[Ansteorra] Regions and thier population base

[ksullivan6 at cox.net]

Robin,
yes you are right the min # for a shire is 5 sustaning members.
the # for the 5 groups being desbanded are:
                          for        8/1/07
Adlersruhe                       9
Am Loch                           5                                             
Blacklake                         7
Crossrode Keep            6
Mendersham                  8
And if you go back to '92 Am Loch is the only one who ever droped below min. and that was just 1 report period the next report they where back to min.
one of the stated reasons for disbanding these groups was membership . Now unless the membership #'s on the seneschal's page are wrong , they are being held to a higher standard.
Alix
--
Work hard,keep the ceremonies,live peaceably, and unite your hearts.
(Hopi)

---- Jay Rudin <rudin at ev1.net> wrote: 
> Alix wrote:
> 
> 
> > Well I have been watching the descusions on the size of the area
> > formerly known as the Western Region, all the comments have been
> > on the acutal land of the area combaried to the other Regions, so I
> > thought I would look at the population bases of the Regions and
> > the number of SCA memberships in each Region.
> 
> That may be a fun game, but it won't change the actual rules.  Branch 
> requirements are not based on a per-capita basis.  Only the SCA people 
> count.  The hundreds of thousands of people who aren't in the SCA have no 
> effect on branch status, for obvious reasons.
> 
> > For the population base I used the numbers on a web site called
> > city-data.com.the SCA member # are from the Ansteorran web site
> > the # from Aug 07.
> > Here is what I found.
> > Central has 452 SCA members and a population base of 4,159,371 this is a 
> > per capita of 11 members per 100k
> > Coastal has 430 SCA members and a population base of  2,699,390 this is a 
> > per capita of  16 members per 100k
> > Northern has 466 SCA members and a population base of  1,440,981 this is 
> > a per capita of 32  members per 100k
> > Southern has 409 SCA members and a population base of  2,429,883 this is 
> > a per capita of 17  members per 100k
> > Western has 106 SCA members and a population base of  835,511 this is a 
> > per capita of 13 members per 100k
> > Now some of you are going to say that Western does not have viable # 's 
> > well acording to Capora a Knigdom need 400 members a principality needs 
> > 100 a Barony 25, shires and cantons need 5.
> > Now just because I thought it would be intersesting I took the numbers 
> > one step further, and took the membership #'s and pop base #'s for 
> > Crossroadkeep and took that per capita to see what other groups should 
> > have as memberships if they had the same per capita memberships ,here are 
> > just a few,
> > Elfsea 358 they have 141
> > Stepps 893 they have 117
> > Staregate 708 they have 115
> > Northkeep 138 they have 115
> > Bjornsborg 428 they have 105
> >>From the numbers is appears that the Western Region is being held to a 
> >>higher standard of memberships.
> 
> Not at all.  You can't change the requirements and then draw any 
> conclusions from that.
> 
> You have documented that the Western region has roughly 1/4 as many members 
> as any other region, and fewer people than several baronies.  Look at the 
> actual count, not the "per-capita" figures.  You have also documented that 
> the other region in a similar situation, the North, has more than met the 
> challenge, maintaining more than twice as many members per capita than the 
> rest of us.  With no major metropolitan areas, they nonetheless maintain 
> four baronies and a province.  Nobody else is even close.  Vivat 
> Nordsteorra!
> 
> If you wish to maintain that the requirements are harder to meet in less 
> populous areas, well, of course -- nobody ever suggested otherwise.  Yes, 
> it's harder to maintain numbers in a smaller population.  Bordermarch has 
> struggled with this problem for decades.  But that doesn't mean they are 
> held to a "higher standard"; it means the standard won't be lowered. 
> There's no branch in Quinlan, Texas for exactly this reason.  Elfsea was a 
> shire for years while Steppes was a barony because it takes longer to build 
> in a smaller population pool.  Now they've passed us in membership.  They 
> didn't need lowered standards; they met the challenge and surpassed their 
> elder sister.
> 
> The minimum remains 5 sustaining members for a shire and 25 sustaining 
> members for a barony, and the standard remains sufficient qualified officer 
> pools and meeting the reporting requirements.
> 
> Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org