Sunday October 25th 1:00PM - 3:00PM

Ice Cream Memorial Celebrating the Life of Marion Hagans

Marion passed away September 2009. The Memorial will be held at the Recreational Hall at Lake Como from 1:00pm-3:00pm. Guests coming to the ice cream memorial must let the gate personnel know that they are coming to the Rec Hall to honor Marion. Marion was well known in the naturist community for founding a naturist singles club that have been meeting for many years. She is also well recognized for her  involvement in trying to get approval for a naturist beach on the West Coast of Florida.  Families have been grateful for the time she bestowed on loved ones  as a Hospice Care Provider. Marion was a woman of many interests, and a friend to thousands of naturists around the globe.

Lake Como Resort 20500 Cot Rd Lutz Fl 33558

NAC has learned that the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) intends to ignore the law and will begin issuing citations for nudity in the traditional clothing-optional area at San Onofre State Beach, beginning Tuesday, September 8, 2009.

According to DPR, the citations will be issued under Title 14, Section 4322 of the California Code of Regulations. That regulation allows an individual to be charged for nudity in a state park. Conviction under that section is NOT a sex offense.

**********************************************************************
NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
ADVISORY
**********************************************************************
http://www.naturistaction.org
**********************************************************************

Copyright 2009 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.

DATE : September 4, 2009
SUBJECT: San Onofre Advisory
TO : All naturists and other concerned citizens

Dear Naturist,

This is an advisory from the Naturist Action Committee (NAC) concerning an important situation in the state of California.

NAC has learned that the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) intends to ignore the law and will begin issuing citations for nudity in the traditional clothing-optional area at San Onofre State Beach, beginning Tuesday, September 8, 2009.

According to DPR, the citations will be issued under Title 14, Section 4322 of the California Code of Regulations. That regulation allows an individual to be charged for nudity in a state park. Conviction under that section is NOT a sex offense.

Such ticketing, if it takes place, would be improper and illegal. The Naturist Action Committee and Friends of San Onofre Beach have petitioned the California Supreme Court to consider their lawsuit against DPR. Until the Supreme Court indicates whether it will hear the matter, the ruling of the Superior Court stands. Though DPR won a subsequent appeal, the ruling that’s currently valid is the one that favored the naturists.

The court order that remains in effect until further notice was issued by Orange County Superior Court Judge Sheila Fell on August 27, 2008. It refers to the Department of Parks and Recreation as “Parks.” The court order reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

“PARKS IS ORDERED TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, AND ENFORCE THE CAHILL POLICY.”

CHOICES:

A number of naturists have indicated their willingness to be cited for nudity at San Onofre on Tuesday so that a court may decide the matter of citations that have been issued while an existing court order is in effect forbidding them.

NAC recognizes that the choice to participate in such civil disobedience must be left to each individual. If you’d like more information on the choices and their possible ramifications, you may contact NAC board member Allen Baylis by e-mail at rab@bayisaw.com or by phone at
(714) 962-0915.

DISCUSSION:

The order mandating that the Parks Department continue to apply the Cahill/Harrison regulation which was issued by Orange County Superior Court Judge Sheila Fell has not been rescinded because the case is still under appeal. This order will remain in place until a higher court issues an order to Judge Fell to rescind her prior order. If that happens at all, it will be unlikely to take place before mid October. Therefore, if State Park Rangers issue citations for nudity without having first received a public complaint and allowing the nude person to get dressed to avoid a pubic nudity citation, they will be violating a court order. That is true in any traditional clothing optional area in a California State Park.

Over the past few days, Rangers have told people that trail 6 is no longer a nude beach and that they must get dressed. That is not accurate information. We expect that the rangers will continue the misinformation over Labor Day weekend.

As most of you know, the Parks Department has taken the battle statewide. In a blatant reversal of their position, the DPR chose to request publication of the Appellate Court opinion, which has the effect of abrogating the Cahill/Harrison regulation state wide. Their reason for doing this has been stated as: to avoid the significant cost of litigating the issue at other state parks, thereby giving them the ability to close other traditional clothing optional beaches at will. Clearly, what happens at San Onofre will certainly affect our right to be nude in other state parks.

We recognize that the level of resistance and the extent one will go to fight injustice is an individual decision. However, we must take a stand here and now to protect our nude beaches in California. There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by acquiescing to government tyranny. It’s a matter of LIBERTY! The founding fathers of our country would be proud of us for standing up against big government. Information about what happens if you get a citation is available here: http://www.friendsofsanonofre.org/whatif.htm

Friends of San Onofre Beach and the Naturist Action Committee intend to make sure that those who receive citations in this circumstance will not have to bear the full burden of dealing with the courts. First, it must be remembered that the original court order is still in place and enforceable. So, any citations issued should be easily dismissed. Also, if citations are issued, we will be back in court
asserting our right to enforce the August 27, 2008 order.

Please continue to visit Trail 6 at San Onofre and continue to exercise your right to be nude there. If we simply walk away from San Onofre, we risk not only losing that beach, but all of the clothing-optional beaches in a Caifornia state parks.

Please report beach incidents to: NAC board member Allen Baylis 714-962-0915 - rab@baylislaw.com

MORE INFORMATION

NAC will continue to issue Action Alerts, Advisories and Updates on this issue as circumstances require. Look for them.

