Debate: Is an Association Really Necessary

[mikegeukes]

If this organization ever got off the ground and become popular, and attract hundreds of new chasers each year. Some folks are already complaining there are too many chasers out there. The roads will more crowded yet, with a steady influx of new chasers. Would this be good for the hobby?

Educating the public on storm chasing, average joe public at times have trouble watching the meteorologist on tv, and knowing the difference between a watch and warning. How would you go about educating the public, web site, pamphlets, public appearances, etc. Takes money to do that, and does the public really care, about storm chasers.

Certification of chasers, once again, how would you go about in doing it , at some meeting in the Plains. or regional meetings, if people could not attend would you do this by video, on-line, reading materials, etc. After you are certified, then what have a decal or a sign on your vehicle, saying I am a certified storm chaser and keep a certificate in your glove compartment or wear a name badge like some Skywarn groups have. This could lead to elitism. Look at me I am certified and you are pond scum attitude.

What about training videos, the rights and wrong of storm chasing. Using vehicles and chasers on a mock chase. Do not do this, but do this. The code of ethics and safety video you could call it. In the heat of the chase, most chasers will not be telling themselves, what did that video tell me do or not to do. Training videos,, on-line stuff, books on a whole array of stuff from interpretating the sky to forecasting. Once again, it takes money. If someone did a forecasting training video, the person should at least have a degree in meteorology.

Some one should come up with a definition of a veteran storm chasers. Just because your a veteran chaser, does not necessarly meanyour a safer chaser and you follow the golden rule in life either. I imagine there are a few bad apple veterans chasers and some with overflated egos. I would think having a variety of chasers from new ones to vets involved in the organization would be more productive.

What about publications, will the same people write the articles, and make a boring chase into sounding like the most thrilling chass ever. Or someone promoting how great they, etc.

Board of Directors, I see for some becoming power hungry, or a country club type of attitude and only a few people will be recognize within the association.

Bottom line, is people chase for a variety of reasons, you have different personalities in this hobby, more somewhat ego driven then other hobbies. People should chase, forgot about what this chaser is doing, and concentrate on their next chase.

Only organizations, I belong too is the National Weather Association and I been a full member of the American Meteorological Society for years, I joined those organizations, because I enjoy reading the journals and conference preprints.

Would I join a chase organization, all depends how it was run and who are the people running it. If it comes across as a bunch of overflated egos country club snobs, you can take the organization and flush it down the toilet.

In the meanwhile, chasers should just think about chasing and forget about this chaser and what that chaser is doing.

Mike

 

[Francesco]

Originally posted by mikegeukes
Certification of chasers, once again, how would you go about in doing it , at some meeting in the Plains. or regional meetings, if people could not attend would you do this by video, on-line, reading materials, etc. After you are certified, then what have a decal or a sign on your vehicle, saying I am a certified storm chaser and keep a certificate in your glove compartment or wear a name badge like some Skywarn groups have.

The problem I see with this is how will you police it? I am sure that "un-liscenced" chasers would manage to sneak through because there will be no preventative way to make sure that "un-liscenced" chasers do not chase. And if something were to be created, I do not think many chasers will be kean to the idea of being pulled over in the middle of a chase and being asked for their chasing liscence.

Aint this a fickle matter.

 

[Shane Adams]

Originally posted by Francesco

The problem I see with this is how will you police it? I am sure that \"un-liscenced\" chasers would manage to sneak through because there will be no preventative way to make sure that \"un-liscenced\" chasers do not chase. And if something were to be created, I do not think many chasers will be kean to the idea of being pulled over in the middle of a chase and being asked for their chasing liscence.

Aint this a fickle matter.

This Chaser Association would (if it ever sees the light of day) have absolutely ZERO influence on chasers who aren't a part of it. Besides attending a bunch of functions that will have nothing to do with the actual, physical practice of chasing severe weather, I don't see what the difference would be between a chaser who's a member and one who isn't.

 

[Amos Magliocco]

This is the problem with trying to organize something via committee--everybody has ideas which is great--and lots of people have ideas about why it can never work and shouldn't be done. For a hobby that requires a healthy degree of optomism, there are a suprising number of naysayers around.

I'm not able to follow the thread step by step here, just the last several posts. I think certification is a terrible idea. There are no "policing" capabilities. An organization like this would have no real 'teeth,' and it shouldn't. Not like we need a military force here, just a group focused on promoting the positive aspects of chasing, and exposing new chasers to various ideas about how to do so safely and responsibly.

What can possibly be bad about that??

 

[Mike Peregrine]

I'm leaning the same way, Amos - - - we've obviously tried the self-policing thing - it doesn't work, and would likely breed resentment.

This thread is the reason I had intended to hold off on discussing the idea until we could acquire some input of those with the appropriate experience. Over the years of flaming and tossing things around, we've entered into some sort of disfunctional group dynamic. We're disorganized and we love it.

It is noteworthy, however, that there has so far been no substantial argument that is sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that positive representation could possibly do any harm - other than 'we just don't want it, we don't need it, and what good is it going to do.' (What enterprise have we not heard those words spoken about in its proposal phase?) There are many who fail to see the benefit, but the arguments reflect the same relunctance toward progress, or hitting things from a new angle, that we have seen for years.

