AWSA needs 8,000 members by 12/31/17 or we loose seats on USAWS!

[gt2003]

Access to tourneys is an issue for me. I'm a horrible skier, yet to run 15 off. However, if I had access to a local course (Which I FINALLY will this year) AND there were tournaments within an hour or hour and a half from the house, I'd attend and possibly even compete (ok, pay to ski,,,). However, without the need for insurance or anything like that, I likely won't join. There just isn't a "hook". I get my fix here. Even when I shot skeet, there were a few events in Tulsa each year as well as surrounding areas so I joined OSSA and NSSA. I'm afraid I won't find tourneys in Oklahoma without driving 3 hours. So, it's likely I'll hang out at the lake, ski, drink a few beers and call it a day. Unfortunately, without a local competition scene, I have little interest in joining. Time will tell. I'd rather save my money and make an effort to attend a BOS tourney even if I have to drive 8 hours each way. It just sounds like more fun, especially since I'll be in the lower ability level for a while!

[escmanaze]

Access, Access, Access. I hate to say it, but in order for our sport to grow, we need commercialization. (Is it worth it? I don't know.) Look to what the OWC has done for wakeboarding and that is what would need to happen with skiing.

 

How many people would snowski if you had to buy the mountain cabin right on the hill first. Not many. Yet, that is what we have in waterskiing. At any given time here in Utah there are probably 10-20 courses set up and almost all of them are on private lakes. What percentage of the time is there somebody actually going up and down those private lakes? 20%?

 

Now imagine a small lake with a private course on it that is owned by a company set on making money off the investment. Much like OWC sells 2 hour sessions at like $80 bucks a pop or something like that, this company would sell 20 minute sets at about $40 per pop, most guys would buy two of those for the day and buy a lunch and have a break in between on a Saturday. Now we have a private lake with 80% utilization instead of 20% utilization. Furthermore, if you already know how to ski, but you want to try out a course for the first time (lots of people like that) you are only out $40 to go and see if you like skiing the course. The access to being able to try out a course has now had most of the difficult barriers to entry removed, and we suddenly have 3 times as many people addicted to the course. Once they are addicted to the course, the transition to being addicted to tournaments comes naturally for many of them.

 

I'm not sure if the economics of such a thing work out, but I do know that there are tons of Wallys out there putting up rooster tails behind their Dad's I/O who think they are really good skiers and wouldn't mind hitting up such a place for a saturday or an evening to test their luck against the balls.

[gt2003]

Agree with @escmanaze , but how would that look? How would people know it existed. My wife keeps telling me (after going to Hackett Arkansas and Rosharon Texas to ski) that I need to find some ski lakes CLOSER to big towns. Obviously she isn't extremely serious but maybe she is on to something. If there is a small, secluded lake, how will it be marketed and does the market exist? I'll be skiing in Bixby, Ok this summer, right off a main road, not too far from town. I'm interested to see if anyone stops and wants to ski versus stopping just to see what the heck is going on. What would be the price for a parcel of land (ski lake size) fairly close to town and what would be a feasible price for a set, especially after digging a lake assuming it doesn't already exist? Interesting discussion.

[kindoitall]

A large part of the commentary throughout this thread has been about collegiate skiers and retention of those members. I'm not sure the exact number of collegiate teams, but there are a lot with what I would guess is an average of 20 eligible USAWS members per, at Purdue we have ~50+ members but only 15-20 have posted a score in a tournament. The other members just want to ski for fun or wakeboard, but we make them buy a membership for insurance purposes. Of the 15-20 people that have skied in a collegiate tournament only 4 skied in a tournament outside of the collegiate season.

 

I think that there should be some type of reward granted to the collegiate team that can has the most skiers who ski in summer tournaments (introducing them to new levels of the sport) and a second reward for USAWS membership retention post-graduation. Right now, I know, in the Midwest at least, there are financial rewards given to the team that has the most members that earn officials ratings.

 

This would be a similar system where the reward would go directly to the team. This is a great fundraiser that helps keep people in the sport. I think that even if someone isn't skiing in tournaments, knowing that they are helping their former team may be incentive enough for them to sign up for their membership. IDK, I'm not them.

 

I think the first incentive concept would be more effective because it is introducing the collegiate skiers to local skiers and the summer tournament scene.