Details of this situation and specifics of the Cahill/Harrison Regulation and associated documents may be found on the NAC Web site:
http://www.naturistaction.org/sanonofre/

There, you will find background documents related to the Cahill Policy, the Harrison letter and NAC’s lawsuit. You will also find this NAC Advisory on the NAC Web site: http://www.naturistaction.org. Click on ALERTS, ADVISORIES & UPDATES, and look under Current Advisories.

PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

The Naturist Action Committee remains committed to the vigorous defense of the clothing-optional use of public land. Activism on behalf of naturists can be expensive. NAC relies entirely on the voluntary financial support of people like YOU.

Won’t you please send a generous donation to:

NAC
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 (8AM-4PM, Central Time, weekdays) to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card.. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: http://www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you for choosing to make a difference.

Naturally,

Allen Baylis
Board Member
Naturist Action Committee

—————————————————————
Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton - execdir@naturistaction.org
Board Member Allen Baylis - rab@baylislaw.com
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick - naturist@sunclad.com
—————————————————

Paradise Lakes, Pasco County’s original superclub for nudists has always been known for pushing the limits of accepted nudist proctices.  Paradise Lakes has been through several changes in ownership and it seems that with each change, the separation from  real nudism has widened.

While the term “Family-friendly” has been a buzzword recently for traditional nudism, families don’t really have anything to do with acceptable behavior.  Adults have a responsibility to other adults as well as to children.  If a club advocates or even tolerates behavior that is not in line with traditional nudist principles, then it shoul;d no longer represent itself as a nudist endeavor and advertise iself appropriately.

If you want to watch people having sex, then there should be a place for such activity, but don’t sully the reputations of real nudist clubs by claiming these locations are nudist clubs also.

Read the Tampa Tribune article about Paradise Lakes below.

G-string contest brings trouble to Paradise

By GEOFF FOX

gfox@tampatrib.com

For the second time in just over a year, one of Pasco County’s clothing-optional resorts has withdrawn from the American Association of Nude Recreation over advertising practices considered contrary to the organization’s family-friendly principles.

Paradise Lakes Resort on Friday withdrew from the influential association over advertisements for a “Miss G-String International” competition at the resort, AANR officials said. Paradise Lakes is off U.S. 41, just south of State Road 54.

AANR’s board voted to temporarily suspend the membership, but when resort owner John Forier was informed of the suspension, he voluntarily withdrew membership, said AANR spokeswoman Carolyn Hawkins.

An investigation over complaints of advertising and marketing efforts behind the G-string contest was launched in recent months.

“When a club receives a charter they make a commitment to uphold our standards,” Hawkins said.

The organization offers marketing and lobbying muscle to its members. AANR’s principles state: “Any club that deliberately advocates, endorses, encourages or promotes sexual activities or sexual enterprises is subject to revocation of its charter.”

In a news release, Erich Schuttauf, AANR’s executive director, said the organization represents “healthy, clothes-free living and recreation, for all ages.”

An advertisement on Paradise Lakes’ Web site depicts a presumably nude woman on a motorcycle. The ad says the Oct. 1-3 event will be hosted by a Penthouse magazine cover model and feature “25 gorgeous contestants competing for exciting prizes and top honors!”

Christian Schrangl, Paradise Lakes’ manager, did not return a phone call seeking comment.

In July 2008, the opulent Caliente Resorts withdrew its membership with AANR after the resort was temporarily suspended over an investigation into its involvement with a swingers organization. Caliente is off U.S. 41, north of S.R. 54.

AANR’s board of trustees voted to suspend Caliente after it learned that Angye Fox, the resort’s public relations director, was to speak at Swingfest 2008, an adult trade show in Hollywood, Fla.

The Paradise Lakes investigation determined that the resort’s management had “increasingly sexualized the nudist experience” by advertising and marketing the G-string contest, AANR said.

The resort opened in 1981. Hawkins characterized Paradise Lakes as a longtime member or the organization. She said she has worked for AANR nearly 20 years and doesn’t recall any previous investigations at Paradise Lakes.

The action comes during a time when many nudist and clothing-optional resorts are trying to interest younger generations in the lifestyle. As with Caliente’s withdrawal last year, it is unclear exactly what the loss of AANR membership will mean for Paradise Lakes.

When Caliente withdrew from AANR, Fox said the resort was “taking advantage of educating the next generation, the 20- and 30-somethings on social nudism. AANR hasn’t done a good job of targeting those folks.”

Blacks Beach, a popular hangout for San Diego Nudists, suffered a Collapse of Cliff this weekend.  Anyone who has visited Blacks Beach knows it’s a long way down fron the Gliderport to the water.  That’s a lot of rock waiting to fall.  Read the full story at the La Jolla Light.

Cliff collapses onto Black’s Beach Monday, August 17, 2009

By City News Service

The section of the cliff near the 12600 block of North Torrey Pines Road, in an area known as Flat Rock, gave way shortly before 1:30 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008, according to San Diego police. This photo was taken around 6 p.m. the same day. Photo by: File Photo

Part of a cliff at Torrey Pines State Beach collapsed onto Black’s Beach sometime between Friday and Saturday, and although officials do not believe there are any victims, search and rescue teams are looking through the rubble just in case.

The collapsed area is by Flat Rock, below the 12000 block of N. Torrey Pines Road, according to a docent at the state park.

A park employee found the cliff collapse around 8 a.m. Saturday morning and because no camping is allowed, officials do not believe there are any victims, she said.

