Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[gdlewen]

Geoff Lewen is okay to use.

 

[Ken Perrin]

I do find it comical how we are supposed to take this bill proposal seriously and right at the top of the proposed bill it mentions how these conditions may be warranted when a BROADCAST METEOROLOGIST issues a warning! How uneducated must one be to actually include that in a bill? That is NOT how these things work and I know several at the NWS in Norman who if they saw that, might have an issue with it as well!

I would think that other County Emergency Managers, and the WFO's who rely on SkyWarn and other "amateur StormSpotters" for ground truth, would be up in arms about this bill.

 

[Mike Thornton]

I would think that other County Emergency Managers, and the WFO's who rely on SkyWarn and other "amateur StormSpotters" for ground truth, aren’t up in arms about this bill.

You'd be surprised, I've talked to many of my EM partners and they are very much against this bill and want to see it die.

 

[Ken Perrin]

You'd be surprised, I've talked to many of my EM partners and they are very much against this bill and want to see it die.

I have to run over to Tahlequah and speak to (or at least call) my county Director of EM and discuss this with him.

 

[gdlewen]

You'd be surprised, I've talked to many of my EM partners and they are very much against this bill and want to see it die.

The Legislature needs to hear from those folks. From “non-chasers”.

 

[Mike Thornton]

The Legislature needs to hear from those folks. From “non-chasers”.

And they will!!! I am the SW VP Alternate for the Oklahoma Emergency Management Association and well respected by my colleagues in the SW. I'll make sure we look into this on our legislation committee.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Part of the big problem is the way people are arguing against this bill. At face value, the average person and uninformed chaser would not think it's a threat. However, we all know the truth. When chasers say things like, "it bans all chasing," that is not true. It will make it more difficult, dangerous and it throws in a bucket of monkey wrenches. There is also the possibility of arrest and heavy fines. The death of this bill will come from pointing out the dangers of media crews racing through OKC and rural highways, blowing through lights and passing unsafely. This is the winning argument, not pissed off chasers concerned about themselves.

As I said last night, I've been told a few of the news stations have very "ill intent" and want to completely strop amateur chasing. This is their "first step."

 

[Mike Thornton]

Part of the big problem is the way people are arguing against this bill. At face value, the average person and uninformed chaser would not think it's a threat. However, we all know the truth. When chasers say things like, "it bans all chasing," that is not true. It will make it more difficult, dangerous and it throws in a bucket of monkey wrenches. There is also the possibility of arrest and heavy fines. The death of this bill will come from pointing out the dangers of media crews racing through OKC and rural highways, blowing through lights and passing unsafely. This is the winning argument, not pissed off chasers concerned about themselves.

As I said last night, I've been told a few of the news stations have very "ill intent" and want to completely strop amateur chasing. This is their "first step."

And that's exactly what I am pushing for in my letter to legislation and will push in the EM Community is looking at how this will affect public safety if passed. I will not mention anything about having been a chaser. I think if we focus on the risks associated with this bill passing, we have a winning chance. But like you said, so many haven't actually read the bill proposal and think Oklahoma is attempting to take away their freedoms to chase. Lol. When people like that start sending in letters, it doesn't help our case.

 

[gdlewen]

We need to offer them an alternative to legislation. Can the privileges of emergency vehicles be extended to media chasers administratively? I suggested that in my "preamble" to the bill analysis and no one challenged the notion. But what if, say, a memorandum of understanding existed among law enforcement agencies that "suitably marked chaser vehicles en route to an intercept will not be cited for acting like emergency vehicles as described in Title X Section Y"?

Something along these lines. Then we do not need a bill. Any thoughts?

 

[Dan Robinson]

The big problem I see is that many, if not most, of the general public already thinks that TV chasers deserve the emergency responder status. Half the comments on those pointing out the dangerous behavior/posting examples of it are people saying that it's justified and that the person posting should have gotten out of the way/drove faster/stop criticizing the "life savers". So posting the videos of red light running/passing on double yellows/speeding will just get one lambasted by the public saying that the behavior is "good" because it's in the name of "saving lives".

As false as we all know it is, the general public - including these lawmakers - have 100% bought into the Hollywood narrative that certain chasers are "life savers" and the rest of us are just amateurs in the way.

I think that is the underlying battle, dispelling that myth. Maybe someone can find the Doswell presentation on chase safety from Chasercon many years back?

