STORM TRACK: May 31, 1981 (Volume 4 Issue 4)

Chase 1981 is mostly in the slide albums and film canisters now. Yours truly did not fare so well this year: nine small funnels and one dimly seen pair of dust tubes under the base of a wrapping gust front northeast of Paducah, Texas (probable tornadic circulation). I was repeatedly in the right place but encountered only small funnels or after-dark storms. Two tornado watches were cancelled three hours after they began. One box "lined-out," as I watched with sinking apprehension, squarely in the middle of the area. The best opportunity was blown on the last, day out (Saturday, June 13), when I went with a Kansas City tornado box and ignored my own forecast. I wound up 100 miles out of position, while eight (8) tornadoes marched across my forecast box. The NWS box included five tornadoes, 3 in the extreme southwest corner of their watch (in my box) and 2 others in the northeast corner. This is the last time I doubt my own forecast (did the same damn thing last year with similar results). Ah, well ..

1981 was marked by additional publicity for chasers. Al Moller was extensively written up in an AP wire story. Subsequently, a People Magazine reporter and photographer met and traveled with several chasers. An article is expected, possibly on the street early next year. Such increasing publicity seems to be a natural outgrowth of our unique hobby, and, while few of us have sought it, it seems to be overtaking us. As increasing exposure comes to chasers, it is well to reflect on what this means and where some of us are "coming from" on it. For some time, I shunned publicity and suggested that this was the better course for chasers, generally. When I was considering whether to allow a Chicago Tribune reporter to accompany me last spring and do a story, I wrote for advice from fellow chasers. From ten inquiries, five responses were received, all positive. I want to share with you two excerpts, which were strikingly similar and touch on a significant point. After agreeing with me regarding general concerns over adverse publicity, the need to downplay sensational aspects, and to emphasize the diffi- culties and dangers, each respondent volunteered a curious observation:

"But, I also think we shouldn't try to suppress potentially interested people or attempt to restrict the storm chasers to an elite 'club'." (C. A. Doswell)

"None of us can (or should try to?) dictate who will be the chosen few permitted to go out and witness a natural event." (J. F. Weaver)

There is something here (almost an implied obligation). We share the ability and resources to repeatedly encounter, at close range, a magnificent natural phenomenon that few other people can even comprehend. However we choose individually to deal with public inquiries, we should not become sectarian or elitist in our response, seeming to deny from others access to or information about these great storms. This does not mean going to another extreme of leading chase convoys or loading your car with thrill seekers. It suggests that a balance needs to be struck, which will vary from chaser to chaser. As increasing publicity comes our way, the pressures to make the right decision in each instance will not be easy. I think the two writers above said it, very well. In our natural and understandable wish to remain free and unencumbered to chase storms, we should avoid turning inward. What we have each experienced, I think, enlarges the human spirit. Somehow, this needs to be shared.