A different NTA question

Submitted by PaulB on 1/13/01. ( taxidermst@att.net ) 12.87.108.111

As I understand it, this latest NTA thing will require that all state association members are also NTA members or else(you don't get this or that).
My question is, do they require that all NTA members are also to be members of their own state associations?

Paul

Return to Category Menu


Was thinking the same thing

This response submitted by Mark C on 1/13/01. ( srceight@novagate.com ) 205.138.136.161

I know of at least one NTA board member in our state who does not belong to our association. Probably because we don't support the mandatory membership, and that's fair. But actually, we do support the NTA. Our president told me that he thinks everyone should be a member, he just don't think it should be mandatory.

Our state organization, like most of the others and the NTA, is always trying to increase their membership. So if they want all the state organizations to come on board, why shouldn't they take the first step by asking their members to all be a member of their state association first. If they made this a mandate for their members, or if they could possibly offer a discounted membership fee if you also belonged to your state organization, I think allot of states would take a closer look at this. It would be a win win cituation for everybody and the NTA could then take on a role of being the Big Brother so to say, and tackle more of the major national political issues with their money, rather than having to put less effective efforts towards issues which the state organizations could address. At the same time, everybody would be increasing their memberships, thus allot more would be getting done and more folks would benefit.

Right now I am not a member of the NTA, as I am still fairly new to all of this, but I do plan to join soon. Only because I want to though. I may be way off base with all of this, but I do feel that the NTA should first place demands on their own members before placing them on other organizations.


NTA

This response submitted by George on 1/13/01. ( georoof@aol.com ) 152.163.188.4

I'm going to botch this up probably, so maybe someone more in the know will straighten it all out.
What the NTA has done is enforce its original charter. For years a state could be "affiliated" by paying the price of an extra membership. Well, this didn't set well with most states and they objected. The affiliation fee was dropped. Now, in order to be AFFILIATED, 100% of state members must be NTA members. If any state desires full integration with the NTA (that means you can use the NTA lawyers in legal matters) they can become the *** Chapter of the NTA. Few states want that, and it is expected that few will convert to that.

Conversely, ALL NTA members are not required to be state members. Thsi is not an "if I don't, I'll take my ball and go elsewhere" stand. It recognizes that many members of the NTA are not practicing taxidermists. Aside from the wannabes, there are a few who were able to retire before they died, and many commercial and supply companies who pay large fees for the advertising endorsement.

Many of the states have created their own consortiums with hundreds of members and thousands of dollars in their coffers. Most notably, these are the same states who are complaining the loudest. They seem to want it all, and from an organizational and business viewpoint, the NTA has said "if you want to dance, you have to pay the fiddler".

I know this is going to start the chest thumping all over, but that's life and life ain't always "fair". On average it works out fair, but individually it never does it seems. If you state membership is so large and your treasury so sufficient, I personally fail to see how any of this comes into play. You can certainly retain your autonomy and independence. You can afford to. And if the benefits you got from the NTA were so minimal, you'll have lost nothing in ignoring the 100% mandate. Conversely, those state members who would like to enjoy all the perks and benefits afforded NTA members now and in the future can keep their NTA memberships with no loss. IF NTA certification is a driving motive, they only need to compete in states that do have 100% or at the NTA regionals and national to become certified.

No where is anything being FORCED on anybody (sorry Bill, Bob. You ain't gonna sway interpretation of the English language). Everyone has a conscious CHOICE. If the state membership as a whole can't make that decision, then that WAS your choice.

For those of you who are new to the business or haven't decided yet, this is truly an exciting time for the NTA. New programs, benefits, insurance policies, shipping fees, and a multitude of other perks are afforded members. Your $50 dues are tax deductable for businesses and the Life memberships work out much cheaper if you intend to stay as long as some of us have. State memberships are never discouraged by the NTA (the opposite is true), but until the states align under a single national umbrella, it is unrealistic to expect the NTA to require the residents of that state who are NTA members to join an organization that is not affiliated with them for the same cause.


So George

This response submitted by BobB on 1/13/01. ( foxranch@hotmail.com ) 216.165.140.69

If my state decides to say goodbye to the NTA, then your response to those
loyal NTA members within my state, who have decided that the NTA is for
them and they strongly support it, is to say.....

Pack up your family, close down your business, and move to a state with
a 100% NTA membership. Is that what I read you want them to do.

No wonder the NTA is such a tight little group. How dare any group tell it's
members to move to another state, so that you can compete and keep those
NTA points.