The San Diego sheriff’s search and rescue team is on the scene and checking out the collapse as a precaution, said sheriff’s Lt. Hope Andrews.

Flat Rock is also where a 57-year-old tourist died last August when debris from a sea-bluff collapsed on him in the middle of the day.

Three to five cubic yards of rock and dirt fell about 25 feet onto Robert Mellone, of Henderson, Nev., partially burying him. Mellone’s relatives and other beachgoers dug him out from under basketball-sized stones and earth. Mellone died at the hospital about an hour later.

The cliffs above Black’s Beach are treacherous and frequently dump tons of boulders and dirt onto the strand, which is a popular beach for clothing-optional sunbathers.

Over the Independence Day weekend, I was priviledged to spend a couple of days at Rock Haven Lodge in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.  I had last visited Rock Haven in 1994, and the facilities are even nicer now than on my previous visit.

One word of warning, if you are planning on sleeping in a tent, you will need a free-standing tent and something padded to sleep on.  The topsoil at Rock Haven is only a couple of inches thick over a bed of flat rock.

The following article appears in the Tennessean.

August 16, 2009

Murfreesboro nudists strip down and shed stereotypes

By Jennifer Justus
THE TENNESSEAN

MURFREESBORO — Drive through the gates at http://www.rockhavenlodge.com/index.htm“> Rock Haven Lodge, and it’s the nude volleyball players you see first. Tanned skin — so much skin — in various shades of beige and brown like the sand patch where they play. Then there’s the tennis court. On a recent Saturday, two men played a match in nothing more than white sneakers, socks and one black knee brace.

It’s been a busy summer at Rock Haven Lodge, Tennessee’s only nudist park sanctioned by the American Association for Nude Recreation. Last month the resort helped set a skinny-dipping http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/“> Guinness World Record, with more than 13,000 nudists splashing in pools across the country, and the park has activities planned through the rest of the year. Nudist recreation — including nude cruises and “nakations” — has, after all, grown from a $120 million industry in the early 1990s to about $450 million today.

So given its dip toward the mainstream, what’s the appeal of leaving all body parts bare? Nudists enjoy pointing out that the original Olympic athletes competed in the buff. They often cite the freedom and natural state of it all. And they leave behind insecurities about body image along with the trappings of a wardrobe that might label them as lawyer or lumberjack.

“There are people from all walks of life here. And that’s the thing,” said Rock Haven owner Susan Palmer. “Once you take all your clothes off, you’re judged not by what you wear, but who you are.”

‘A lot of eye contact’

Palmer peels off her T-shirt before stepping out of the park’s office and hopping onto a golf cart for a spin around the property. She’s tall and thin with a short gray haircut, and she sits comfortably in her own skin. She’s also 63 and has had a mastectomy.

Not that anyone would judge at Rock Haven. At nudist parks, gawking is not cool. Unlike swimsuit-strutting scenes in Vegas — or the local http://www.ymca.net/“> YMCA, for that matter — sizes don’t get sized up the same way.

“There’s a lot of eye contact,” Palmer said.

Driving past the tree-shaded camping area, the clubhouse, pool, snack bar and cabins, Palmer waves to other nudists — some 200 are members or visitors, and there are 22 full-time residents — while trying to articulate what she likes about the lifestyle.

“Just the freedom of being in the sun. Just being in nature,” she says.

“See how nice that breeze feels?”

Palmer wasn’t always comfortable going nude. In 1993, when her late husband suggested they try nudism on a trip to Jamaica, she said, “You want to do what? You’re out of you’re mind.”

But after stripping down for a swim under the hot Caribbean sun, the couple asked hotel staff to move them from the “prude side” of the resort to the “nude side.”

By January of the next year, they were members at Rock Haven. And in 2005, previous Rock Haven owners Nancy and George Volak convinced the Palmers to purchase the property, since the Volaks were moving to George’s native Czech Republic.

Today, Palmer sees plenty of shaky hands when the paperwork gets signed at Rock Haven.

Nick Nixon, 48, who now lives and works on the property full-time, said that on his first visit he sat nervously by the pool with his “nose in a book all day.”

And Volak wrote an account of her first experience at a nudist resort for Rock Haven’s Web site. She took one look at all those naked bodies and passed out cold. After coming to, she spent five hours in the pool — submerged to the neck. But during her years as Rock Haven’s owner, she became an outgoing advocate of nudism, speaking about its merits academically at Middle Tennessee State University.

Clothing-free, shame-free

When Richard Lloyd, a professor in the sociology department at Vanderbilt University, explains nudism from an academic perspective, he can’t help but throw in an anecdote from The Simpsons. When Homer runs from the house in a rush — forgetting that he’s wearing no clothes — Lisa calls after him: “Dad, hide your shame.”

Lisa had a point. Lloyd said that nudists repudiate the idea of shame — a concept that for some goes back to Adam and Eve, original sin, and their awareness of being naked.

“This is the statement that people are making — a freedom from bodily shame,” Lloyd said. Going nude is a way for people to say “I’m OK with who I am,” he continued.

And group nudity can promote community and become a social leveler. When everyone is nude, status symbols are moot.

“It’s certainly democratizing,” said Lloyd, who acknowledged that nudism isn’t for him. “Clothing is a dominant way in which we construct identity.”

For many, though, no clothes means sex. But Lloyd says that when everyone is nude, it de-eroticizes the state of being naked.

