Warren Faidley
Supporter
Dan, can you and / or I re-post this to social media? Thanks.
Edit... saw it on X and re-posted. How about Facebook and other outlets.
-
After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.
I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.
For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.
From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.
Sincerely, Jeff D.
Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation
- Thread starter JamesCaruso
- Start date
Dan, can you and / or I re-post this to social media? Thanks.
Edit... saw it on X and re-posted. How about Facebook and other outlets.
Dan Robinson
EF5
Yes Warren and all, feel free to repost anywhere and everywhere.
Dan, can you and / or I re-post this to social media? Thanks.
Edit... saw it on X and re-posted. How about Facebook and other outlets.
One argument that might be raised here is that TV chasers are sometimes counted as chasers or spotters in that data set. It is true that there is some overlap in how those categories are entered in each instance. I would respond to that by pointing out that this shows that we are all in the same class when it comes to reporting tornadoes in the name of public safety, and as such, should *all* qualify for what is in the bill. In other words, if the goal truly is public safety, make the qualifying criteria simply one that makes a certain number of tornado reports per year, regardless of media affiliation. Isn't the reporting of tornadoes all that matters here? That would reveal whether the bill's motives are indeed in the interest of public safety.
Last edited:
John Farley
Supporter
I have signed the petition and linked it on my Facebook page. But like Dan said about his, my FB page does not seem to get much traction on anything like this. But the more of us who post this to social media, the better.
Randy Zipser
EF1
Your observations above (similar to earlier ones posted by Faidley) certainly have merit, particularly as related to the chaser-contributed percentage of total state annual revenue. However, maybe we're all really missing the most important point here. Until we have hard numbers in front of us (which, let's face it, are impossible to obtain due to a multitude of variables during any given chase season, let alone an entire fiscal year), we are all, myself included (please see my previous posts), just speculating about the financial side of the equation within SB-158.
Nothing grabs the attention of any politician more than...M.O.N.E.Y., especially any loss of it! That's why we, who oppose this legislation, need to play the money "angle" and "dangle" it in front of the pols to see where this leads. Hmm...the "angle of the dangle" (pun not intended, LOL)! Seriously, though, if the pols weren't thinking about money when they drafted this poorly-thought-out bill, why did they even include a requirement to collect these paltry licensure fees? We can only guess at the answer to that question, since the bill conveniently leaves out any details about how this money will be used or who will benefit from it at the state level.
So, actually, it might work to our advantage to exploit the financial (economic) issue as part of an overall package pointing out many other very serious flaws with this bill that many posters on this thread have already brought to light. Since all these flaws supplement, not compete with one another, to use every "lever" we have available would only strengthen our opposition argument, not undermine it, IMHO.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
I also wonder if any of the legislators are "in bed" with the TV stations? What a great way to get a lot of future political publicity. In reality, the odds are much greater this bill will result in a fatal accident and they are going to be held responsible. As a legislator, I would want to keep as far away as possible from this bill. You know there are going to be a landslide of clips posted of bad behavior by TV crews as pissed-off chasers won't miss a thing.
William Monfredo
EF4
I suppose some people still believe this...
gdlewen
EF4
Send those clips to the members of the committees who passed the bill. And create an online Rogues Gallery. (Not sure the legal ins-and-outs of that last Gallery bit.)
They didn’t take our concerns seriously and I’m sure they were told our concerns are way overblown. The disappointing thing is how poorly the public has been treated through this process. Like we know nothing at all.
Steve Holmes
EF2
T0rnadoAgain2019!
Follow the money. Here's the OK Campaign Reporting System.
Follow the money. Here's the OK Campaign Reporting System.
gdlewen
EF4
Did you see anything inappropriate? I went through Fetgatter’s reports a few days ago and didn’t see anything. Haven’t been through anyone else’s reports because frankly Fetgatter admitted to originating the bill after a request from a “media group”.
It’s not always as clear-cut as “follow the money”. Patronage takes many forms.
I can tell you I sincerely believe this is not an example of buying votes. I doubt you will find members of two committees were bought off in toto. I think we are seeing the attitude of a ruling class, where the opinions of the people are who know better than they do are disregarded because we are the Great Unwashed Masses. Both political parties participated because elitism is a non-partisan problem. (I wish I could blame one party or the other but in this case it is so clear that “party” is not the issue.)
Warren Faidley
Supporter
Fetgatter is ignoring the danger this poses to the public. For the life of me, I just don't understand why. Even the Highway Patrol thinks it's insane and he's ignoring them. How can you allow 60+ emergency vehicles running amuck on the crowded streets of Oklahoma City and in the rural areas on storm days? It makes zero sense. I've heard he's overlooking the dangers because he's "pissed-off" at the resistance from the chase community. There has to be something else at work here.
Dan Robinson
EF5
Are there going to be any public comment sessions on the floor for this? Are there any others in the OK house/senate who might be voices of reason and present some counter-arguments and facts?
gdlewen
EF4
I agree--while I have found public figures to sometimes have thin skins (go figure), I don't see it as plausible that entire committees voted punitively. Even if he is pissed-off at the resistance, he managed to convince his colleagues none of the opposing views have merit. That should not have been so easy.
I don't know what kind of lobbying the media group(s) did behind the scenes. For all we know they all received visits from the media.
Doesn't change the fact that all of the opposing voices--including public safety--carried less weight than the agents requesting the bill. Not happy.
gdlewen
EF4
No public sessions on this. I just checked and it is going to Appropriations next.
Randy Zipser
EF1
It seems that Fetgatter is hellbent on fast-tracking this bill through. Is there any way to possibly slow down this process by creating doubt in some technical point, like the cost to the state if this bill becomes law. For example, if we can convince just one fiscally-conservative Republican to look more closely at just how much it might cost on an annual basis to fund this bill, maybe we can get this legislation tabled until an appropriations study is done. A temporary delay might "buy" at least 6 more weeks of time, during which perhaps other more sensible pols may weigh in to oppose...
Warren Faidley
Supporter
The BIG problem is that chasers continue to bitch against the bill by complaining about their own ability to chase. They fail to see the only way this bill fails is if the public is aware of the dangers it presents by having 60+ civilian vehicles running code-3 during storms. Sen. Mann has already stated the aim of the bill is to "get amateurs off the road." He has also added the misleading paragraph noting it will not affect chasers although we all know that traffic flow, road blocks and amateur vs. professional licensing WILL hamper your ability to chase. Just wait until other states follow with similar bills.
Unless chasers start to point out the dangers this bill poses to the public, not their own chasing issues, it's going to pass.
The other serious problem is the lack of discontent by big name chasers. Ryan Hall for example, could go live and have tens-of-thousands of followers activated. Other chasers have been promised licenses, so I don't expect them to get too involved, maybe just enough to appear like they care to avoid future grief.
And yes, I'm told Fetgatter is very unhappy about out of state chasers trying to tell him what to do.
Unless chasers start to point out the dangers this bill poses to the public, not their own chasing issues, it's going to pass.
The other serious problem is the lack of discontent by big name chasers. Ryan Hall for example, could go live and have tens-of-thousands of followers activated. Other chasers have been promised licenses, so I don't expect them to get too involved, maybe just enough to appear like they care to avoid future grief.
And yes, I'm told Fetgatter is very unhappy about out of state chasers trying to tell him what to do.
Similar threads
