Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[gdlewen]

Yes that was my point - why would they need a new law passed if there were already established pathways to accomplish what the current language in the bill wants to do?

I think you are right and there are easier ways to provide emergency response credentials to media/university chasers that don't require a new state law. Another reason why our collective spider senses are tingling.

 

[Warren Faidley]

People keep missing the point. There is zero need for any media or research vehicles to run with emergency equipment. It’s not like people are dying because of this. I guarantee the genuine philosophy behind this is ego-driven. If there was indeed a true need, the chasers behind this bill would not be cowards and come forward.

Another point that is being overlooked is the bill's reference to "unlicensed chasers." So yes, there are penalties (to be determined) if you are out there chasing with out a license, which is basically an anti-chasing bill.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Had a brief conversation with Reed about the bill. He was not involved in it's creation, which I glad to hear.

 

[Jesse Risley]

If they attempt to apply this bill to so-called unlicensed chasers then what will ultimately undo It will be a challenge under the right to travel which more generally includes the ability to use state highways, as it encompasses the freedom to move between or within states without undue restriction, since state highways are a primary means of interstate travel. While this is an unenumerated right there is case law on this tying it back to the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution.

Obviously, the right to travel as a negative liberty is an expressly unenumerated right and not absolute in certain cases, e.g., restrictions can be imposed in disasters or police roadblocks are certainly legal to protect the safety of the public, but blanket prohibitions that entire groups of people can't use public right-of-ways to enter and exit the state of Oklahoma in search of spinning water vapor won't hold up if that's ultimately what they try to do. States cannot supersede constitutionally protected rights owed to the Supremacy Clause.

Oklahoma is already on a roll though because they are tied up in litigation that is ultimately unconstitutional in certain First Amendment areas so this doesn't surprise me.

Does anyone have any connections to try to find out who sponsored this bill and what the goal is?

 

[gdlewen]

Here is a very interesting article:

New Bill Aims to Regulate Storm Chasers with Mandatory Licensure Requirements

Oklahoma Legislature Proposes Bill to Regulate Storm Chasers: What You Need to KnowIn a move to protect consumers and enhance public safety, the Oklahoma Legislature is considering a bill that would r...

www.breakingnownews.com

I have contacted the journalist to ask for his sources, since he doesn't quote anyone, and his description of the bill is very different from the bill synopsis, found here:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2025-26%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/BILLSUM/Senate/SB158%20INT%20BILLSUM.PDF

The info in the BreakingNowNews article, if accurate, confirms our worst fears:

"In a move to protect consumers and enhance public safety, the Oklahoma Legislature is considering a bill that would require storm chasers to obtain licensure. This proposal aims to curb unethical practices and ensure that those documenting severe weather events are qualified and accountable."

I can't confirm when the bill is slated to appear before any committee, either in the House or Senate, because the legislature web site has not yet been updated for the upcoming session. For example, not all of the Bill Search features are working. (This happens every year about this time.)

I just don't see it as reasonable to regulate (i.e. punish) an entire class of individuals for the bad behavior of a few. There are already laws on the books to deal with traffic violations and reckless driving. I have seen far worse driver behavior on US-169N in Tulsa in rush hour than I ever saw chasing.

I don't think Oklahoma has a "speed not reasonable and prudent" law like Arizona, but that would handle a lot of bad chaser behavior. (Just an example of how we don't need to regulate chasers to achieve safer roads when reckless driving happens all the time but storm intercept opportunities are comparatively few.)

 

[Mike Dorame]

I'm a former EMT & a storm chaser, I've NEVER seen media get out and help. I have seen them setup for a live shoot while people were in need of help. This has got to be a money grab. And ya, I'm not a fan of legacy media, most people aren't, 4 good reason.

 

[Warren Faidley]

From all the comments by Sen. Mann, I'm still under the impression that the main goal of this bill is to crack down on chasing, except for those that the state of Oklahoma deems "worthy" or "professional."

The best bet at defeating this bill is twofold. 1: The OHP. They do not want civilians running code three. 2: The Governor. There is no way the state wants legal battles and the potential liability associated with this bill.

 

[Jesse Risley]

From all the comments by Sen. Mann, I'm still under the impression that the main goal of this bill is to crack down on chasing, except for those that the state of Oklahoma deems "worthy" or "professional."