Still, everyone’s human, and one of the guidelines of nudism — along with taking a towel for sitting everywhere one goes — is to practice discretion. Any outward signs of excitement should be covered.

After all, Rock Haven Lodge is a family park. There is a 13-year-old resident, and some vacationing or member parents bring children.

Carolyn Hawkins, public affairs coordinator for the American Association for Nude Recreation in Kissimmee, Fla., said she raised her son and grandson in nudist parks with “no reservations at all.”

But raising a child in a nudist parks raises some eyebrows.

Even if eroticism is removed from the equation, said Aimee Lyst, a child psychologist with the Pediatric Associates of Franklin, her concern for children exposed to nudism is their ability to assimilate in more typical social settings. Boundaries outside a nudist park are different from boundaries inside, and children must learn to live within both.

‘You never know about people’

Despite its growth, some nudists prefer to keep their lifestyle under wraps. Nudism isn’t for all, as even the most ardent nudist will tell you.

“When we had jobs in the textile (clothed) world,” said Palmer, who worked as an accountant, “we didn’t tell anybody where we went on the weekends. They’d think you were a crazy nudist.”

Not until giving her notice before retiring did she let the comptroller of the firm in on her secret.

“An opportunity has arisen,” she told him. “We’re going to buy a nudist park in Tennessee.”

“You’re nudists?” he said.

“You just never know about people,” she responded.

While some nudists keep quiet, others happily debunk myths and answer naive questions.

Rock Haven resident Don Rawlings, 56, recalled once being asked: “What do you do in the winter?”

“Go inside,” he said. “We’re nudists. We’re not stupid.”

Rawlings retired from the U.S. Army as a pharmacist, and his wife, Elaine, retired as a nurse. But it wasn’t a strict military background that had them fleeing to a nudist park. Rather, it was partly due to time stationed in Europe, where society’s view of nudity is less puritanical, Rawlings said.

Indeed, while it’s the norm in some countries for womento sunbathe topless and for men to wear Speedos, Lloyd noted that the trend in the United States has been to add “more and more trunk over the years.”

Wholly unencumbered by trunks, Don Rawlings sat with his wife on a wicker loveseat and fielded a final question (mostly for accuracy-in-journalism purposes): Do he and his wife share the same last name?

“Oh yes,” he said. “We’re traditional.”

Additional Facts

WHAT TO KNOW • Rock Haven Lodge is a gated family nudist park at 462 Rock Haven Road in Murfreesboro. The park is open from April 15 through the end of September for visitors and year-round for members. Rock Haven is a gated community, and clothing is not optional, which owner Susan Palmer says protects members and visitors from gawkers. For information, call 896-3553 or go to www.rockhavenlodge.com.
• Etiquette calls for nudists to carry a towel for sitting or lounging and a second towel for use after swimming.
• Nudist parks must obtain separate permits from the state for campgrounds, pools and hot tubs. Like hotel or public pools, waters are tested for temperature, chemistry and proper lifesaving equipment.

if (!window.print) { document.write('<br>To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.<br>'); } else { window.print(); }

if(typeof gcion_enable_bt != 'undefined') { if(gcion_enable_bt) { document.writeln('<script type="text/javascript" src="http://js.revsci.net/gateway/gw.js?csid=J06575" charset="ISO-8859-1"></s' + 'cript>'); } }

<!-- s_account="gpaper151,gntbcstglobal"; s_prop50="Newspaper"; //-->

Members of the Nude Beach Alliance met this past weekend at Bates Beach near Carpenteria, CA to promote the idea of returning Bates Beach to clothing optional status.  Their proposal is that nudists would provide ambassadors similar to the policy in effect at Haulover Beach in Miami, lowering crime rates and making the beach safe for all users.  Here’s the siory as it appeared in the Santa Barbara Independent.

Photo by Paul Wellman

Too Much To Bare? Nudists Speak Up About Lack of Clothing-Optional Section at Bates Beach

By Susannah Lopez

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

A rally at Carpinteria’s Bates Beach this Saturday and Sunday openly challenged the necessity of America’s most popular beach accessory: the bathing suit. The suggested replacement for this item? A smile.

Planned by the Santa Barbara-based Nude Beach Alliance, the gathering of nudists served as both a friendly get-together for food and beach games and an opportunity to show off to area residents and government officials just how many people wanting part of the beach designated for nude use. To avoid police involvement, participants did have to wear a bit more than just a smile — that is, the nudists were not nude — but they didn’t let that get in the way of their beach day or their public statement. With signs held upright by the sand, and pamphlets ready to offer any curious passersby, rally participants were ready to spend the day relaxing at the beach while still raising awareness.

The Nude Beach Alliance, along with other organizations, wants to bring back the clothing-optional section of Bates Beach, specifically a quarter-mile stretch of shoreline that prior to the year 2000 had been used as a clothing-optional beach for about 40 years. Over time, members of various groups have developed strategies and suggestions to encourage the return of nude beaches as well as solutions to the problems that led to regulations against them. Currently, only Gaviota and More Mesa beaches offer sections in which people can frolic nude without the threat of citations.