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej I have looked at the membership numbers as of last year. USAWS and ShowSki are still MUCH larger than the other divisions. I do not see how our votes could go down so far.

[lpskier]

Do any other countries have more successful federations, and if so, what do they do that we don't do?

[JeffSurdej]

@Horton votes wont go down but the # of people in the room voicing opinion would drop and then all voting power would go to 2 people instead of 5. I like the goal of 8,000, it's a nice challenge.

[bigtex2011]

@escmanaze I would disagree on access. AWSA is targeting a number of new members. Why have the old members left. Access has been a problem for skiing since Hortons dad built the first ski lake in the sticks. (or one of them). AWSA used to have a ton of members. Did the ones that left become disenchanted with the organization or money or death or did they get sick of the politics and 9 million rules and regs. Why have so many people walked away.

 

How about getting the member list from 5 years ago and call the folks and ask them why they left. Maybe offer them a nugget to come back.

 

I know I'm not offering any new cutting edge ideas to get new members, but I think just getting new members doesn't solve the fact that we can't keep members.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dirt]

Was there a dramatic decline in members when the head of household additional members discount went away? If I remember correctly the head of household was an amount (say $80) and additional family members were less (say $50).

 

The reason I ask is many people will not pay $80 for a spouse or child who will only ski one or two tournaments a year. If it was $80 (unlimited tournaments) and then $20 for two tournaments or less we might get more membership.

[Jody_Seal]

@Dirt

Great question. I just renewed 10 min ago paid my $80 and Head of household, I do ski a few tournaments a year including regionals yet I will have to pony up another $80 for my wife (senior 3 event scorer) who skied maybe 3 tournaments in the last 15 years just so she can volunteer to score and officiate. Then (wait) I go ahead and pay both my son and my daughter who yes they are adult's over 25 another $160 for them to ski in the 2017 ski year. We all train together we are still a family but as a family group we pay $320 to AWSA / USAWS each year. They send 4 magazines and 4 regional guides to the same address each year...

Hey Fearless Leader! want to get more family's involved? or help up the membership? Offer a membership discount for extended family's such as our situation.

[Dirt]

My wife did not renew last year. Getting two guides and two magazines is pretty wasteful. I understand that advertisers like to hear big distribution numbers but it is not effective when they are to the same address.

I guess the question is whether we want members or money?

[klindy]

@Dirt @Jody_Seal The issue of multiple Regional Guides ($5 cost per copy) and Magazines ($8 cost per copy) has been raised MANY times and has been promised to be changed MANY times in the past. Seemingly simple things like this get brought up again and again, get discussed to death and never get changed.

 

[Jody_Seal]

@klindy Yep like pet projects take more precedent you know producing a Phone app for waterskiing!!

[klindy]

@Jody_Seal that app was written by a volunteer on his own time. Dont blame priorities on a volunteer.

[JeffSurdej]

@bigtex2011 we surveyed members that left in the last 5 years. Results here.

There are a million reasons outside of rules and regulations that have caused the membership to decline. Every single national governing body in the nation is hurting. There are dozens of other activites for people to do now a days, the economy has still not recovered. Lives are busier. People are not joiners anymore, we are in a new society. Snow ski racing is down 80%, golf courses are closing left and right. There used to be 30 million waterskiers now there are 9 million. the # 1 reason waterski has declined is the wakeboard, and now wake surfing. In the 80's everyone on the water had no choice but to try skiing, now there are dozens of water sports that are easier and more fun, and the masses have gone that way. We are in an uphill if not impossible battle to climb but I have faith b/c the fact is there are still 9 million waterskiers out there. If we can find a way to get to 1/2 of 1% and get them a reason to join us, we will have 50k members and everything else will follow.

[oldjeep]

Snow ski racing is down 80% ? Wouldn't know it by the local bar leagues, what is the source of that number? USSA?

[Wish]

How does one find stats that say there are 9mil skiers now or even 30mil back then? Back then it would mean 10% of the US population was skiing...thats a LOT.

[Orlando76]

Reading the link @JeffSurdej posted, this is what I read: Tournament, tournament, tournament, tournament, tournament, you get the idea. So evidently the majority wants more tournaments, closer tournaments, more affordable tournaments. I gathered the vast majority of the members are tournament skiers. Not all skiers are tournament skiers. Bring us non tournament skiers in.