The risk is simply part of it - nothing ventured, nothing gained. The business plan remains in progress, and will be compiled over the next few weeks. There may yet be angles worth exploring that we have not yet begun to consider, and its doubtful that any big picture has truly started to emerge yet.

I do appreciate the flow of ideas, however - Mike G. has some very interesting ones - and several others also put some nice thought into theirs. Your input is very much appreciated - everyone's is, to be quite honest.

 

[Amos Magliocco]

Originally posted by Mike Peregrine
It is noteworthy, however, that there has so far been no substantial argument that is sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that positive representation could possibly do any harm - other than 'we just don't want it, we don't need it, and what good is it going to do.' (What enterprise have we not heard those words spoken about in its proposal phase?) There are many who fail to see the benefit, but the arguments reflect the same relunctance toward progress, or hitting things from a new angle, that we have seen for years..

I agree. As I said in one of the very first posts about this, I recognize people feel that this is unnecessary. What I don't understand is why they feel compelled to convert the rest of us to their idea.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the harm in promoting positive chasing stories. Here's a way for US to manipulate the media. Like I said before, well-written press releases OFTEN end up nearly VERBATIM in stories and magazines. Politicians learned this a long time ago--if you do all the work, get the quotes, shape the story, then often the media will take the page and say, "thanks, now I can take a long lunch." But left to their own devices, they'll write things about how insane we are and how we impede emergency vehicles.

As for the second point about exposing new chasers to various ideas about chasing, I'm intentionally using non-coercive language there. I DON"T believe in certification or blacklists or Halls of Shame or anything other than presenting various ideas. I don't think we should present ideas that encourage people to get within 30 yards of an F4, of course, but chasers are fiercely independent, so there's no point in trying to MAKE anybody do anything. Similarly, there's no harm in suggesting that a very good way to chase is safely and responsibly. Right??

 

[Amos Magliocco]

Originally posted by Shane Adams
This Chaser Association would (if it ever sees the light of day) have absolutely ZERO influence on chasers who aren't a part of it. Besides attending a bunch of functions that will have nothing to do with the actual, physical practice of chasing severe weather, I don't see what the difference would be between a chaser who's a member and one who isn't.

I agree totally. And plenty of chasers won't join, and they'll still chase safely and responsibly and have a great time and I can't imagine ANYBODY will hold their decision against them. All I really care about in this is centralizing positive info about chasing, then targetting it to various media outlets. Instead of waiting for media to compose the new 'angles' on chasing feature stories, we should do it FOR them.

That's my primary motivation for mentioning the idea.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Originally posted by Amos Magliocco
All I really care about in this is centralizing positive info about chasing, then targetting it to various media outlets. Instead of waiting for media to compose the new 'angles' on chasing feature stories, we should do it FOR them.

That's my primary motivation for mentioning the idea.

I sincerely believe this was the motivation for everyone involved. I can understand how - after getting burned by people with ulterior motives time after time - that we've developed an environment that breeds suspicion. But like everything, we have to let our choices and actions ultimately speak for us ... it's what we do that counts.

 

[Shane Adams]

Originally posted by Amos Magliocco

I agree. As I said in one of the very first posts about this, I recognize people feel that this is unnecessary. What I don't understand is why they feel compelled to convert the rest of us to their idea.

I'm not trying to influence anyone into my line of thinking, I'm just wondering why anyone thinks it will work. I don't see any harm in the idea (as pointed out by Amos - NO PAY), but I also don't see the point. Who says who becomes the first wave of electees, and why? In the case of safety, a 20-year veteran has no more authority than a 2-year newbie....because the particular safety issue this entire thing is addressing is of a behavioral aspect, namely driving. Any 20-something person should be well-versed in safe and responsible driving, chase experience has nothing to do with that.

My point is - all this organization's mission seems to be saying is "we're going to try and teach the obvious to those who should already know." Inexperience chasing storms is a risk that's just a part of the game, you have to chase to learn. No amount of classroom lecturing will ever replace that (look at spotters). Sure, you can preach safety and share experiences, but none of that really applies to real-time decision making....that's something only real-world experience can hone.

Finally, the image issue. I don't think either of the subjects I addressed above are the problem. It's experienced chasers who do stupid things....not much of a cure for that besides maybe a shotgun and a bar ditch in the middle of BFE :wink: .......kidding aside, seems fruitless to put all the effort into making us look better when there's still the root of the problem out there strong as ever. You guys get your organization together, you have a breakthrough meeting, and everyone leaves happy and enlightened.....then the next day another Harper Co happens and it's all gone - that quick.

I think the idea is a noble one, but also, unfortunately, an impossible one.

[/i]

 

[Melissa Moon]

Originally posted by Amos Magliocco

As I said in one of the very first posts about this, I recognize people feel that this is unnecessary. What I don't understand is why they feel compelled to convert the rest of us to their idea.

