Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[Jamie H]

People asking what they can do? I'm seeing more and more video posts favoring the bill. I suspect this is because those individuals have access to professional TV production staff and writers. We could really use a few really good productions outlining the horrors of this bill. Interestingly, I've been told some stations are promising those who actively engage in promoting the bill could be offered news station spotting jobs in the future, along with code-3 licenses. There are no limitations on how many code-3 units a station can deploy, something else to ponder given the competitive nature of news stations.

I hope I'm being far too imaginative, but I fear stations could deploy multiple vehicles with the intention of some simply running blocking patterns so their colleagues get the exclusive.

 

[Mike Thornton]

I hope I'm being far too imaginative, but I fear stations could deploy multiple vehicles with the intention of some simply running blocking patterns so their colleagues get the exclusive.

Truthfully, that's not out of the question.

I just got off the phone with another emergency manager, and they're gonna compose a letter themselves. They are a very big name in Southwest Oklahoma as well.

 

[Randy Zipser]

February 6th, 2025
The Honorable Scott Fetgatter
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 455
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73105

Dear Representative Fetgatter:

My name is Mike Thornton and I am an Emergency Manager in the 63rd District. I am contacting you today to express my opposition to House Bill 2426, otherwise known as the Emergency Weather Response and Tracking Regulatory Act of 2025. I attended Rose State College where I majored in both Atmospheric Sciences and Emergency Management and have sat on Emergency Management boards in the past in both professional and academic capacities. Additionally, I have responded to multiple natural disasters around the state and in my county and helped those disasters become declared including, but not limited to DR-4706, DR-4721, and DR-4776.

I’d like to start at H.B. 2426, 60th Leg., 1st Sess. (Okla. 2025), lines 1–24 (definition of "Significant weather event") Representative Fetgatter, this section is filled with inaccurate information and should disqualify this bill. A Broadcast Meteorologist cannot legally issue a weather watch or warning. Under Title 15, Chapter 9 of the United States Code, the National Weather Service is a governmental agency that issues watches and warnings to protect lives and property. Nowhere in the United States Code does it mention a Broadcast Meteorologist being able to issue said watches or warnings, so why is it included in this bill?

In Oklahoma House Bill 2426, 1st Session of the 60th Legislature (2025), Section 5, Subsections A(2) and B the bill states that credentialed media chasers can legally use audio and warning lights during severe weather events and can “Travel upon roads, highways, and country roads closed by the Department of Transportation, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, any city or county, or any law enforcement agency by reason of conditions triggered by the significant weather event.” Representative Fetgatter, this is highly irresponsible. Under 63 OK Stat § 683.11, which discusses the creation of Emergency Management in Oklahoma an Emergency Manager’s primary duty during a disaster is to coordinate response efforts, ensure public safety, and manage resources to protect lives and property. This includes restricting access to hazardous areas, facilitating emergency services, and preventing unnecessary risks to both responders and the public. A bill allowing media chasers into disaster zones contradicts these responsibilities by introducing untrained individuals into dangerous conditions, creating potential obstacles for emergency personnel and increasing the risk of additional casualties. Controlled access is critical to maintaining order and ensuring that life-saving operations are conducted efficiently.

According to the National Safety Council, the crash rate for emergency vehicles when responding to emergency calls without lights and sirens is 4.6 per 100,000 responses. When lights and sirens are used, the crash rate increases to 5.5 per 100,000 responses. Another study published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration analyzing data from 2013 to 2018 found that 28% of fatal ambulance crashes occurred while lights and sirens were active. An analysis from the CDC of police vehicle crashes from 2005 to 2013 found that Law Enforcement Officers using their lights and sirens—were 1.3 times more likely to be involved in crashes compared to non-emergency driving. Representative Fetgatter, knowing these statistics, why would you knowingly allow inexperienced media chasers the ability to utilize warning lights and sirens?

Representative Fetgatter, I want you to imagine that a disaster occurred in the 16th District. Now imagine your residents being impacted by that disaster and they see vehicles with sirens and warning lights coming towards them. They’re going to think that it’s a public safety official who may be able to aid them. However, it turns out to be a media chaser who is there only to document damage for their respective TV Station. How do you think your citizens will feel about that? Over the past decade, I have witnessed this exact scenario, where a disaster happens and media chasers do not offer help, but rather they just sit by and document damage, often getting in the way of first responders. Under no circumstances, should those who have a history of driving dangerously be allowed to further their recklessness by being given equipment that mimics first responders and public safety officials and under no circumstances should these same media chasers be given the title of “emergency responder.”

Storm chasing is not and should not be considered an emergency responder position as storm chasing allows those who love weather the ability to document nature’s fury as a hobby, not respond to disasters.

