Amateur storm chasers cause headaches for emergency spotters

Thanks for posting the follow up Dan, now law enforcement will have people leave the area when they think it's dangerous? Some of my best friends are police officers and I sure as hell wouldn't rely in any way on them to tell me when a storm is dangerous.. They wouldn't ask me where the best donuts are either[emoji1]


Sent from my iPad using Stormtrack mobile app
 
Warren, I'm not singling you out in particular, but I have one main question about the closed nets. Many other spotter nets around the Plains and Midwest are not closed, and they do just fine. The Norman, OK net, which Daniel was coming from when he attempted to hand-off to Wichita Falls, is in the most chaser-dense metro area in the world, yet we don't see them raising any complaints. While I recognize the right of an operator to close their net, I question the reason why it is necessary and how it furthers the mission of the net in the first place.

Also, we all agree there are bad apples out there. But the primary accusation in these articles is that it's becoming a major problem and getting worse. I've posted 20 entire-chase videos on my original page - is the inference that we're somehow missing all of the problems every time, all day, year after year? Where is the evidence of the major problems that are happening all the time and getting worse? Right now, any time we hear someone say that, it's purely anecdotal and does not match what we're seeing in reality.
 
Last edited:
Hi Dan. They are only closing the official "spotter nets" not the frequencies chasers communicate on. I'm sure most people realize this, but I thought I'd make a note. The reason is NOT to prevent experienced chasers from reporting, but rather, to prevent people who know little or nothing from making bogus reports. My ego took a beating one time in LBB when I jumped on a closed net to report wires crossing a highway west of LBB. (Before cell phones). They did not care who I was, took the report, but I was later contacted and told to register with the net before transmitting again. I was somewhat pissed (like some people are now). After I worked with the guys on the AMA net, I soon realized how important it was to regulate who was on the net. There were false reports, incorrect reports and people who just wanted to chat. Spotters check in before or during an event so the main operator knows the call sign and who they are speaking too. Here is a good example: During a multiple tornado event near AMA, I registered on the net and called in several tornado reports. Because they knew my call sign and the name associated with the call sign, they knew I had enough experience to issue a warning based on my report. So my advice is to contact the few working spotter nets in the areas you chance and introduce yourself in advance to gain permission. Better yet, use Spotter Net or call in reports via a cell phone.

As for the bad apples. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what constitutes bad behavior. To most chasers, idiotic behavior is just something to either ignore or enjoy for entertainment. That's fine. I'm in a unique position because I'm still heavily involved in the business of chasing. The overall image of storm chasing is a problem with it comes to things like advertising gigs, speaking engagements, endorsements, etc. Clients spend thousands of dollars hiring people and companies to research the world of chasers and chasing to find any potential bad behavior that could pose a PR risk. We may choose to ignore bad, fake or misleading behavior, but the executives who make the final decisions are not stupid. They see through the scams and scammers because they are looking from the outside and have no personal alliances or opinions. The best example of this was when a chaser appeared in an insurance company commercial, but the public outcry caused the company to nix the advertisements due to on-going controversy regarding chaser behavior. I totally understand and appreciate that many chasers simply don't care about the ethics and that's fine.

I have personally spoken to both the writer of the story and the person named in the article. I can assure you that the radio transmission was only the catalyst of a much larger issue. We saw how quickly the subject turned to chaser attitudes, traffic issues and LEO. It's the same negative attitude I get now-days from EMS workers, journalists, business clients, etc. I seriously doubt I would even notice this if I had not been able to witness the evolution of chasing over a 27 year period -- or if I lived in an area where the difference between right and wrong can be cloaked and dominated by the public's fear of severe weather.
 
Last edited:
It's really unfortunate that the sentiments that you're seeing exist. How do we convince those with concerns that the actual conditions aren't a problem and that it really is a very small number causing issues?

I think we can do something about it. All of us have a very powerful tool that doesn't lie: our video. It not only can document the "bad apples", but it can show what is really going on out there.