The best bet at defeating this bill is twofold. 1: The OHP. They do not want civilians running code three. 2: The Governor. There is no way the state wants legal battles and the potential liability associated with this bill.

That may be the goal but in rereading this bill several times the language as currently written doesn't do that. It appears to give a certain select group of privileged chasers the ability to be on par with emergency services in how they use public right-of-ways and what they can access in, say, the event of a weather-related road closure or restriction of access to a certain area due to an emergency weather situation. It does not, as written, create a mandated chaser licensure. That doesn't mean it won't be rewritten to become broader in its scope. Like you I'd like to know who or what is behind this. To be clear though I don't support the bill either way but I have no skin in the game living up in the Rust Belt.

 

[Drew Terril]

You're right--you don't see it and that's the problem. In statute, if something is not mentioned, you should not assume it is excluded. You should assume it can be included at the discretion of government officials. Fuzzy language, bad law.

The improper (or unanticipated) use of government discretion is the problem. There's nothing to prevent local law enforcement from enforcing "local travel only" during a significant weather event, which is loosely defined to be "a day of enhanced, moderate, or high risk conditions in one or more counties". [Note you have to read to the end of the list to find the "or" that announces that any of the items by themselves constitutes a significant weather event.]

I've read the bill a couple of times and it cannot be fixed by amending it. Nibbling around the edges can never fix a bad bill.

To avoid the unintended consequences all of us have mentioned it should be scrapped and re-written.

In this lies the entire issue, not just with this bill, but in laws in general at all levels. This assumption that, just because it's not explicitly excluded means it can be included at the discretion of LEOs and the State/City/County. It *should* be the opposite. If they're not explicitly given a power, then it's not theirs to have. And this is not unique to Oklahoma. I've lived in five different states to this point, and have traveled quite a bit to all but five of the fifty states (both for work and on personal travel. Every one of them that I've been in sees the former, as does the federal government. With that said, if local LEOs start using this as a significant revenue source for their locality (much like speed traps), I don't see the state looking the other way given how, in prior years, they've stripped towns of their ability to write traffic tickets over speed traps before and towns grabbing over half their revenue from traffic citations.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The scene in Oklahoma when a local news station is not approved for SB158.

View attachment SaveTwitter.Net_GiyyJQLbcAA9Tke_(gif).mp4

 

[Warren Faidley]

That may be the goal but in rereading this bill several times the language as currently written doesn't do that. It appears to give a certain select group of privileged chasers the ability to be on par with emergency services in how they use public right-of-ways and what they can access in, say, the event of a weather-related road closure or restriction of access to a certain area due to an emergency weather situation. It does not, as written, create a mandated chaser licensure. That doesn't mean it won't be rewritten to become broader in its scope. Like you I'd like to know who or what is behind this. To be clear though I don't support the bill either way but I have no skin in the game living up in the Rust Belt.

But therein lies the problem. This means LEO can block any road at anytime in Oklahoma and only allow licensed vehicles to pass. It does not have to be a disaster scene or news event. They could block a road creating an even worse disaster. So much for me and others responding to disasters as volunteer EMTs. This goes beyond the main hazard of allowing aggressive news crews to run code-3 up to 150 miles away from a storm. I remind everyone that some of the TV media chasers already have a history of reckless driving.

This also means LEO could site you or worse if you don't have a license, because according to Sen Mann, it's up to them to. You are either a licensed professional or a hack chaser who does not belong on the road. The law is vague. Given the number of counties and small towns, I guarantee you there will be a wide range of interpretations from minor to extreme. I suspect if you are caught in a area that is deemed "licensed chasers" only, you will be cited or arrested.

This is how the law works and why we have appeal courts from the bottom to the Supreme Court.

Over time, you will be either a licensed chaser or not in the eyes of LEO and the public.

 

[Blake Naftel]

But therein lies the problem. This means LEO can block any road at anytime in Oklahoma and only allow licensed vehicles to pass. It does not have to be a disaster scene or news event. They could block a road creating an even worse disaster. So much for me and others responding to disasters as volunteer EMTs. This goes beyond the main hazard of allowing aggressive news crews to run code-3 up to 150 miles away from a storm. I remind everyone that some of the TV media chasers already have a history of reckless driving.

