County Officials Critical of Storm Chasers

[Todd Renshaw]

I enjoy the debate, even if it's all been said before. Obviously, people want to talk about it, so nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately, those critical of storm chasers (and lumping everybody into one single group) are probably not reaching the audience that's the problem. Sure we have our inept thrill seekers and storm paparazzi willing to do whatever it takes to get the shot. But I think they're in the vast minority and are probably not active on Stormtrack, if they're even members at all. I feel that most Stormtrack members want to be responsible and are interested in improving their technique, learning all they can and becoming better. (And nobody really wants to get stuck in a chaser convergence anyway, which is where this all started.) We have so many types that come under the umbrella of "storm chasers" and we're not responsible (here at ST) for all of them.

 

[Rob H]

The general public as a whole knows (by the way) the whole line about how much chasers are out to "help" local emergency personnel is a bogus argument.

It is a bogus argument, but take a look at comments from Reed Timmer's 100,000 Facebook fans for an ideal of how delusional the general public can be when it comes to this stuff. Not only that, but it ignores the fact that chasers do help local EM more than the gawkers.

Some chasers need a reality check as to how much political clout they actually have. Finally, just because you have a radar and an out of state tag doesn't make you more important than the local folks who maybe have never chased. They have just as much right to look at the storm as anyone else.

We don't have any political clout, not sure where you got that from. We're pointing out that the logistics of stopping gawkers or chasers from being on roads doesn't seem to be feasible at all. You're the one that came here and started threatening with legislation. Singling out chasers is profiling, and any garbage legislation will eventually get contested by angry and stubborn people. We have plenty of those in the community.

Maybe you're being deliberately myopic, but many people here have said that chasers don't have more of a right to be on a road than other people. We have people like Smith and Homman in Dickinson county saying there's no way locals contributed that much, and that is simply B.S. Sure, the chasers are responsible at some level - but also recognize that you have a major problem with your own local gawkers as well. Your efforts might be better spent dealing with that problem first.

 

[mikedeason]

Mike - while you are correct the LE can do whatever he wants, you are missing the big picture. Let's say 150 storm chasers on each big storm, and maybe 5 deputies if it's a slow day. If they are doing nothing else, and the storm causes no damage, then they can write tickets for 5 chasers, leaving the other 145 untouched. So still hordes, and the legislation didn't work.

Or they could set up a road block on each end of the road and go down the line. Government can find creatives ways to get money from it's constituents.

 

[Danny Neal]

Are people really going to propose new laws that are only useful roughly 25% of the year? Where do you draw the line? No chasing means no spotting, no research, no media, not even law enforcement themselves! If lawmakers,EM, cops, whoever .... want to crack down on the act of chasing then they better hire a workload equipped to deal with the numbers. Then they can start enforcing laws already in place with no breaks. Enforce the field of vision law (no dashcams) enforce the distraction to driver (no gps or laptop) enforce speeding, enforce no pulling off the road with out a vest, create no parking/standing/stalling signs along all county roads. A lot of work for only 4 months of action when at most those areas receive maybe a weeks worth of severe weather

 

[Mike Johnston]

Mike - while you are correct the LE can do whatever he wants, you are missing the big picture. Let's say 150 storm chasers on each big storm, and maybe 5 deputies if it's a slow day. If they are doing nothing else, and the storm causes no damage, then they can write tickets for 5 chasers, leaving the other 145 untouched. So still hordes, and the legislation didn't work.

Well, if they are productive, maybe they can write tickets for 20 chasers, or even 30 or 40. After all, I'm sure you've seen the situation where a single patrol car has pulled over 3 or 4 vehicles at a time. All I'm saying is it would be a mistake to assume such a law could never be passed. While I agree enforcement would be a practical problem, they could certainly try and make things more of a hassle for chasers in the meantime.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

This whole thing has never actually been about crazy drivers, possible legislation, or the community "policing" itself. The sooner we recognize the real problem, the better.

The speeding and reckless drivers always seem to get the attention in here, but this is just a smokescreen justification from the community. Justification for what?

For just being there.

Here are the justifications we hear every year:

*Storm chasers are there to help those who have been victimized by severe weather. The idea that chasers are there as "first responders" is silly. It makes the fact that chasers are on the storm sound like a noble gesture. Now of course it is a positive thing when chasers do lend a hand, but that is not why they are chasing the storm. And that is not why their vehicle is contributing to the numbers of vehicles on the back roads of Kansas.