I invested in a four-camera dashcam setup for this season. Together, the cameras provide 360 degrees of coverage around my vehicle, and each camera holds 9 hours of video. I'll be archiving all footage from every Plains chase and posting it publicly. I've already been doing this from my front-facing camera in past seasons' chases. Here's a test run of the system:


90% of us are running some type of full-time camera, be it a dashcam, mounted camcorder or GoPro. If everyone took a few minutes after each day and saved that video for archiving, we could really quash this type of negative publicity and direct it to where it really belongs, to those few bad apples.

There is also clearly some mischaracterization going on - Daniel was trying to do the very thing he's supposed to do, check in to the net. In this case we're also dealing with a severely biased reporter who has demonstrated he's not going to publish anything that doesn't support his predetermined assertions. So, we simply have to go outside of that avenue. It's 2016, and thankfully newspapers don't have a monopoly on information dissemination any longer. I've had a massive response so far to the blog post I published.
 
Last edited:
The majority of chasers are really good people who all share a passion for severe weather. The problems continue to exist and grow for many reasons -- most of which we have no control over. First of all, the escalating competition between news stations in Tornado Alley must stop. They are encouraging (inexperienced) people to "go out" and get as close as possible to get footage or be a part of the chasing scene. The media's (usually) experienced chasers make it look simple and exciting. It's one thing for experienced chasers / spotters / journalists to take risks as they warrant, but it's another thing for news stations to compete on live TV to see who can get closer to the flying debris. Any experienced chaser / spotter in this group knows you don't have to be in the debris zone to confirm a tornado is on the ground -- but it makes for super ratings. In fact, a spotter's mobility to track a tornado from a visible but safe distance only enhances his or her ability to be mobile and continue to report without stopping for debris covered roads, wires down, etc. We often overlook the amateurs who are killed or injured while chasing, like the 4th. person during El Reno. This poor guy also had friends and family. TWC woke up after their near fatal disaster during El Reno. Although similar situations could happen to any of us, they had been presenting dangerous and misleading chasing / individuals on live TV for several years. Not everyone who watches this stuff is star struck or stupid. We need to give people more credit for the ability to determine what's real and what's fake -- and to judge chasers as group.

The biggest problem within the chase community is fear of blackballing or retaliation if someone speaks up. This is especially true with chasers who have close allegiances within educational or organizational interests. You would not believe the number of emails I get from chasers who are disgusted with specific individuals or issues but they are too petrified to say anything. This kind of fear has allowed negative vibes and unprofessional actions to go unchallenged for multiple years. Thus, we are where we are -- when a simple story about ham radio reveals deeper issues -- exposing how some people really feel about chasers. No one should be in fear of speaking the truth, personal insults excluded. Nor should any chaser be afraid to call someone out when they do something stupid. I'm not talking about personal decisions like getting close to a tornado, but things like passing on a hill or standing in the middle of the road. It could be that the chaser just needed a little wake up call. I know this all too well because back in the day, I was chewed out for multiple things I did and it made me better chaser and person.
 
Randy Jennings said:
The FCC fines people all the time for being on a repeater they have been warned to stay off of. As a repeater operator/trustee myself, I am strongly opposed to the concept of a closed repeater, but it is allowable under FCC rules.
Click to expand...
Randy, under what rule do they do this? Back when I was AZ OOC (a while ago), there was no rule granting any privileges to close repeater. It was good etiquette to adhere to the owner's wishes, but no FCC violation.

I can see a couple of possibilities, but not for just being on a repeater one has been warned off of:

1) Interference - someone interferes with others on the repeater (i.e. jams their signal)
2) Interference with emergency traffic - I suppose that might including disrupting rather than actually jamming an emergency net, but I don't know
3) Civil liability for using someone's equipment without their permission.

When I was a net control of Hurricane Watch Net, we had a terrible time getting the FCC to go after anyone except under two conditions:
1) They jammed signals
2) They were operating after a temporary FCC declaration of an emergency frequency (The FCC would designate 14.320-14.330 as reserved for us only, on a few exceptional events).

Obviously, things may have changed, Hence my question.
 
Pfft.

"Duke said his deputies will advise storm watchers to leave a dangerous situation and issue citations if they refuse to leave. He said deputies would take more forceful measures if needed, but that hasn't happened yet."

Follow the rules of the road and politely tell Duke to go pound sand.
 
