do damage to the club and to
the overall soaring movement that is far beyond what would be expected from
their small numbers. I'd like to see clubs take decisive action to contain
or eliminate their 'no-growth' factions. Soaring as a whole would greatly
benefit.

The problem with starting new clubs is that they need a critical mass of
members to support operations. If the prospective new club proposes to
utilize a club owned tug for air tow, the critical mass is large. If winch
launch is used, as in the case of your club, the critical mass is much lower
and the growth rate will be much faster. Winch launch operations tend to
generate a 'team spirit' that works against factionalism.

Bill Daniels