 

Something I've noticed at 34 years old and a college graduate: What you do and who you are social with in college typically set the pace for life. Let's see if I can explain my observations....most of My friends and hobbies prior to college stayed there. But friends and hobbies that survived stresses of college and relocation etc typically are Still here. You have to get new skiers hooked way before college. Offering a free membership after college although nice is probably ineffective and a little too late to hook a lifer. Do more youth and family based events. As a skier with a 1.5 year old son and mom who's interest in boating is fading fast, I'm about to walk away from the sport because I'm missing out with family time.

[teammalibu]

@JeffSurdej Hook them doesnt sound good! The cost of the membership has no influence on whether I stay or drop out of AWSA!

[Jody_Seal]

"AWSA needs 8,000 members by 12/31/17 or we loose seats on USAWS!"

Have not seen any info or bulletin's on any of the official web sites nor any social media other then BOS on this important issue.

Come on AWSA if we want to get an influx of members then info needs to be produced and distributed. or is this something that is going out 10 day's before the regional meetings??

[jayski]

Problem solved...this guy had the answer to Q7 "If you answered yes (to possibly coming back to comp skiing), what would it take to bring you back? "

 

"dancing girls on the dock would be handy"

12/27/2015 11:35 PM

 

[dchristman]

Maybe we can still use these old Water Skier inserts ;) :

 

@Jody_Seal is your family having more than 20x the fun than they did in 1982?

 

[RazorRoss3]

So can I clarify, the problem we are trying to avoid is not a loss of voting power but a loss of diversity in those controlling our voting power? Or to say we believe it is better for our sport if their are more heads involved in the decision making and voting authority of our sport? Why are we losing 3 seats then if the voting power stays the same? That seems a little pointless to me unless these meetings happen in very small rooms and they don't have enough chairs.

[JeffSurdej]

@Jody_Seal Jody Jody Jody.........don't be ridiculous, it will be out at least 11-12 days before the regional meetings!!

[JeffSurdej]

@RazorRoss3 is it the end of the world for AWSA...no? we will still have majority voting power, but yes less diveristy, less voice, its not a great change. But regardless of the seating issues that could happen on 12/31/17 I'm pumped for the goal of 8,000, this needs to happen for dozens of reasons outside of seats at usaws, the bleeding has to stop, we can not go another year with of membership drop so the 8,000 # needed to retain our 5 seats is a perfect goal, if it was 10,000 it would be out of reach in 1 year, but I think we can gain 1200 members in one year with the right approach and changes.

[klindy]

@JeffSurdej So NSSA and NCWSA also are losing 2-3 seats? Has there been a proposal to change the USAWS bylaws which calculate the seats/votes? The only way we can lose 3/5's of our seats and maintain the same voting power is if the same reductions are taking place in the other sport divisions? Or perhaps USAWS is eliminating kneeboard, speed skiing, disabled, hydrofoil, etc.?

 

I agree gaining 8000 members is good on it's own but I feel like we're getting a fraction of the story which is the basis of the headline of this thread.

[JeffSurdej]

@klindy the seats are based on total membership, all other SD's only have 1 now to begin with, except Show ski that has 2, we got 5 back in 2007 or whenever based on having 15,000 members, the next tier down is 8,000 which goes from 5 seats to 2. Every SD is guaranteed one. NCWSa and NSSA have not lost membership in 10 years but they dont stand to gain seats either b/c they have not hit the next tier up which is 8,000.

 

here is an exceprt from bylaws, so the main part of this is us lossing 50% of membership, we can maintain our 5 seats even though we are not in the 5 seat tier if we dont loose 50% of membership from 1997 to 2017.

 

3.2.4 The following table, based upon the adjusted membership totals (see 3.1.5) is used to

determine Sport Discipline Board seats:

From To Director Seats

0001 4000 1 Director

4001 8000 2 Directors

8001 12000 3 Directors

12001 16000 4 Directors

16001 Plus 5 Directors (maximum)

3.2.5 Sport Disciplines will retain their inaugural number of seats so long as they maintain 50% of their

inaugural December 31, 1997 membership. The inaugural membership level shall be reviewed

every ten years for possible adjustment. Sport Discipline inaugural membership and inaugural

Director seats allocated are detailed in the following table:

 

 

not sure if jeff clark is baller but feel free to chime in if I'm incorrect

[klindy]

@JeffSurdej @Jody_Seal has touched on a very important point. The AWSA board only meets twice a year. Both meetings produce an agenda literally a week or two before the meeting and have, at best, half the committee reports included. We often wonder why it takes so long for anything to be implemented or for real change to occur and it seems this is a clear reason why.