 

[Jamie H]

We need to offer them an alternative to legislation. Can the privileges of emergency vehicles be extended to media chasers administratively? I suggested that in my "preamble" to the bill analysis and no one challenged the notion. But what if, say, a memorandum of understanding existed among law enforcement agencies that "suitably marked chaser vehicles en route to an intercept will not be cited for acting like emergency vehicles as described in Title X Section Y"?

Something along these lines. Then we do not need a bill. Any thoughts?

This is a sensible solution Glen. If this bill was suggesting that individuals could train to become additional first responders, complete with licensing and qualifications, that would be better. If it was suggesting media chasers are licensed and can be held accountable for dangerous actions, that would be better.

If it was about safety, Skywarn would be involved. If it was about safety, local law enforcment would be involved.

I think it's a very difficult argument to make to say that researchers or live streamers should have anywhere near the freedom on the roads as emergncy vehicles, especially without clearly stating what additional qualifications they should have. Considering many are talking to the live host, while driving at speed, and focusing a camera, allowing them to speed through red lights is asking for a terrible incident to happen.

 

[Randy Zipser]

I’m not too surprised that the State of Oklahoma would take some regulatory measures to “reel in” the unfettered behavior of storm chasers (and others) on that state’s public roads and highways during severe-weather events. Even decades ago when I was actively chasing, talk and ideas like this popped up occasionally in discussions among chasers and even informally on early social media and storm-chase-community platforms.

Back in the early 1980s, I served as the first Oklahoma State Floodplain Coordinator under the newly-created National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The state of Oklahoma was very proactive back then in the development of state regulations to protect Oklahoma residents living in areas subject to repeated flooding. I have not been a resident of Oklahoma for over 40 years now, but do know that Oklahoma gained a reputation during those early days of the NFIP as a national leader in pioneering a model for state flood regulations, so well that other states later emulated their example.

Could this Storm Chaser Licensure bill, introduced by Senator Mark Mann (D-District 46), and currently before the Oklahoma State Legislature, be a similar example of Oklahoma taking a very proactive stance to deal with what they perceive as a problem to protect their citizens, whether real or imaginary? I’m not taking sides either way in this debate, but merely pointing out that the state of Oklahoma takes its natural disasters—of which tornadoes top the list—very seriously. There is historical precedent for this, at least during the years when I worked for its residents.

A more important and practical question is whether regulating storm chasers on a state level could even work at all. Unlike flood regulations, which apply only to residents who own property in floodplains, the public roads in Oklahoma are just that: public. This means that anyone, whether a tax-paying resident of Oklahoma, or not, has the freedom and federal right to use those roads at any time, including during potential natural disaster events. This legislation, if it becomes state law, becomes very problematic to enforce because there are likely hundreds of amateur storm-chasers with out-of-state license plates legally populating these already-clogged Oklahoma roads. How is the state of Oklahoma going to regulate those chasers, who are not Oklahoma residents and technically not subject to this law, as long as they strictly obey all of Oklahoma’s driving-safety laws? What about an out-of-state guest-chaser in a vehicle with an Oklahoma resident: will they be required to purchase a temporary or seasonal “storm chaser license” while being on Oklahoma roads to chase? And, if using the Interstate highway system in Oklahoma, which was largely funded using federal tax-dollars, does charging what amounts to an additional state fee for using these highways constitute double taxation? I’m not an attorney, but it seems that these are just a few examples of how this law could be a “nightmare,” of not impossible in practice, for the OHP to enforce, let alone diverting troopers’ precious time and attention, especially in dangerous and potentially-deadly weather situations, which Oklahoma is famous for.

Is the current legislation really about public safety or is it just another coffer-filling, governmental overreach? It will be interesting to see how the state of Oklahoma finally decides this issue, if ever.

PLEASE NOTE: I wrote the comments above a few days ago, but just now have gotten my new ST account registered. The current posts are well beyond where these remarks were at that time, so the above is posted only "for the record."

My current update is this:

I fully support my fellow storm chasers who have already posted their total opposition to this legislation. If this law is allowed to take effect in Oklahoma, the "noose around the necks" of all amateur storm chasers will only tighten with time to discourage their presence in the state each spring. Other states will be watching and monitoring, and could follow suit. It is naive for Oklahoma politicians to think that they will stop the influx of out-of-state storm chasers, many of whom may not even be aware of this new legislation, or for that matter, abide by it should it become law.