Will Campbell said:
Follow the rules of the road and politely tell Duke to go pound sand.
Click to expand...

If you think you're following the rules of the road, do not tell Sheriff Duke to pound sand because you'll be pounding the back of the cruiser's seat with your handcuffs. Document what you're doing and honor the deputy's commands. Saying no is not a good option.
 
Here is the only thing I can think of that might apply is this, but it still appears that it would have to be a measured approach where Wichita Co.'s Judge Gossom would have to officially order an evacuation first.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/pdf/GV.418.pdf

TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SUBTITLE B. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
CHAPTER 418. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 418.185. MANDATORY EVACUATION.
(a) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to be in an evacuated area, including a person who returns to the area under a phased reentry plan or credentialing process under Section 418.050.

(b) A county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster by order may compel persons who remain in the evacuated area to leave and authorize the use of reasonable force to remove persons from the area.

(c) The governor and a county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster by a concurrent order may compel persons who remain in the evacuated area to leave.

(d) A person is civilly liable to a governmental entity, or a nonprofit agency cooperating with a governmental entity, that conducts a rescue on the person’s behalf for the cost of the rescue effort if:

(1) the person knowingly ignored a mandatory evacuation order under this section and:​

(A) engaged in an activity or course of action that a reasonable person would not have engaged in; or​

(B) failed to take a course of action a reasonable person would have taken;​

(2) the person’s actions under Subdivision (1) placed the person or another person in danger; and​

(3) a governmental rescue effort was undertaken on the person’s behalf.
​
(e) An officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision who issues or is working to carry out a mandatory evacuation order under this section is immune from civil liability for any act or omission within the course and scope of the person’s authority under the order.
​
 
That's an evacuation order. Not the same. If there's a fire and you keep crossing the fire line, no matter where the fire line is set, you can be detained. If it was an unreasonable distance away - you probably get a nice settlement later - but telling the cop that he can't order you away from the fire won't get you anything good at the time.
 
Well, I didn't mean to imply I thought it should apply, but government officials intentionally or accidentally misapply statutes all the time. :) And I'm one to agree that fighting in the moment could have other ramifications that you can easily avoid by complying and seeking justice after the fact.
 
"Wichita County Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARE), the volunteer storm spotter group, had to shoo amateur storm chasers from their closed radio frequency."

This article is ether poorly written or there is a lot of missed facts and I go with both. As mentioned that article was 10 paragraphs to long.

For stares. ARES SkyWarn nets are open to ANYONE who is a licensed radio operator. The only closed net is a RACES net and don't get me started on that non-sense. So Wichita County cannot close a radio frequency if a person is licensed. I am sue Rick Smith would love to hear that well experienced chasers who are more educated and safer than your run of the mill spotter is getting displaced when trying to report critical information. So that is all a load of crock on Wichita County part and maybe hey need to revisit Part 97 and take the tech exam and get back to basics.

@David Reimer don't let this stop you from getting your license. It is very fulfilling to have your ticket and it can be used in many other capacities. Besides, there are linked repeater systems that allow you to talk direct to NWS Radio Desk. I.E. for NWS FTW they use the NCTC Linked System. So you can bypass local nets all together and I do all the time. With the exception of Collin & Denton Co as they welcome reports from all operators because they also run under ARES. Now RACES, that is completed nothing beast and I won't even comment on that and I am a RACES appointee.

Wichita County should be ashamed for their actions and if it was Daniel they were referring to then I agree, he is owned a big apology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John Farley
Val and Amy Castor hydroplane and overturn - they are okay
Replies
14
Views
980
Jeff Duda
Jeff Duda
Nathan Parker
Notebook Recommendation for Storm Shelter Area
Replies
5
Views
301
Nathan Parker
Nathan Parker
John Robinson
Bogus storm report in SW Missouri Sunday night
Replies
2
Views
695
John Robinson
John Robinson
Randy Jennings
2024 TESSA Conference Notes
Replies
1
Views
387
Warren Faidley
Warren Faidley
50th Anniversary of Scientific Tornado Coverage on Television
2
Replies
23
Views
770
Mike Smith
Back
Top