 

With the technology available today, frankly, the communication from AWSA is horrible. Whether it's normal committee activity or things like the Special Interest Group that was active recently, there are a lot of ideas and initiative which literally die waiting to be approved or implemented. Example, we have had a working prototype of the League/Team skiing app and process for nearly two years now and it's still in the "good idea" stage.

 

The issue is that the communication and documentation that exists is prepared to "keep the board informed" and not the general membership. Ideas that have been recommended by membership tend to be lost in the shuffle. Actions and potential decisions that affect membership are hard to find to even review or comment. Good ideas that do get implemented typically go into effect "after nationals" which can mean it takes sometimes years from inception to implementation.

 

We can't keep saying to people to 'get involved' when the process moves so slow. I recommend that the whole governance structure be reviewed with an eye on dramatically improving communication and causing change to occur much, much quicker. The committee structure should also be thought thru. Why do some of the committees exist, is the function needed? Can their function be combined with other committees?

 

[RazorRoss3]

Thank @JeffSurdej, that answers my question, I agree that 8000 is a good goal and putting a number on the table is certainly better than our past of vaguely saying "we need more members". Some level of awareness could likely be raised at the ski shop level as has been suggested above to help distribute membership to its customers but I think their will have to be some better hooks to make the sell there, either discounts on the gear or some enticement that is not the ability to compete at the events.

[Jody_Seal]

@JeffSurdej check out the FB florida waterski federation page!

[Wish]

So of the two, USAWS and AWSA, which is charged with increasing membership?. My payment goes to USAWS and the benafits come from them. Is it the role of the AWSA to increase membership for USAWS?

[JeffSurdej]

@klindy @Jody_Seal The time table points regarding the board packet has definitely caught my eye and I'm going to try and change that time table and make items more public. This will require summer reports due in just 4 months from now for stuff we will vote on in August and it would make winter reports due in november. This does cut down on time that is already so short but I think its for the best especially as more major change takes place. @klindy The main issue here, and I hate to make excuses, is that AWSA is all volunteers, we are trying to run a business, but all of us have jobs. I would love nothing more than to spend 12 hours today on waterski stuff but I will be working until 10pm, then instead of spending time with my wife I'll get 2 hours of ski stuff down before I go to bed and work another 12 hours tmrw. This goes for all committee staff. it's sucks, i hate it, I feel like we could do so much more but the truth is stuff does take a long time to get implemented. I already feel like Steve jobs how much I have pushed my committees. There is so much more I wanted to have ready for this past winter meeting but there is only so much that can get done in a volunteer day. And waterski crap comes up that take you away from progress all the time. Maybe I'm too busy to be president, maybe this needs to be a full time paid job, IDK, HQ has the staff and the money, but AWSA has to change, I'm not giving up, I'm dedicated to doing whatever it takes to make it happen but we are relying on volunteers. The feedback has been great on here, it really has, I look at 75% of the suggestions and they are changes needed at HQ and USAws not AWSA, AWSA can control divisions, rankings, and making tourneys fun but not membership fees and structures, not the membership benefit packages, I mean, yes we can push for them and help get them changed but this is what HQ needs to be working on.

[JeffSurdej]

@Jody_Seal nice jody and yes I want to get more publicity out on this, just still wrapping up stuff from the meetings, but this spring the full effort on this 8,000 goal will be unleashed including personal letters to all x-members, but damn i wish we had some better membership offers in place before we market ourselves. Come on ski companies.....10% off skis for any awsa members....ski schools 10% off ski lessons, right now the only waterski related benefit is 15% off masterline and I bet not many know about this. it's onyl one time but thats a huge discount.

[JeffSurdej]

@Wish ahhhhh ha, you worded that perfectly, that was asked years ago and the notion was that it is the sport divisions job to increase membership.

[klindy]

@JeffSurdej I call 110% BS on your last comment! And while I agree that it's an all volunteer sport (and I have volunteered a LOT as have others), USAWS does have staff. If USAWS has 3 people whose focus is on membership, 2 on communications, 1 on marketing and two others dedicated to "competition activities" then what do they do if they're not responsible to 'increase membership'?????