In spite of the complaints registered against the clothing-optional beach that contributed to the increase in enforcement of restrictions on nudity, advocacy groups insist that the positive effects of a nude section of Bates Beach will outweigh the complaints. Supporters have taken a closer look at the financial influences of clothing-optional beaches, especially focusing on tourist dollars. According to Allen Baylis, a director for the Naturist Action Committee, nude beaches can stimulate the economies of the areas that surround them, as evidenced by other communities that have opted to create clothing-optional stretches. The Summer 2009 issue of The Magazine of Naturist Living featured one such beach: Miami-Dade’s Haulover Beach. In 1991, members of South Florida Free Beaches began to use a small nude sunbathing section of the beach at Haulover Beach Park. Today, this area is the destination for hundreds of naturists, from which about 50% are tourists. In 2002, Miami-Dade County Commissioner Sally Heyman wrote, “Haulover Park’s naturist family beach has been good for tourism because of it’s positive effect on the hospitality and tourist industry.” The parking revenue at Haulover increased 445% from 1991 to 2004 – an enormous increase, especially in comparison to that of the county’s other oceanfront park, which saw only a 51% increase. The Nude Beach Alliance does not oppose parking fees, and calls attention to the possibility that an available clothing-optional section at Bates Beach would have the potential to generate a large additional profit by charging for parking, considering it would be the only nude beach in the area. Not only do the participants in this campaign believe that they could improve the area economically, they believe that they will improve the beach environment as a whole. The Nude Beach alliance makes efforts to keep the environment healthy and does beach cleanups. “We feel responsibility for the beach we do use,” explained Dan Cruz, a member of the Southern California Naturist Association.

Paul Wellman

In addition to the concerns about nude beaches voiced by residents of beachside homes, other issues arose that led to the discontinuation of the clothing-optional feature of Bates Beach. Concerns of lewd behavior and the rights of those who come across the nude beach accidentally contributed to the eventual regulations put into place with the Santa Barbara County Nudity Ordinance of 1977, which prohibits “nudity in public places, places open to the public, and places open to public view whether such places are publicly or privately owned, even when such nudity is not sexually motivated or otherwise lewd”, declaring it a “public nuisance and unlawful.” The supporters of a clothing-optional beach have taken these concerns into consideration, and have developed solutions. They intend to establish a Beach Ambassador/Neighborhood Watch program — a group of volunteers present to monitor nude beach behavior and preserve respectful decorum. “If you came to us and said someone was sitting too close or making you uncomfortable, we might come and sit right between you,” explained Nude Beach Alliance Board Member Sonya Robinson, “and maybe put our umbrella down so it blocks them,” she chuckled.

The various naturist organizations expressed their willingness to share the beach with everyone, clothed or not — all they ask for is mutual respect. Members of naturist groups present at the rally all agreed that signs are a crucial part of maintaining an acceptable clothing-optional beach. Signs advise beach visitors that they are entering a section of the beach where there is nudity; this precaution will prevent uncomfortable situations and disgruntled beach-goers who may be taken by surprise. “We would like to have a small portion of the beach,” explained Robinson. “We want to avoid infringing on other areas.”

The fight for clothing-optional beaches is statewide, and numerous organizations, societies, and clubs are participating in the campaign. The Nude Beach Alliance started an online petition last year, which accumulated over 2,000 signatures of people who support a clothing-optional section of Bates Beach immediately North of the Ventura-Santa Barbara county line. Representatives from the Nude Beach Alliance, which is a subsidiary of the Southern California Naturist Association, recently met with a staff member of county supervisor Salud Carbajal to discuss the beach parameters they are aiming to adjust. Members of the alliance are hoping that Carbajal will discuss the issue with the Board of Supervisors and agree to a two-year moratorium on citations for nudity alone. This would provide an opportunity for some observation of the clothing-optional beach section’s effect on crime rates, public views, and economic conditions.

In the past, Bates Beach was a place where the naturist community hosted gatherings and joined together for events and holidays. According to rally attendees, problems started after nudists were “chased away.” Nude beach supporters claim that when clothing became mandatory and nudist gatherings at Bates Beach ceased, the unpopulated coast area became more susceptible to illegal acts, and crime rates increased. They believe that the return of a clothing-optional beach section will improve the safety of Bates Beach and the area surrounding it, based on the theory that if people occupy the area more frequently, there will be slimmer chances for an undetected car break-in, and fewer opportunities for sexual assaults. Expected, according to the nudists, is an overall increase in visitors to the currently less-than-crowded beach, an adjustment that they say could also decrease some of the suspicious activity known to accompany deserted public areas.

After all of their other problems have been settled, nudists come to the final issue under debate: individual opinions about nudity. It is true that people have the right to feel offended or uncomfortable, but how much weight should their opposition hold? Should percentages of those in favor versus those opposed be taken into consideration? These questions are subject to extensive debate, and have certainly sparked the interest of nudists. “You know, people argue that ‘Beaches are for all people to enjoy’,” said Baylis. “Last time I checked, we were part of all people.”

The Naturist Action Committee and Friends of San Onofre Beach have filed their Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court. This action along with others being taken by us effectively puts the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s order on hold. Therefore, the Cahill/Harrison Regulation is at this time valid and enforceable throughout California.

Additionally, the Parks Department has now stated publicly on several occasions that they will not issue citations until after Labor Day. Based on our legal actions, however, it will likely be much longer that that… if ever.

As always, we deeply appreciate your continued support. If you wish to donate, we need funding to continue the fight and provide support should citations eventually be issued.

To donate to the Naturist Action Committee, go to:

www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Responding to a request from legal counsel for the California Department
of Parks & Recreation (DPR), the California Court of Appeal for the 4th
District has published the previously unpublished ruling it rendered last
month in the San Onofre State Beach case. The recent appellate ruling
overturned a 2008 Superior Court victory by the Naturist Action Committee
and Friends of San Onofre Beach, a local naturist group.