Oklahoma is captive to its geography; there is no way to legislate their way out of that. There are simply too many people who choose to chase storms wherever they occur and no law like this will ever stop them!

It's a "lose-lose" situation all the way around for storm chasers and the state of Oklahoma. I hope Oklahoma politicians do the right thing and kill this bill.

 

[Blake Naftel]

I’m not too surprised that the State of Oklahoma would take some regulatory measures to “reel in” the unfettered behavior of storm chasers (and others) on that state’s public roads and highways during severe-weather events. Even decades ago when I was actively chasing, talk and ideas like this popped up occasionally in discussions among chasers and even informally on early social media and storm-chase-community platforms.

Back in the early 1980s, I served as the first Oklahoma State Floodplain Coordinator under the newly-created National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The state of Oklahoma was very proactive back then in the development of state regulations to protect Oklahoma residents living in areas subject to repeated flooding. I have not been a resident of Oklahoma for over 40 years now, but do know that Oklahoma gained a reputation during those early days of the NFIP as a national leader in pioneering a model for state flood regulations, so well that other states later emulated their example.

Could this Storm Chaser Licensure bill, introduced by Senator Mark Mann (D-District 46), and currently before the Oklahoma State Legislature, be a similar example of Oklahoma taking a very proactive stance to deal with what they perceive as a problem to protect their citizens, whether real or imaginary? I’m not taking sides either way in this debate, but merely pointing out that the state of Oklahoma takes its natural disasters—of which tornadoes top the list—very seriously. There is historical precedent for this, at least during the years when I worked for its residents.

A more important and practical question is whether regulating storm chasers on a state level could even work at all. Unlike flood regulations, which apply only to residents who own property in floodplains, the public roads in Oklahoma are just that: public. This means that anyone, whether a tax-paying resident of Oklahoma, or not, has the freedom and federal right to use those roads at any time, including during potential natural disaster events. This legislation, if it becomes state law, becomes very problematic to enforce because there are likely hundreds of amateur storm-chasers with out-of-state license plates legally populating these already-clogged Oklahoma roads. How is the state of Oklahoma going to regulate those chasers, who are not Oklahoma residents and technically not subject to this law, as long as they strictly obey all of Oklahoma’s driving-safety laws? What about an out-of-state guest-chaser in a vehicle with an Oklahoma resident: will they be required to purchase a temporary or seasonal “storm chaser license” while being on Oklahoma roads to chase? And, if using the Interstate highway system in Oklahoma, which was largely funded using federal tax-dollars, does charging what amounts to an additional state fee for using these highways constitute double taxation? I’m not an attorney, but it seems that these are just a few examples of how this law could be a “nightmare,” of not impossible in practice, for the OHP to enforce, let alone diverting troopers’ precious time and attention, especially in dangerous and potentially-deadly weather situations, which Oklahoma is famous for.

Is the current legislation really about public safety or is it just another coffer-filling, governmental overreach? It will be interesting to see how the state of Oklahoma finally decides this issue, if ever.

PLEASE NOTE: I wrote the comments above a few days ago, but just now have gotten my new ST account registered. The current posts are well beyond where these remarks were at that time, so the above is posted only "for the record."

My current update is this:

I fully support my fellow storm chasers who have already posted their total opposition to this legislation. If this law is allowed to take effect in Oklahoma, the "noose around the necks" of all amateur storm chasers will only tighten with time to discourage their presence in the state each spring. Other states will be watching and monitoring, and could follow suit. It is naive for Oklahoma politicians to think that they will stop the influx of out-of-state storm chasers, many of whom may not even be aware of this new legislation, or for that matter, abide by it should it become law.

Oklahoma is captive to its geography; there is no way to legislate their way out of that. There are simply too many people who choose to chase storms wherever they occur and no law like this will ever stop them!

It's a "lose-lose" situation all the way around for storm chasers and the state of Oklahoma. I hope Oklahoma politicians do the right thing and kill this bill.

Happy to see you've joined back up with the very network you and Dave both started. Good discussion, Randy!

Best,

Blake

 

[Warren Faidley]

Here is a comprehensive list of contacts and an introduction re: sb-158. I would like your feedback or any additions before it's posted on social media. Thanks.

 

[Randy Zipser]

I would also suggest including the ST URL link for this thread directly in any correspondence sent to an OK politician. That way, each politician can read for himself/herself the excellent discussions (feedback, push-back) about this legislation before they vote on it.