*Issuing reports. For several years at first, this one actually worked. It worked because skilled chasers were often the first (and many times ONLY) ones on the storm, so their reports mattered. Can this reason for being on the storm still hold water? I believe it does not. In this case too, it is a positive gesture when chasers issue reports on what they see. But again, it is not why they are there (and I say that is the case for even the mets and the vets).

*Obtaining video. It was once believed that storm video somehow would affect the thinking of the public and get them to protect themselves during a tornado warning. Once people could *see* what these things could do, then the next time a warning was called in their area, they would take action. This has completely and utterly backfired. Only those who have always feared storms continue to take cover. Everyone else just wants to experience the power of a storm just like chasers do. So should we really consider the fact that a chaser can get video or make a tv show or even put together a movie as being a better reason for being there than all the other reasons?

*Conducting a tour. I used to think of the tour operators as something cool for the plains and that they were a nice way to get people who would never otherwise experience the real beauty of the plains here to see it. No more! They are another – just as equal – part of the problem we are really discussing here. And the fact that they operate a tour is no more justifiable for being there as any of the other reasons. Add to that the fact that their vans seem to be getting pummeled, and it’s easy to see the real risk they are taking.

*Obtaining weather data. Unless you are part of a NOAA-funded scientific team for data gathering, all that crap on your car is useful to pretty much no else one on earth. Get over it!

My point here is that no matter WHY you are there, you are contributing to the problem that the articles in the papers are really trying to highlight.

Get used to the idea that the storms are no longer the threat to life and property. The numbers of vehicles have created an entirely new – and very real – threat to life and property. And you are a part of that threat, no matter who you are or why you are there.

I believe that if you are on a storm and someone actually loses their life because of TRAFFIC, then you (yes YOU) must be willing to accept at least some of the responsibility for the loss of that life. The media, the public and the family of the victims will ask back the blood from those who were lost from any chaser who was there. And rightfully so. Because the truth is you didn't REALLY need to be there in the first place.

 

[mikedeason]

Well, if they are productive, maybe they can write tickets for 20 chasers, or even 30 or 40. After all, I'm sure you've seen the situation where a single patrol car has pulled over 3 or 4 vehicles at a time. All I'm saying is it would be a mistake to assume such a law could never be passed. While I agree enforcement would be a practical problem, they could certainly try and make things more of a hassle for chasers in the meantime.

And if chasers have the huge economic impact on some of these communities that's been claimed, imagine the amount of revenue that could be generated just by the simple use of roadblocks and writing citations for other violations (as is done at so-called "sobriety checkpoints.") It's true that legislation to ban chasing would be practically unenforceable, but it doesn't mean that local LEO's can't find creative ways to disrupt chasing. That's why the emphasis has to remain on just doing what is right.

 

[Todd Renshaw]

Would love to try an experiment where all Stormtrack members boycott chasing in a specific high-risk location for a day. (Not gonna happen, I know.) But if it could happen, I'd like to see if there are still convergence problems there.

Dickinson County, anyone? Anyone? (Sound of crickets.)

 

[Sean Ramsey]

I think the only way chasing could be regulated would be indirectly with some sort of laws banning use of electronic devices in cars or something. This would affect the masses though and wouldn't likely pass with the general public, although there are laws being introduced and passed for drivers in some states.

 

[Greg Higgins]

I think the only way chasing could be regulated would be indirectly with some sort of laws banning use of electronic devices in cars or something. This would affect the masses though and wouldn't likely pass with the general public, although there are laws being introduced and passed for drivers in some states.

Well what do you know! Chasing just like in the old days!

 

[Andy Jackson]

And if chasers have the huge economic impact on some of these communities that's been claimed, imagine the amount of revenue that could be generated just by the simple use of roadblocks and writing citations for other violations (as is done at so-called "sobriety checkpoints.") It's true that legislation to ban chasing would be practically unenforceable, but it doesn't mean that local LEO's can't find creative ways to disrupt chasing. That's why the emphasis has to remain on just doing what is right.

Legislation just gives them the extra incentive to get the bad guys, it doesn't mean some of them don't already see red when chasers are out there. We need to take warning, even Doswell is chirping about it.

 

[Brian Douglas]

It is a bogus argument, but take a look at comments from Reed Timmer's 100,000 Facebook fans for an ideal of how delusional the general public can be when it comes to this stuff. Not only that, but it ignores the fact that chasers do help local EM more than the gawkers.