***********************************************************************
NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
ADVISORY
**********************************************************************
http://www.naturistaction.org
**********************************************************************
Copyright 2009 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible
for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or
redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its
entirety and without alteration.

DATE   : July 21, 2009
SUBJECT: California Advisory
TO     : All naturists and other concerned citizens

Dear Naturist,

This is an advisory from the Naturist Action Committee (NAC) concerning an
important situation in the state of California.

Responding to a request from legal counsel for the California Department
of Parks & Recreation (DPR), the California Court of Appeal for the 4th
District has published the previously unpublished ruling it rendered last
month in the San Onofre State Beach case. The recent appellate ruling
overturned a 2008 Superior Court victory by the Naturist Action Committee
and Friends of San Onofre Beach, a local naturist group.

At issue is whether DPR has followed proper procedure in abruptly ending
the application of the Cahill/Harrison regulation at San Onofre State
Beach. Cahill/Harrison is long-standing and well-known means for managing
and regulating the clothing-optional use of portions of state parks.

The unpublished ruling applied only to San Onofre State Beach. However,
publication gives the ruling greater precedential effect and allows the
possibility that rangers may ignore the Cahill policy and may begin
issuing citations for nudity at other state parks under Title 14, Section
4322 of the California Code of Regulations.

CAHILL

It has been suggested by some that the Cahill Policy has remained in
effect throughout the years entirely through the good will of the
California Parks Department. If that has been so, then the good will ended
in May, 2008, when Parks Director Ruth Coleman singled out San Onofre
State Beach and said, “Cahill does not apply there.”

>From that moment, the Cahill Policy became badly damaged goods. If it
could be terminated abruptly and without appropriate process or public
involvement at one state park, then it could happen at any state park, at
any time. So much for good will.

Trusting the good will of public officials for something as important as
protection from arrest for benign behavior has never been an intelligent
choice. Relying on that same promise of good will after the trust has been
publicly and intentionally broken is simply folly.

CHOICES

Confronted with the crippling damage dealt to the Cahill Policy at San
Onofre, the Naturist Action Committee faced a basic choice. It could
accept the loss of San Onofre, it could negotiate, or it could fight.

When the Parks Department refused to negotiate, NAC chose to fight.

NAC did not, and does not, look on the Cahill/Harrison regulation as a
matter of good will. It’s a regulation, and it has been used exactly as
regulation by each successive administration of the California Parks
Department for THIRTY YEARS.

The Superior Court accepted NAC’s contention that Cahill/Harrison is a
regulation. The Court of Appeal recognized it as a regulation, too, though
its different view concerning quality and extent were what allowed the
reversal of the Superior Court’s procedural requirements for undoing the
regulation.

NAC’s legal challenge to DPR’s arbitrary destruction of Cahill at San
Onofre did not cripple Cahill. That damage quite clearly had already been
inflicted. Trusting “good will” while waiting for the next shoe to drop
will NOT restore the damaged Cahill Policy. And at NO point has it EVER
been true that accepting the loss of San Onofre will somehow inoculate
naturists against the similar loss of another California beach or another
California state park.

TICKETS?

DPR spokespersons have given conflicting information. One predicted that
the Department would “tread lightly” on the matter of citations for nudity
in state parks. Referring to San Onofre, another has said that no action
was planned until at least after Labor Day. The truth is that there’s
really no way to know for sure.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Later this week, the Naturist Action Committee will file its petition to
have the case heard by the California Supreme Court.

NAC will continue to issue Action Alerts, Advisories and Updates on this
issue as circumstances require. Look for them.

MORE INFORMATION

Details of this situation and specifics of the Cahill/Harrison Regulation
and associated documents may be found on the NAC Web site:
http://www.naturistaction.org/sanonofre

There, you will find background documents related to the Cahill Policy,
the Harrison letter and NAC’s lawsuit. You will also find this NAC
Advisory on the NAC Web site: http://www.naturistaction.org . Click on
ALERTS, ADVISORIES & UPDATES, and look under Current Advisories.

PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

The Naturist Action Committee remains committed to the vigorous defense of
the clothing-optional use of public land. Activism on behalf of naturists
can be expensive. NAC relies entirely on the voluntary financial support
of people like YOU.

Won’t you please send a generous donation to:

NAC
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 (8AM-4PM, Central Time, weekdays) to
donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your
credit card to make a convenient online donation:
http://www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you for choosing to make a difference.

Naturally,

Bob Morton
Executive Director
Naturist Action Committee

—————————————————————
Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton       - execdir@naturistaction.org
Board Member Allen Baylis       - rab@baylislaw.com
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick  - naturist@sunclad.com
—————————————————————

The Key West City Commission is composed of six commissioners and a mayor. The mayor votes when there is a tie vote of the commission. Naturists have three firm votes in favor of a designated clothing-optional beach. The mayor has stated he would vote against a designated beach if there is a tie vote, even though recent local Florida Keys polls have been favorable to a designated naturist beach.

This coming Tuesday, July 21, City Commissioner Bill Verge intends to offer a resolution that would place the issue of a designated naturist beach on the ballot for an October referendum vote, in which the citizens of Key West would cast their ballots directly on the issue. An unfavorable referendum vote would have serious delaying consequences. The strategy of Commissioner Verge is to preempt the City Commission with a vote of the people, forestalling the Commission’s future consideration of a designated beach.

