In another thread, additional requirements upon members sparked some discussion about governing body bureaucracy. I know AWSA splitting off has been discussed in the past. It typically fizzles out with some form of "we have become dependent upon their funding and it would be too hard to do it ourselves" conclusion. Rather than debate that statement, I have a different question in my head. It comes from the perspective of "how many skiers really need/want anything more than the original scope of 'independent' AWSA?" So, rather than debate personal preference in a flood of comments, let's get a poll pulse of the volume of skiers who fall into these categories below.
Assumption: Pro, Elite, and Record tournaments can still conform to IWWF/World Ranking criteria, but would have to sanction them separately somehow with IWWF (not sure how this would work??)
Poll Question: If AWSA actually did split away from IWWF/USAWS (some form of liability still provided by AWSA to only AWSA members), which best describes your participation in that scenario:
-- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
BUREAUCRACY POLL: AWSA Splits from USAWS/IWWF 34 votes
I skied/officiated both AWSA and IWWF tournaments and would drop AWSA & only ski/officiate IWWF events.
I skied/officiated both AWSA and IWWF and would continue to ski/officiate both, even if that meant two separate memberships.
I skied/officiated both AWSA and IWWF but would drop IWWF and only ski/officiated AWSA events.
I only skied/officiated GR/F, C, and/or E tournaments and would continue to only ski/officiate AWSA tournaments.
I don't ski/officiate tournaments but am a member of AWSA/USAWS due to insurance. I would stay in AWSA.
I am not a current member of ASWA/USAWS/IWWF, but would join solely AWSA.
I am not a current member of ASWA/USAWS/IWWF and would still not join.