Isn't that the purpose of a debate? To argue to get what you want and to convince people that you are right, more importantly making sure that all sides of an issue get brought to the table before a decision is made? Besides, I think that those who are lobbying for this are the ones more guilty of being "compelled to convert the rest of us to their idea", especially by getting touchy when someone disagrees.

I think that this idea is silly; it's just going to add to the pre-existing cliquiness, politics, and hypocrisy already present in the chase community, and I don't think that the organization will get the respect and support from the community as a whole to be successful simply because too many people, including myself, think it is a waste of time, money, and all sorts of resources (and I don't think it will fix anything on top of that).

I know that what I have to say (along with anyone else who is not all gung-ho about this) will not sway you guys in forming your organization, but you should listen to all sides of this debate because it will help you make wiser, less-biased decisions that may help you in the long run. I am not going to make post after post arguing my position on this (because, to me, it is a waste of my time), but I felt need to respond to what Amos said earlier.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Certainly if no one was willing to listen, the proposal would not have been submitted for your review and discussion. As was said, the ideas are quite helpful, as is the debate. Thank you for participating in it -

 

[Chris Sokol]

Besides, I think that those who are lobbying for this are the ones more guilty of being \"compelled to convert the rest of us to their idea\", especially by getting touchy when someone disagrees.

This is incorrect. As with any organization for any hobby or profession, you have the freedom of choice to either join and participate, or not to. Noboby has once said that you will have to join....just as nobody has said that an association would be responsible for policing chasers. That is best left for the police.

I think that this idea is silly; it's just going to add to the pre-existing cliquiness, politics, and hypocrisy already present in the chase community, and I don't think that the organization will get the respect and support from the community as a whole to be successful simply because too many people, including myself, think it is a waste of time, money, and all sorts of resources (and I don't think it will fix anything on top of that).

My opinion only: This is mainly because of ego..."I don't think that you are a better chaser than I am, so I will have no part of anything that you start."

Also...one quick response to one of your comments Shane. Nobody would be either asked or expected to go out and "meet the public". Lord knows Shane that I not only respect the hell out of you as a chaser, but I also think the world of you as a person, but you are the last person I would ever want to put up in front of a civic group! :lol:

 

[Amos Magliocco]

Originally posted by Melissa Moon
I think that this idea is silly; it's just going to add to the pre-existing cliquiness, politics, and hypocrisy already present in the chase community, and I don't think that the organization will get the respect and support from the community as a whole to be successful simply because too many people, including myself, think it is a waste of time, money, and all sorts of resources (and I don't think it will fix anything on top of that)

Wow. With all due respect, I think your lack of specific detail here takes some steam from your argument. But I agree that there are many ways something like this could go wrong; there are uncountable chances for failure. It's wise to think of them, and much easier than trying to compose ways for success, no doubt. But it's hardly a reason to give up right out of the box.

I don't see how something like this is doomed to fail if the objectives are simple and within capabilities. For arguments sake, lets say there were only two or three. Something like issuing occasional press releases and centralizing information about chasing safely and responsibly. How hard would that be? Wouldn't those be objectives relatively easy to achieve? Specific, simple, and do-able? I honestly don't think these ideas are threatening.

Two or three simple, benign objectives that are within reach and within reason should make it relatively easy if a few people are willing to volunteer to help. As for being an "association," chasers willing to lend their name would probably be asked for little more than that.

I'm definitely listening to all sides and keeping an open mind, but I'm as yet unconvinced that something like this will hurt chasing. However, I'm VERY willing to listen to other viewpoints here. The last thing on earth any of us want is to make things worse, I'm sure.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

One thought is that this organization may find its best niche among novice and intermediate chasers, who are always looking for some sense of belonging and purpose. Such an organization might help put them on the right track -- for example maybe the organization can provide beginner info kits with safety and ethics info, as well as perhaps key tornado research papers that have been cleared for non-profit reproduction by the AMS and NWA. And of course bumper stickers that might turn their novice friends on to good safety/ethics resources. As each member gains more experience, they can of course drop out and go independently if they feel they're getting nothing out of the organization. In that regard I can see some purpose for the organization. For many of us who are very experienced, an organization is certainly redundant, but it might provide important function for beginners.

Canned news releases are a definite PR idea, as I've noticed the media these days, even television, is being solidly built on syndicated content, even including what amounts to free PR for business interests. However I am skeptical on this because it would probably require a PR firm or someone with considerable experience to be effective, and may have little influence except in the smallest media circles.

However I'm not sure how much of this is viable or needed, especially in the Internet age and with this online forum. I still find myself flatly neutral on the idea and am continuing to watch the debate with interest.

At last check nobody from CFDG has signed on, so either they've written off this idea or are still lurking.

Tim

 

[Shane Adams]

About Tim's last line above.....I'm guessing the former. I understand that it's natural to want the imput of the "fathers" or whatever of the current chasing world, but history is littered with examples of how this CFDG group has no desire to mesh with today's genre of chasers....hence the inception of that list in the first place.

Though I'm not for it, I'd suggest the organizers of the proposed association not hold their breath for CFDG imput and instead focus their interests where it really matters - the current group of rooks and newbies, as well as any relatively-new established chasers.