**********************************************************************
NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
ACTION ALERT
**********************************************************************
http://www.naturistaction.org
**********************************************************************
Copyright 2009 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible
for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or
redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its
entirety and without alteration.

DATE   : July 19, 2009
SUBJECT: Florida: Key West
TO     : Naturists and other concerned citizens

Dear Naturist,

Together with local naturist groups, the Naturist Action Committee is asking for your immediate action on an important matter in Florida. With permission and by request, this NAC Action Alert follows (and is largely taken from) a similar alert released by South Florida Free Beaches/Florida Naturist Association, B.E.A.C.H.E.S. Foundation Institute and the Florida Keys Free Beaches Committee.

NAC asks that you email and/or fax a letter immediately to Key West city officials, requesting designation of a clothing-optional beach in the City of Key West. Details follow.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

South Florida Free Beaches (SFFB)/Florida Naturist Association (FNA), B.E.A.C.H.E.S. Foundation Institute and the Florida Keys Free Beaches Committee have been working to establish a designated clothing-optional naturist family beach in Key West, a European-style facility in the tradition of Haulover Beach. The selected section of beach is located at the east end of Smather’s Beach.

For the past several months, the local naturist team has met with members of the county and city commissions, the city manager, and other community leaders, providing them with information required to make an educated and informed decision. Comparative information shows an economic impact of about $900 million annually with 2008 parking revenues of $1,770,834 from Haulover’s clothing-optional beach.

On Tuesday, July 7th, naturist leaders spoke before the Key West City Commission, presenting the economic impact that would be the projected
result of a designated naturist beach.

CURRENT STATUS

The Key West City Commission is composed of six commissioners and a mayor. The mayor votes when there is a tie vote of the commission. Naturists have three firm votes in favor of a designated clothing-optional beach. The mayor has stated he would vote against a designated beach if there is a tie vote, even though recent local Florida Keys polls have been favorable to a designated naturist beach.

This coming Tuesday, July 21, City Commissioner Bill Verge intends to offer a resolution that would place the issue of a designated naturist beach on the ballot for an October referendum vote, in which the citizens of Key West would cast their ballots directly on the issue. An unfavorable referendum vote would have serious delaying consequences. The strategy of Commissioner Verge is to preempt the City Commission with a vote of the people, forestalling the Commission’s future consideration of a designated beach.

Some Commissioners are already concerned that a Commission vote in favor of a designated beach will result in a church-sponsored backlash among registered voters. However, there are other ways to facilitate a clothing-optional beach without requiring Commissioners to vote directly for the issue. One alternate path includes a carefully crafted revision of the City’s existing anti-nudity code.

NATURIST POSITION

This issue does not require a voter referendum. Commissioners are elected to make the tough decisions, and this decision is not as difficult as many others. The establishment of a clothing-optional beach would not even require the expenditure of city money.

Naturists have the support of the Lodging Association, the Hotel Association, the Business Guild and most members of the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the support of local media.

Key West greatly values visitors and the city relies on the tourist trade. Naturists who send their E-mailed comments immediately to the City Commissioners will create additional awareness and help affirm the idea that naturists and others will spend money in Key West if they have a designated naturist beach to visit.

WHAT IS NAC ASKING YOU TO DO?

The Naturist Action Committee is asking you to do just ONE thing:

1) Immediately send your comments by e-mail, supporting a
clothing-optional beach in Key West. Send your E-mail
to Key West’s mayor and city manager, to members of
the Key West City Commission and to two important
local agencies.

WHO SHOULD WRITE?

NAC is asking ALL NATURISTS and other concerned individuals to write, regardless of your residence. Key West recognizes the value of attention (and dollars) from tourists and other visitors.

WHOM TO CONTACT

Time is short. Please e-mail your comments immediately to:

Mayor Morgan McPherson - mayor@keywestcity.com
Fax: 305-809-3886

Commissioner Bill Verge - Bverge@keywestcity.com
Fax: 305-809-3886

Commissioner Mark Rossi mrossi@keywestcity.com
Fax: 305-809-3886

Commissioner Barry Gibson - bfgibson@keywestcity.com
Fax: 305-809-3886

Commissioner Teri Johnston - johnston@keywestcity.com
Fax: 305-809-3886

Commissioner Clayton Lopez - clopez@keywestcity.com
Fax: 305-809-3886

Commissioner Joe Pais - jpais@keywestcity.com
Fax: 305-809-3886

City Mgr. Jim Scholl - jscholl@keywestcity.com
Fax: 305-809-3771

Tourist Development Council (TDC) - research@fla-keys.com
Fax: 305-296-0788

Keys Tourism Agency - webeditor@fla-keys.com

NAC would enjoy the opportunity to read your notes. Please send a copy to:

NAC
P.O. Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903
flkeys@naturistaction.org

WHAT TO SAY?

Here are some suggested points you may wish to make:

1. Identify yourself. Anonymous correspondence is often
disregarded. If you are a past or prospective visitor
to Key West, please say so prominently.

2. Be brief and polite.

3. Request that the commissioners themselves vote on the
issue and NOT refer it to a ballot referendum.

4. Remind the Commissioners that you would visit Key West
if it had a naturist beach. Skinny-dipping and nude
sunbathing are valid recreational choices.