 

Granted AWSA needs to make the sport division attractive by having fun tournaments, by establishing rules and processes which are inclusive and attract members, but it should not be AWSA's job to recruit members.

 

Look at it this way, it shouldn't be AWSA's job to partner with boat manufacturers or other industry associations to share mailing lists or provide membership packages at boat shows etc. Member acquisition should be the direct focus (maybe currently the sole focus) of USAWS. Member retention and the things which keep them around after the first year can fall on AWSA. To do that AWSA needs to demonstrate value week after week to the members by organizing safe, fair and fun competition for 3-event skiers.

 

It should be AWSA's job (and all the sport divisions job) to hold USAWS accountable for what they should be doing.

 

My $0.02

[JeffSurdej]

@klindy agreed, my comment you are referring to was not my words.

[MattP]

@klindy Now I love the idea of AWSA partnering with the manufactures and associations.

 

I bet if we put the database of the major 4 boat companies plus SeaRay, Boston Whaler etc, (because those guys ski too), WSM, the ski companies & pro shops together and sent each of those people an invitation to join USAWS/AWSA we would have our needed members very quickly. BUT we would need a reason for a non- tournament skier to join. So this gets back to what can we offer to entice the wally/weekend warrior to join the mix.

The trick is getting this information. Companies do not like to share...

[MattP]

Here in an info graphic/card of USAWS Member Benefits is this currently enticing to a non competing skier? What would they be getting?

 

I think @The_Krista put this together during her time at the Org.

[gregy]

Its economy to some extent for sure but there is something else going on. I went out to eat wings the other day. There's 3 people in front of me in line. All are at least 100lbs over weight. I look at the women working at the register and she's a good 100lbs overweight. I turn around and look at the patrons and there is not a single skinny person besides me. Few days later I'm getting some breakfast tacos and as I walk in a waiter is carrying out a tray full of tacos wrapped in foil. I'm looking for a party, I set there and watched 2 very large guys put down about 50 tacos in a about the time it took me to eat 2, wtf. You make waterskiing a video game with guns, blowing up stuff and boobs it might make it. If it takes leaving the couch most Americans are already out.

 

Then there's deck boats and fishing boat which is pretty much taking the couch with you?

 

Ok that's my rant for the day. At least the first one anyway.

 

So you have the shrinking population who can afford stuff like skiing, split that by half to get rid of the couch potatoes. Then what's left is spread out among a larger selection of activities than ever. We got to look at this as a competition against other sports and activities. We're fighting for members. How can we draw people over to our team, our sport. Only way I see it happening is if we can offer easy, cheap access to skiing. Reach out to other sports organizations and offer ski days. We're not going to draw in the couch potatoes. Reach out to something like a cycling club and offer teaching them skiing. I think back to the 80s there was probably 6 courses in the local lake, zero now.

 

By setting back waiting for members to appear, it not going to happen. You're competing against large sports organizations with active marketing campaigns. One thing I would suggest is look at other sport organizations that are succeeding and see what they are doing. My guess is they are not passive about membership. Maybe even go to university business schools and let them use us for marketing projects or capstone projects.

[MattP]

@Rpc29 what sport are you always preaching to me has things figured out? Lets here what you think about comparing ourselves to another "sport" that is constantly growing daily.

[BRY]

@JeffSurdej Thanks for the post detailing exactly why we need 8K members, how that affects seats and why we should care.

 

This thread and others lately have me rethinking my position on AWSA/USAWS. Seems USAWS demands ultimate control (nats, ect), takes the majority of our money yet pushes all the work and expenses off to AWSA (with its unpaid, underappreciated volunteers). So what does USAWS really do for AWSA? What AWSA does and cedes to USAWS is measurable ($) and specific (control of our nat's with closed contracts, ect). Is anything USAWS does for AWSA measurable and specific? And if so, is that worth what AWSA gives to USAWS?

 

Was never a proponent of AWSA breaking from USAWS but for me that view is changing. Perhaps AWSA would be better served by separating from USAWS. Seems AWSA could afford a couple full time people. We are paying what, 40% of 6 or so people? Seems a couple paid dedicated AWSA people plus the hardworking volunteers would be much more beneficial to AWSA than paying USAWS for employees who only slough everything AWSA off on our unpaid volunteers.