That doesn't cut it George. Many of us have wives/husbands, children, family,
businesses and friendships that would be heavily punished, by a decision to
move to your state to become the 15th member of a 100% state.

Your suggestion to do so, is right up there with the NTA's refusal to answer
any of the questions directed towards them here, these past couple of weeks.

If they monitor these posts so closely that they sent Yox copies of a post he asked
for, why do they ignore questions asked of them. Why hide the answers. The last
thing I saw from them, was a reply by pres Mike K, where he asked me to stop
these posts and join the NTA.

I told him, I would join, if he drops the 100% mandate. But now nothing, no reply
just silence. I'm willing to part with my money to support the NTA, if they are
willing to help my state association, but dropping their mandate.

So I guess I'm also willing to spend $50, to help my friends, who otherwise need
to close their shops, yake their kids out of their schools, tell their wife to quit
her job and rent the U-haul for that move to your state, to keep getting those
damn precious comp pts.

If according to the NTA 4% of us belong to their group. Then for my state with a
membership of over 300. We only need to strong arm 275 or so, into joining so
that we can be 100% and no one has to move or at the very least compete out of
state. Tell me how George, I'll start with our next newletter and continue at our
upcoming show. Just tell me how George, you seem to have the answers.

Not that simple, is it?


AMEN

This response submitted by Terry on 1/13/01. ( Trophyroom@msn.com ) 63.27.86.109

George ,, thank you for a lucid, and consise explaination of the alleged "forced" joining of the NTA.


Bob

This response submitted by George on 1/13/01. ( ) 205.188.208.104

I understand completely why the "NTA" doesn't respond to you. You've lost total objectivity and your frothing can't be soothed with logical explanations. Who in their right mind would close a productive business and move to another state simply because their home state was not affilitated. That's as looney as saying that only resident's of the state where the national or regionals is held ever go to those shows. And your response is exactly what I said. You keep harping on how big your state is and it's membership. You personally keep trying to fan the flames. The whole is better than the sum of its parts when people work together. I'm not sure what the NTA's loss would be with you as a member. You can't bargain with blackmail. Why do you feel that your membership is that important to the NTA? If you have something to offer, I'd be the first to welcome you. If you intend on ranting and inciting, I'd just as soon that you took your ball and went home. There are other balls to be had.


So

This response submitted by TGF on 1/13/01. ( ) 38.32.11.246

George
So what your saying is the states had it made with the yearly "affilate fee" but cried like a baby, so now we go by the original charter by law rules and invoke the 100% membership,correct!
BOB
Your states NTA members only have to start a "affilated chapter " (if they want to) and leave the 275 state members that aren't or don't want to join the NTA your old association. NOBODY IS FORCED INTO JOINING THE NTA !
What part of you make your own choise, decision, don't you understand.
TGF


TGF how do we....

This response submitted by BobB on 1/13/01. ( foxranch@hotmail.com ) 216.165.140.2

So TGF, (we are an affliate, apparently that's not enough however) and we decide
to divorce into 2 groups over this issue. How do we fairly give the minority (the
NTA members) a share of our treasury.

Who gets custody of our library, who gets to keep our show, who in our state
government will listen to this small splinter group, when they want to lobby?

I don't understand how some people think that large successful state organizations
breaking up over this 100% mandate is a good thing.

George, open, honest, public debate is what made this country thrive. I'm sorry
if my opposition do this mandate offends you so greatly. I've said it many times...

I have nothing against the NTA, I am 100% AGAINST against the NTA 100% mandate.

If people choose to make this personal, that's their business and my right to
ignore it. My concern is that the behavior exhibited here will reflect the same
problems that state groups have to encounter, as they tackle this issue.

It also demostrates my concerns over why it will harm the state groups. I know
state taxidermists who belong and that's their right. I also know more who don't
belong and I believe that is their right. Whatever their reason is.

Again according to the NTA, only 4% of the US taxidermists belong to any org.
that certifies its members (insert NTA). To make those other 96% join ANY
group isn't going to happen.

As so many others have suggested the NTA will grow and attract more members
with honey, than by any other means.

Those of you loyal to the NTA, that is fantastic and I commend you, but damn it
don't tell the other 72,000 of us, that we are worthless or inferior to you, by
not joining your boys club.


Keep questioning and discussing

This response submitted by Jeff Lumsden on 1/13/01. ( ) 209.191.186.242

Man, what a bunch of tripe! I wish we could all be so" lucid and concise" as you George. Nothing personal, but I don't think any of us needs your condescension especially the NTA, when you volunteer to make yourself a mouthpiece for them. I have been a supportive member a very long time, and will hopefully continue. Not withstanding the fact that my state most assuredly will not be a 100%. Unless they deny memberships to those who aren't interested in joining the NTA.