We don't have any political clout, not sure where you got that from. We're pointing out that the logistics of stopping gawkers or chasers from being on roads doesn't seem to be feasible at all. You're the one that came here and started threatening with legislation. Singling out chasers is profiling, and any garbage legislation will eventually get contested by angry and stubborn people. We have plenty of those in the community.

Maybe you're being deliberately myopic, but many people here have said that chasers don't have more of a right to be on a road than other people. We have people like Smith and Homman in Dickinson county saying there's no way locals contributed that much, and that is simply B.S. Sure, the chasers are responsible at some level - but also recognize that you have a major problem with your own local gawkers as well. Your efforts might be better spent dealing with that problem first.

I am not sure why the level of density is so high amongst some storm chasers. The Dickinson county folks had a valid point...remember the locals are just that, locals, they live there. I never threatened legislation, I am saying don't keep kidding yourself that things can't be done even on a local level to make it very tough on storm chasers. So shoot the messenger, I have a completely different angle on this than you do. The logistics are extremely feasible to deal with this, and profitable too. Eventually, some Sheriff somewhere is going to get PO'd enough to prove it, and then we will really see whining on this forum about the bad ass locals picking on the poor defenseless chasers...........why not just try to avoid the problem altogether and make an effort to get along with local Sheriffs etc.?? What is so hard to grasp about that? Folks like me all over Kansas would have had a completely different view of this if instead of jumping all over the guys in Dickinson county, a chaser would have come on TV and said "hey, I see there is a problem, we ought to try to figure a way around it". Even if nobody ever did(try to solve the problem), admitting there might be a problem and saying the chaser community wants to do their part to resolve it immediately makes people drop their "lets fight" attitude. Hell, I am on about half you guys side and you still want to fight with me, wait until someone who is really a hardass decides to drop the boom.

I understand why people chase, and there isn't a darned thing wrong with it. Everyone involved just needs to remember that sometimes your hobby interferes with other peoples jobs, and those jobs sometimes involve life and death. I am saying keep that in mind and do everything you can to promote cooperation between yourselves and local authorities. Trying to pretend there is no validity to the claim that sometimes professional chasers get in the way and are a hazard is dishonest.

 

[Will Campbell]

I am not sure why the level of density is so high amongst some storm chasers.

If density is used in the context of us being stubborn, that's probably because we are stating that it would be downright unconstitutional to stop us from pursuing happiness, even if that means driving in YOUR towns while following storms.

The Dickinson county folks had a valid point...remember the locals are just that, locals, they live there.

Wow, thanks for once again clarifying that a local is someone that lives somewhere. Now, maybe us "chasers" are being offensive and aggressive because not a single person can provide us proof of alleged claims. Yes there was traffic, show me the proof that it was caused by chasers! Who are you, the media, and Dickinson County admins to say that it wasn't these "locals" you keep referring to driving at 5mph gawking and snapping cell phone images? Or that it wasn't 90% locals pulled off on the road and standing in the highway. Look REALLY close at the footage aired by Fox showing the Marquette EF-4 on KS-4, notice the license plate of that black SUV parked on the road with occupants standing across the roadway? Kansas.

So shoot the messenger, I have a completely different angle on this than you do.

The messenger is being shot for the same reason as the media and Dickinson county folks, flawed logic, emotionally charged responses, and absolute oversight and ignorance to a significant portion of the cause to Saturday's mayhem (locals)

why not just try to avoid the problem altogether and make an effort to get along with local Sheriffs etc.??

As already stated here many of us do. Matter of fact, I had a nearly hour long conversations with a Kansas State Patrolman as storms were initiated. We went over models, storm locations, direction and speed etc. This is commonplace for many of us; again you make assumptions with borderline segregator generalizations and flawed logic.

What is so hard to grasp about that? Folks like me all over Kansas would have had a completely different view of this if instead of jumping all over the guys in Dickinson county, a chaser would have come on TV and said "hey, I see there is a problem, we ought to try to figure a way around it".

Read as, "Hey, we see a problem! There are 400 high school kids driving around jaws agape pointing iPhones at the sky, with 15 well mannered "chasers" stuck in the traffic line caused by said children and miscreants!

Even if nobody ever did(try to solve the problem), admitting there might be a problem and saying the chaser community wants to do their part to resolve it immediately makes people drop their "lets fight" attitude. Hell, I am on about half you guys side and you still want to fight with me, wait until someone who is really a hardass decides to drop the boom.