This also means LEO could site you or worse if you don't have a license, because according to Sen Mann, it's up to them to. You are either a licensed professional or a hack chaser who does not belong on the road. The law is vague. Given the number of counties and small towns, I guarantee you there will be a wide range of interpretations from minor to extreme. I suspect if you are caught in a area that is deemed "licensed chasers" only, you will be cited or arrested.

This is how the law works and why we have appeal courts from the bottom to the Supreme Court.

Over time, you will be either a licensed chaser or not in the eyes of LEO and the public.

I'm a former EMT & a storm chaser, I've NEVER seen media get out and help. I have seen them setup for a live shoot while people were in need of help. This has got to be a money grab. And ya, I'm not a fan of legacy media, most people aren't, 4 good reason.

Mike: Pardon me on your observations or lack thereof of "never" having witnessed broadcast media assist in emergency situations, but in pressing events, they have and do. I could regale you with stories from all over the country regarding this aspect. Fact here however is that It's not their job, nor are most broadcast reporters, storm chasers, etc are trained as EMT's to assist.

While I do not defend "legacy media" for many other reasons at this point in history, as a former broadcast television journalist, producer and storm chaser who is not a trained EMT, when I would encounter an incident where people were injured, etc; all I could "assist" with as a good samaritan and in a broadcast media perspective in those unfortunate situations when nature impacted humans; i.e. a devastated farmstead, injured person from hydroplaning while storm chasing, et al. was to call 911, get a note out on the former Twitter app [pre X], help where I could, not record myself on a phone or acting heroic for a reality television program, station, company, etc; then actually do my assigned job at the time, which was to document the scene, report about what I witnessed, pack up and move on.

I am very familiar with Oklahoma, the weather media scene there and it's aggressive tactics during severe weather events in recent decades dating back to the early 1990's. The scene in Oklahoma is completely out of control on big severe weather days with traffic jams, accidents, and hundreds of people emulating the reality program shows that inspired them. Someone in Oklahoma government is finally is taking a stand in the Sooner state and baring this actually goes through, while favoritism will likely prevail for those in the public spotlight, academic or government groups and leave others in the lurch, good!

It shall be interesting to see how this all evolves.

Edit: Scott McPartland, a New York City based photojournalist and seasoned storm chaser who use to contribute to this forum over 20 years ago, just caught me up on the situation regarding this preposed legislation. The above was merely to comment on the "media" aspect. From what this bill reads, and how I interpret the situation, it's not dissimilar to obtaining a film crew license in Chicago for a production. Am I mistaken on that, or is there more to it?

Blake

 

[William Monfredo]

Oklahoma is completely out of control on big severe weather days with traffic jams, accidents, and hundreds of people emulating the reality program shows that inspired them. Someone in Oklahoma government is finally is taking a stand...

I know it get's crazy. But, I do not want to see such a law at all. People should be able to "ride free without interference from the man."

 

[Warren Faidley]

I do not see anything in this bill that refers to EMS activities by the media. If the goal was to provide EMS services, then they would allow TCCC trained EMT's like me to respond. The EMS angle seems like a fake argument to make it sound more urgent.

In my 37 years of chasing hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, etc., I have never once seen a news van or research vehicle divert to a disaster scene to assist with EMS operations. There is zero reasoning for news crews or research vehicles to run code-3. Media crews have press credentials and could always use yellow warning lights. Again, I have yet to witness a single event where a news or research vehicle could have saved a life by running code-3. Allowing such behavior will create even more insanity on the roadways, endangering the public and other chasers.

There are hundreds of spotters and public reports during major events. The TV media could utilize such information, but they are too cheap to pay for it. This bill was promoted by unknown, coward, "well-known" chasers who will not come forward and explain their thinking process. Let's be honest here, they simply want the ability to beat the other guy to the scene and have the excitement of running code-3.

Not once in this discussion have I seen anyone give a sh_t about the dangers this poses to the public, far out weighing any benefit.

 

[Mike Smith]

I have to kindly disagree with the potential effect of this bill. As my attorney wife pointed out, it's important to discover who is sponsoring the bill.

I could be far off-base, but this has the stink of OU all over it.

OU is not some "warm, fuzzy" organization. Their meteorology school has its own Washington lobbyist and they are quite influential. Something tells me (I have zero proof) that they came up with this to enhance their ability to do research in the field. Who knows, there may collaboration with the TV stations.

I agree that I've never, ever seen a TV station render aid.

It is important to defeat this bill because it gets a "foot in the door" for regulating storm chasing.