Last I knew this was a debate forum, and most of us have legitimate questions about the subject. I for one am interested in hearing all them, as well as legitimate responses that help us sort this out. I am happy for all of you, that don't "see" any problems with the NTA. But to question the NTA here isn't such a duplicitous and sinister thing is it George? Good grief! I think Bob asked a good question in direct response to Mike K. and I am personally waiting for Mike's reply. You seem to be an intelligent guy, how is it not healthy to discuss and talk about "our" organization? Please spare us.

Sincerely,
Jeff


Keep questioning and discussing

This response submitted by Jeff Lumsden on 1/13/01. ( ) 209.191.186.242

Man, what a bunch of tripe! I wish we could all be so" lucid and concise" as you George. Nothing personal, but I don't think any of us needs your condescension especially the NTA, when you volunteer to make yourself a mouthpiece for them. I have been a supportive member a very long time, and will hopefully continue. Not withstanding the fact that my state most assuredly will not be a 100%. Unless they deny memberships to those who aren't interested in joining the NTA.

Last I knew this was a debate forum, and most of us have legitimate questions about the subject. I for one am interested in hearing all them, as well as legitimate responses that help us sort this out. I am happy for all of you, that don't "see" any problems with the NTA. But to question the NTA here isn't such a duplicitous and sinister thing is it George? Good grief! I think Bob asked a good question in direct response to Mike K. and I am personally waiting for Mike's reply. You seem to be an intelligent guy, how is it not healthy to discuss and talk about "our" organization? Please spare us.

Sincerely,
Jeff


Jeff

This response submitted by George on 1/13/01. ( ) 152.163.188.227

I didn't expect to see you here, especially twice, but you seem to be caught up in Bob's rabid attitude as well. Those of you who are NTA member obviously are either incapable of reading or did not attend the nationals where this was all discussed with each states representatives or they have elected to keep information from you. This has digressed beyond "discussion" and has only been used by the "biggest and baddest" as a whipping post. I ask YOU, why should Mike respond? I am certainly NOT the NTA mouthpiece and as I've said thousands of times, I'm a nobody simple one man shop doing commercial grade work. But I pay my dues and I understand both English and common business practices. I never implied the I was "lucid and concise" but the matter stands whether I said it or Mike Kirkhart said it. It's been presented in simple commonly used English and you still can't understand.

Bob seems stuck on being a bean counter (4% versus 96%) and yet all I hear is lunacy about "divorce" and "dividing the treasurey". If I started my own separate chapter, maybe I'd be like the courts and expect an equal percentage of the treasury for members I took with me. But that's the dialog you (and now Jeff) have taken. "Answer my single question" but don't think I won't add other stipulations that a single answer will never address. Personally, I don't expect either of you to remain in the NTA as it, like your state, loses about 33% of it's members each year. Why you bite off your nose to spite your face is an answer you have only yourself to explain to. I like hundreds of others support the decision and back the NTA. All the names you call me or adjectives you add to my name won't change that.


For Those of You who don't believe..

This response submitted by George on 1/13/01. ( ) 152.163.188.227

..what I've said is true, go down to "100% Membership" thread and read it. A question was asked and answered. Now they want to know, "well if 8 states are 100%, how many members do they have". When that question's answered, want to guess what their next one is?


Hope I got this right

This response submitted by Terry V on 1/13/01. ( ) 216.120.182.135

You can be a member of the NTA and your state asoc.. If your state does not become 100% than the state show is


I have a one year old helping with this and he types worse than me. So if all the members in your state don't agree to become NTA members the NTA will take away the perks from the people who are or will join the NTA from that state because of the people who don't want to become a NTA member for what ever reason they have? Now I think if your a member than your a member. My lawyer had a big smile on his face when he was reading some of these posting. If you give people something than take it away and no rules were changed only now will be enforced hang on for the ride. The one year old is winning bye. Oh and if my lawyer wants to read anymore he can do it on his time $8.00 a min.



George, Why is seeking information so wrong?

This response submitted by BobB on 1/13/01. ( foxranch@hotmail.com ) 216.165.140.27

My state will be addressing this NTA decision soon. Our general membership
meeting is fast approaching and this issue will certainly be a hot topic.

Just because I don't want to be forced into joining, doesn't mean that some of
our other 300 members wouldn't mind it.