Show me where we haven't stated our willingness for respect and courtesy??? Mind you, basing the response of one and applying that to the masses is what they call profiling. And profiling is generally frowned upon in most of society

I understand why people chase, and there isn't a darned thing wrong with it. Everyone involved just needs to remember that sometimes your hobby interferes with other people’s jobs and those jobs sometimes involve life and death. I am saying keep that in mind and do everything you can to promote cooperation between yourselves and local authorities. Trying to pretend there is no validity to the claim that sometimes professional chasers get in the way and are a hazard is dishonest.

Yeah, all other points and arguments still ring true. I understand your viewpoint. What I think is happening is that media, EMs in Dickinson Co., and to an extent yourself are coming here and blaming us for something of which a significant contributing factor was in fact those that you are defending. You're welcome to come ride along sometime and see things from our side. I think that will astonish you as to how many of your precious locals are the majority cause of your concerns. Not saying all chasers are perfect, law abiding, and absolutely respectful and courteous, just saying the majority are, and just got caught up in masses of people who are better classified as gawkers or wanderers.

 

[Rob H]

I am not sure why the level of density is so high amongst some storm chasers.

Because dumb people exist in every demographic - including storm chasing and even emergency management. If you want to complain about convergence, those locals are a big part of the problem whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Obviously people here are talking about it, are admitting there's a problem, and thinking of ways to fix it. Ignoring people that are agreeing with you and insulting a demographic on a forum catering specifically to said demographic isn't going to win any converts, and just alienates those that agree with you. A little tact goes a long way, and that's the exact same advice I gave to all the people sending email to Dickinson County yesterday.

 

[Brett Roberts]

I am not sure why the level of density is so high amongst some storm chasers. The Dickinson county folks had a valid point...remember the locals are just that, locals, they live there. I never threatened legislation, I am saying don't keep kidding yourself that things can't be done even on a local level to make it very tough on storm chasers. So shoot the messenger, I have a completely different angle on this than you do. The logistics are extremely feasible to deal with this, and profitable too. Eventually, some Sheriff somewhere is going to get PO'd enough to prove it, and then we will really see whining on this forum about the bad ass locals picking on the poor defenseless chasers...........why not just try to avoid the problem altogether and make an effort to get along with local Sheriffs etc.?? What is so hard to grasp about that? Folks like me all over Kansas would have had a completely different view of this if instead of jumping all over the guys in Dickinson county, a chaser would have come on TV and said "hey, I see there is a problem, we ought to try to figure a way around it". Even if nobody ever did(try to solve the problem), admitting there might be a problem and saying the chaser community wants to do their part to resolve it immediately makes people drop their "lets fight" attitude. Hell, I am on about half you guys side and you still want to fight with me, wait until someone who is really a hardass decides to drop the boom.

I understand why people chase, and there isn't a darned thing wrong with it. Everyone involved just needs to remember that sometimes your hobby interferes with other peoples jobs, and those jobs sometimes involve life and death. I am saying keep that in mind and do everything you can to promote cooperation between yourselves and local authorities. Trying to pretend there is no validity to the claim that sometimes professional chasers get in the way and are a hazard is dishonest.

I don't completely disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm not understanding why you imply that the responses you get on this forum have some bearing on how you and other officials will handle the situation going forward. Every chaser is an individual, and none of us have an ounce of control over what other chasers do or say. This isn't the NFL, or even a hobby like skydiving or bungee jumping, where access can be regulated, fines enforced, etc. due to organizational complexity or expensive equipment that must be shared among hobbyists. The only equipment required to chase is an automobile and driver's license, which most Plains residents already have. Everyone is out there for themselves, and anymore, many chasers are actively competing with one another for attention and profit. So, I'll repeat for emphasis: none of us have any control over how other chasers behave. The one and only thing we (as individuals) can do in response to your complaints is to modify our own chasing behavior.

That applies not just to how we drive on chase days, but also to what we say on this forum. If you make a post on ST complaining that chasers are causing problems on the roads and hint at taking your viewpoint to the legislature, of course there are going to be a few hot-heads who fire back with incendiary remarks. If you go looking for signs of disrespect from the chaser "community," you'll be able to find them. Again, though, the rest of us can't control that. Several other posters have chimed in completely supporting your viewpoint. Still hundreds (if not thousands) of other serious chasers simply haven't seen this thread and have no say in the matter.