[skiinxs]

@JeffSurdej I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned all of the other, much easier, activities that are now done behind the boat. Another aspect of that is that the huge wakes put out by the wakeboard boats and even bigger wakes by the surf boats added to the lakes already messed up by the tubers and jet skiers have driven most serious skiers off the public lakes. We have managed to get our own private sites where we are in control of our destiny. Unfortunately that has resulted in a tremendous loss of exposure to the sport. Many younger potential skiers have never seen anyone actually waterski, let alone see a good slalom pass on a course or a good jump. The only way I know to fix that is to strive for more tournaments in high visibility areas, as in the Malibu Open or Moomba Masters.

[Kelvin]

Ok, so lets say we get a new boat buyer to join USAWaterski. How do we get them to check the AWSA box. If they are the typical buyer planning to use the boat on a public lake, wouldn't they be inclined to check the wakeboarding or some other box instead of AWSA? Am I missing something here?

[klindy]

@Kelvin why check any box? The "first year free" type of a membership is the equivalent of a supporting member without affiliation to any sport division. They likely have no need for supplemental insurance or even a regional guide. What we gain is 1) a new general/recreational member; 2) contact information to forward additional relevant information on activities and opportunities in their area (electronic with minimal hard copies); 3) more names to add to the shrinking membership to help attract additional and other advertisers, etc.; 4) additional potential to help sell promo boats, skis, etc.; and, probably most importantly, 5) an opportunity as a sport division to attract and introduce them to "life on the water" and retain them as a member moving forward.

 

How we get them to check the AWSA box is by providing them value for a membership most never knew existed. And we'd have a year to do it.

[klindy]

@BRY What could make sense instead of "AWSA breaking away from USAWS" is separating from the sport divisions which don't typically have the same "events" as AWSA (show, barefoot, speed skiing, hydrofoil, kneeboard, wakeboard, etc.). Then combining USAWS with AWSA into a single organization again and focus the organization on AWSA traditional 3 event, collegiate and disabled - all of which use basically the same competition rules (courses are similar or identical etc.).

[Rpc29]

@MattP the sport I always talk about that has the explosive growth model figured out is Crossfit. For a couple of reasons:

1. It's cheap ish. $150 a month, we can't compete there but if you think about it, when I was skiing at @OB1 's lake in Atlanta for $1800 for a 8 month season that isn't that far off.

2. Family aspect. People at Crossfit gyms are like family and it's very inviting. Waterskiing is very hit or miss with this, certain lakes welcome guests with open arms while other are very protective of their site. This needs to change. People don't skip their Crossfit workouts/competitions because it's hanging out with their friends and competitions together. NCWSA has this figured out, AWSA does not.

3. Video production. Everyone needs to go take a look at the Crossfit YouTube page. Tutorials, athlete profiles/stories, competition recaps (we can't even get scores posted most of the time) We have some really awesome and interesting people in this sport, it's time to get them on camera and using them to drive more membership.

[RazorRoss3]

I think you forgot accessible as well. It's pretty easy to find a crossfit gym and even if you're picky and are trying to find the best in your area it won't be to far out of the way. tag that in with the equipment cost being a pair of shoes, shorts, and a shirt which come in cheaper than a new ski rope.

[Rpc29]

@RazorRoss3 my bad, I put cheap and forgot accessible. But you are right. It's part of the issue.

[ALPJr]

@MattP to your idea of having manufacturers and shops participate and contribute something to have more incentives for joining... I think most of my equipment purchases in the 70's, 80's and 90's offered a discount for AWSA and or ski club membership. Haven't seen that in the past 10 to 15 years. I think it has merit and it makes sense to pull in Boston Whaler, Glastron, etc. ski equipment and boat manufactures, and shops like @perfski, Overtons, Wiley's, Bart's etc... Imo a cool waterski tee shirt with a big spray image on the front and sponsors names on the back would be helpful...

@JeffSurdej the reason I did not renew after 30+ years as a member was because most tourneys although good for skiers were not fun for my wife and kids who enjoyed wake disciplines. Had there been combined slalom and wake events at the local level I'm pretty sure we'd have kept our family (6) membership active for the last 10 years.

[JeffSurdej]

@ALPJr Does your family still ski or wake for fun? if so what can usaws offer your family that would entice you to join for $35?