But to have an honest open discussion among our members, we need information.

Who better to ask, than the NTA. Where better to ask, than right here for all
to see and take in, as the vast majority of states haven't reached the 100% mandate
and will more than likely also have to address this issue in their future.

Additionaly if less than 5% of us belong, we are in the dark, as we don't receive
any NTA mailings. I do receive both Breakthrough and Taxidermy Today and have
since 1995. I pride myself on reading both cover to cover. Yet I must have missed
their coverage of this decision by the NTA to proceed with 100% mandate.

I also admit, that our state newsletter doesn't cover the NTA (nor the IGT) and I
certainly failed to inform my fellow members in the last 2 annuals we published.

I hope that because the majority of us seek answers, we are not being labelled as the
big and the baddest. Yes people here see my name often when they NTA debates come
around. I have nothing to lose by voicing my position here. I hope by doing so, I can
help both my state assocaition and your group at the same time.

About me, not being good for the NTA, do they prefer active members or do they
just want members who will keep quiet and follow along. If it wants to be the nat'l
voice of the industry, it needs to allow its members to be heard.

Why George did we see that vast exit of board members after Billings, did they make
too much noise. Why can't a good member like Mr. Lumdsen voice his concerns without
another NTA member questioning his ultimate loyalty? I've seen so many members
of the NTA say that they support the NTA, yet don't agree with forced membership
that this leads credence to this discussion, no matter how you see it George.


I Don't believe some of you people!

This response submitted by Perry on 1/13/01. ( pgk@ncentral.com ) 206.150.162.90

I started a thread not too long ago that said you should CHECK
THE ARCHIVES.... You will find a pile of NTA reponses to 100%
affiliation. USE THE SEARCH... George old friend, we for once
are at least standing on the line if not on the same side of it..
(Hell's getting chilly I hear too). The Original by laws of the
NTA mandated 100% membership from state affiliates. At the
beginning, that didn't bring many on board. The Board at that
time discussed and decided to change the bylaws to state that
an affiliate must "Strive" to maintain 25% membership. That is
how things are now until 1/1/02 when 100% takes effect. Along
with the change to 25%, came the affiliation fee for those who
were not 100%. George, as for your comments on the association
with a large membership and coffers, Your right, and PA may just
decide to not be 100%. In our case, its not a question of wanting
it all, its a question of what our membership feels is best for
our organization. Yes, we have been very vocal on this issue.
We are looking out for the interests of our members who ARE NTA
members. I won't apologize for that, I think we are right for asking
questions, and forcing the NTA board to ask and answer questions.
In the end, the NTA and the PTA will both be stronger, more educated
and certainly have a better grasp on their futures.


I just cant see this going thru

This response submitted by Bill Yox on 1/13/01. ( ) 205.188.209.78

Guys, Im just not sold. George, you can say what you want, as my friend, but mandatory is NOT optional. When you are a lifer, or at least a current NTA member and the rest of your state doesnt share your view, how will the NTA give you, as a member, the same benefit state-wise as one thats 100% ? I know he would still have his NTA personal benefits, but... In that pretty colored perfect world, all of us as taxidermists would see the obvious benefit of supporting our state as well as one NTA. We still cant decide whether we are camo wearing, tobacco chewers (not MY words) or artists, let alone ready to pull together as one. I dont recall the NTA dropping the state affiliation program as it stands, either, George, as we just had to pay our state dues as well as the presidents dues. I would still like to hear the answer to my ORIGINAL question. You know, the one I asked when this whole thing was posted a couple weeks ago. As always, Im pro NTA at heart, just very dissappointed at the latest angle. I feel that folks who dont support thier state org might be being foolish. This, for those who are watching MY every word, is NOT name calling, by the way (sheesh!). Beginners arent always ready for the group, or even aware of it, I realize that. But most of us still are waiting for the answer to my original question...Lets hope it CAN all work out.


Bill ever thought fo going into politics

This response submitted by Dave Toms on 1/14/01. ( ) 208.178.217.62

It's fun having to watch your ever word because someone might misread it or place meaning where no such intention exsists? :-) Heck I read mine 3 or 4 times now and people still read things that just aren't there. By the way, I think you are a nipple!? (said with humor folks). I agree with your stance, I support joining the NTA 100%, but thier current policy, well I think they stand to lose more then they can hope to gain.

Dave Toms


united

This response submitted by rick on 1/15/01. ( ) 156.46.131.64

And the NTA board thought this 100% was going to UNITE all taxidermists? rwl


Return to Category Menu