I want to end my letter of opposition with some statistics. I am a storm chaser myself and I have chased storms for well over a decade. Since 1984, there have been 15 storm chasing-related fatalities, with only five of those being related to storms. It should be noted that between 1984 and 2005, only two fatalities occurred, both being vehicular accidents. However, since 2010, we have seen a significant increase in vehicle-related accidents and fatalities in the storm chasing community as the result of reckless drivers who knowingly blew stop signs and red lights or were distracted by their cell phone, radio, and or computer which led to an accident. I have known chasers who died and even caused serious accidents from these inattentive behaviors. Can you imagine if national news media picked up on an accident that was caused by a storm chaser being reckless and then they find out that those same chasers were using sirens and warning lights? You are opening yourself to vicarious liability.

I want to thank you for serving the people of Oklahoma and I truly hope that you will consider my opposition letter. I hope to hear from your office.

Thank you,
Michael Thornton

Thank you for the excellent information and statistics to back up your points, Michael. Well done!

 

[Randy Zipser]

You're ST title should reflect your actual status to this forum, original co-founder, Randy. But enthusiast fits the bill these days.

Blake

The ST Administrator picked that title for me, Blake. I don't know how/whether to approach them to change it. I don't want to "ruffle any feathers" at this point, and titles are not that important to me, anyway. But, in time, I'm sure I'll move up the ladder once I get a few more posts and reaction points. As for the "ST Co-Founder" reference, I'm sure I speak for Dave Hoadley, ST's Original Creator, in saying that both of us are so grateful and amazed at how ST has grown since those early days into the global success it is today. And, of course, kudos to Tim Marshall, whose years at the helm greatly expanded ST's readership into the digital age.

 

[Ken Perrin]

The ST Administrator picked that title for me, Blake. I don't know how/whether to approach them to change it. I don't want to "ruffle any feathers" at this point, and titles are not that important to me, anyway. But, in time, I'm sure I'll move up the ladder once I get a few more posts and reaction points. As for the "ST Co-Founder" reference, I'm sure I speak for Dave Hoadley, ST's Original Creator, in saying that both of us are so grateful and amazed at how ST has grown since those early days into the global success it is today. And, of course, kudos to Tim Marshall, whose years at the helm greatly expanded ST's readership into the digital age.

IIRC, The designations from "Enthusiast" to "EF5" are based on the number of replies/posts we make.

 

[Randy Zipser]

IIRC, The designations from "Enthusiast" to "EF5" are based on the number of replies/posts we make.

Thanks, Ken.

 

[Warren Faidley]

For those of you who missed last night's 4+ hour marathon, you can still watch it on YouTube (link below). It was a very constructive conversation among chasers from various backgrounds, including Reed Timmer who voiced his concerns. During the second half of the show, Rep. Scott Fetgatter, the co-sponsor of the bill, joined us.

I truly believe his heart is in the right place to protect the citizens of his state. The problem seems to be heavy lobbying from Oklahoma TV stations, especially Channel 9. We argued that allowing news crews to use "code 3" would endanger the public and do more harm than good. During the discussions, we learned that the Oklahoma Highway Patrol does not support the bill. I suggested that they consider a "media access" law similar to the one used in California during wildfires. I think we made good progress in stopping this bill, or at least modifying it so it does not endanger the public or enable TV media to abuse their privileges.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5aWOly

 

[JamesCaruso]

The potentially unfavorable slippery slope consequences of this bill on recreational chasers like us reminds me of a conversation I had with my favorite (and recently deceased) uncle when I was just a kid in my early teens.

At the time, smoking in public places was just starting to be outlawed. My uncle was a smoker, so obviously he was not happy about it, but I was. He told me, “The problem with being happy when the government takes away something you don’t like or care about is that one day they are going to take away something you do like or care about.”

 

[gdlewen]

The potentially unfavorable slippery slope consequences of this bill on recreational chasers like us reminds me of a conversation I had with my favorite (and recently deceased) uncle when I was just a kid in my early teens.

At the time, smoking in public places was just starting to be outlawed. My uncle was a smoker, so obviously he was not happy about it, but I was. He told me, “The problem with being happy when the government takes away something you don’t like or care about is that one day they are going to take away something you do like or care about.”

Once this bill gets passed, it will be easy to amend it to create further restrictions on chasing. Very easy. I hate the whole "slippery-slope" analogy, but it's overused because it's so proven true.

One of the thing that frustrates me is all the people who pass themselves off as pro-liberty, civil libertarians who looked at the text of the bill and just accepted at face value that creating a protected class of chasers is okay...and that government agencies won't interpret the language to favor that class.

They can and they will.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Apologies if this point was already made (over 200 posts here already, which is awesome!) but isn’t the bill unconstitutional? Doesn’t it violate the first amendment to allow only the institutional media to be able to report on an event, and to prevent access to other individuals who may want to record and communicate the event, whether through live-streaming, social media, freelance/independent photojournalism, etc.?

 

[gdlewen]

Apologies if this point was already made (over 200 posts here already, which is awesome!) but isn’t the bill unconstitutional? Doesn’t it violate the first amendment to allow only the institutional media to be able to report on an event, and to prevent access to other individuals who may want to record and communicate the event, whether through live-streaming, social media, freelance/independent photojournalism, etc.?

I don't know--it seems like it should restrict freedom of the press. But it's convolved with public safety issues and I'm not a constitutional law attorney.

As long as government officials don't restrict access to a severe weather event, there's no harm to anyone, and all the pollyanna statements apply. Unfortunately this bill allows state, county, local officials to restrict access to an area simply by virtue of the SPC issuing an outlook.

Take that out and we don't have that kind of restriction on chaser access.

But we still have issues with unofficial vehicles running official emergency lights in hazardous situations, local businesses issuing watches and warnings, restrictions on chasers being on the same road or stopped at the same pace as media chasers....

It's a long list of problems that remain because this bill was written to benefit a small minority of chasers who--if I may be blunt--don't really add any more value to public safety than do the rest of us when it comes to storm spotting. It's all about station vs. station competition.

(Or in the case of universities, I guess it's just about convenience. Or maybe just plain anti-chaser malice. Does that exist in academia?)

 

[Randy Zipser]

I was wondering whether a study has ever been done for Oklahoma to assess the annual economic impact (in dollars) that storm chasers (both resident and out-of-state) have on the Oklahoma state economy?

In consideration of this licensure bill, it would be important to know how just much revenue is actually being raised through lodging “bed tax” and restaurant patronage as a result of seasonal storm chasers to the state of Oklahoma. If such a figure could be reasonably estimated, it could then be compared to the amount of revenue anticipated to be raised through licensure fees, should this bill become law.

My guess is that the lodging/restaurant tax revenue would far, far exceed the typical amount of annual revenue raised through this bill’s licensure fee. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of chasers out on the nation’s highways and roads each spring, and Oklahoma is a prime destination every year, so the total number of dollars these people leave behind in the state could, indeed, have a significant impact on the budgets of municipalities, county governments, and, yes, the state’s general revenue coffers.

If this bill were to become law, it might discourage some percentage of out-of-state chasers from coming to Oklahoma. This loss of revenue to the state’s coffers (the bill does not specify how the licensure fees collected will be used, only that they are to be collected by Service Oklahoma) might be difficult to quantify, but why would the Oklahoma legislature pass any law that might result in less, not more, revenue for the state’s coffers (if that's where they'll ultimately end up going)? Thus, from a purely economic standpoint alone, it makes absolutely no sense to pass this bill into law.

Just another aspect to justify why this bill should not be passed.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I was wondering whether a study has ever been done for Oklahoma to assess the annual economic impact (in dollars) that storm chasers (both resident and out-of-state) have on the Oklahoma state economy?

In consideration of this licensure bill, it would be important to know how just much revenue is actually being raised through lodging “bed tax” and restaurant patronage as a result of seasonal storm chasers to the state of Oklahoma. If such a figure could be reasonably estimated, it could then be compared to the amount of revenue anticipated to be raised through licensure fees, should this bill become law.

My guess is that the lodging/restaurant tax revenue would far, far exceed the typical amount of annual revenue raised through this bill’s licensure fee. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of chasers out on the nation’s highways and roads each spring, and Oklahoma is a prime destination every year, so the total number of dollars these people leave behind in the state could, indeed, have a significant impact on the budgets of municipalities, county governments, and, yes, the state’s general revenue coffers.

If this bill were to become law, it might discourage some percentage of out-of-state chasers from coming to Oklahoma. This loss of revenue to the state’s coffers (the bill does not specify how the licensure fees collected will be used, only that they are to be collected by Service Oklahoma) might be difficult to quantify, but why would the Oklahoma legislature pass any law that might result in less, not more, revenue for the state’s coffers (if that's where they'll ultimately end up going)? Thus, from a purely economic standpoint alone, it makes absolutely no sense to pass this bill into law.

Just another aspect to justify why this bill should not be passed.

Hi Randy, we discussed this and part of the problem are the "too many amateur chasers" argument by the TV stations. "Amateur" meaning you, me, and everyone not an OU researcher or TV station crew. No one else.

The economic points might just feed into their argument, given its only a few days a year. My understanding is that SB158 is only the "first step" in reducing the number of "amateurs on the road. We believe the second step would be to declare emergencies on big days to only allow "FCC-licensed TV crews" on roads, or some other tricky legal maneuver.

The best argument remains the dangers of allowing civilians to run code-3. With the OHP now rejecting the bill, we are in a much better position than a week ago. My suggestion to adopt the California "media access" code is gaining popularity and hopefully offers a solution.

 

[gdlewen]

One of the points in the video @Warren Faidley linked is the notion of “declaring an emergency” and taking effect in July. That’s normal to do if you don’t want to wait for legislation to take effect in November.

It looks odd but it’s purely procedural.

Emergency clause - Oklahoma Policy Institute

The emergency clause is a provision included as part of a bill in the Oklahoma Legislature that allows it to become effective immediately upon the signature of the Governor or at a specified date. Emergency clauses require approval by two-thirds of the members of both chambers and are voted on...

okpolicy.org

 

[Dan Robinson]

I think what you might see attempted is similar to what we already see with hurricanes. That is, declare an emergency or worse, a curfew, inside of SPC moderate or high risks/tornado watches. That way, you compel the public to stay home and make it easier for law enforcement to corral the remaining chasers on the road.