5. Your vacation dollars are primarily (or exclusively)
spent in cities or countries where there are naturist
facilities.

6. You visit South Florida because of Haulover Beach’s
legal clothing optional status.

MORE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES

Additional information and links are available, along with this NAC Action Alert on the Web site of the Naturist Action Committee.

http://www.naturistaction.org

Select “Alerts” and find this NAC Action Alert under Current Alerts. There you will find the agenda for the July 21 meeting of the City Commission, as well as the complete text of the proposed anti-naturist ordinance.

You will also find valuable information at the Web site of South Florida
Free Beaches: http://www.sffb.com .

PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

Of course, local naturists are accepting donations to support this effort. Additionally, however, South Florida Free Beaches has indicated that it may have to call on NAC for help as this issue moves forward. Richard Mason, President of SFFB has suggested that you consider a contribution to NAC to assure that NAC will be able to help.

The Naturist Action Committee is a volunteer nonprofit organization that exists to advance and protect the rights of naturists throughout North America. To do its job, NAC relies entirely on the voluntary generosity of supporters like you. To donate to NAC, use the address below

NAC
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: http://www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you for choosing to make a difference.

Naturally,

Michael Kush
Morley Schloss
Board Members
Naturist Action Committee

—————————————————————
Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton       - execdir@naturistaction.org
Board Member Michael Kush       - michael@gatorlake.net
Board Member Morley Schloss     - morleynaturist@hotmail.com
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick  - naturist@sunclad.com
—————————————————————

Tomorrow’s the big day when people all over the World (okay, mostly the U.S.A. and Canada) will be be stripping off for The Guiness Book of World Records sanctioned event.  The American Association for Nude Recreation is sponsoring the effort to get the largest number of people simultaneously skinny-dipping,

The event will occur at 3:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time (12:00 Pacific) at over 270 AANR Nudist Clubs and numerous nude beaches around North America.  Come on out top your favorite skinny-dipping hole and be counted.

For details, go to http://www.aanr.com/skinny-dip.html

The Naturist Action Committee (NAC) announces significant successes in the Texas legislature.

Working behind the scenes with a professional legislative lobbyist, NAC has been instrumental in derailing four Texas legislative measures that threatened the interests of naturists. NAC quietly offered substitute language for two of the bills and then worked to see that the bills were not adopted.

None of the four bills was passed into law.

**********************************************************************
NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
ADVISORY
**********************************************************************
http://www.naturistaction.org
**********************************************************************
Copyright 2009 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible
for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or
redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its
entirety and without alteration.

DATE   :  July 9, 2009
SUBJECT:  Success in Texas! Dangerous legislation modified, derailed
TO     :  All naturists

Dear Naturist:

The Naturist Action Committee (NAC) announces significant successes in the Texas legislature.

Working behind the scenes with a professional legislative lobbyist, NAC has been instrumental in derailing four Texas legislative measures that threatened the interests of naturists. NAC quietly offered substitute language for two of the bills and then worked to see that the bills were not adopted.

None of the four bills was passed into law.

SUMMARIES OF THE LEGISLATIVE BILLS:

House Bill 123 - Sponsor: Rep. Jim Jackson (R-Carrollton) - This legislation would have added “employment harmful to children” to the state’s list of “common nuisances.” Although the proposed new law was touted as “an additional tool to prevent children from being employed in sexually oriented businesses,” it would have applied more generally to “the employment, authorization, or inducement of a child to work in a place of business permitting, requesting, or requiring a child to work nude or topless.” Certain restrictions already apply in such instances. However, a naturist or nudist resort that might consider providing part time work (like sweeping the clubhouse or mowing the grass) for the nude sons and daughters of members, could additionally find itself at risk of being declared a nuisance.

Senate Bill 1307 - Sponsor: Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas) - Senate companion to HB 123 - Essentially identical in language and intent, this measure would also have added “employment harmful to children” to the state’s list of “common nuisances.”

House Bill 124 - Sponsor: Rep. Jim Jackson (R-Carrollton) - This bill sought to escalate to felony status the penalty for second or subsequent convictions for “employment harmful to children.” Regardless of the intent, the proposed law would have increased the threat to naturist or nudist resorts.

House Bill 736 - Sponsor: Rep. Chente Quintanilla (D-El Paso) - Texas counties do not have general ordinance-making power, and the ability of counties to make regulations is limited. As introduced, HB 736 proposed to grant counties the authorization to adopt and enforce regulations having to do with nuisances and disorderly conduct. Each of the 254 counties in the state would have been allowed to create its own regulations.

BRIEF DISCUSSION:

Nuisance: Notwithstanding the existing state law addressing “employment harmful to children,” naturist and nudist resorts do not wish to be characterized additionally as nuisances. From New York and Tennessee to Colorado and Oregon, laws dealing with the issue of “nuisance” have been at the center of various attempts to shut down naturist venues and activities. The Naturist Action Committee has consistently and successfully opposed the creation of laws that sought to declare nudity to be a nuisance (e.g., Tennessee 1998 HB 3203, Kansas 2000 HB 2726, Michigan 2000 SB 1293 et al.).

Disorderly Conduct: The state’s existing disorderly conduct law includes the section that’s most frequently used to charge individuals for simple public nudity. The state law requires “recklessness” as an element for conviction, but county regulations, if allowed, would not necessarily follow identically.

WHAT HAS NAC BEEN DOING ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION?

It was clear that this potentially damaging legislation had a chance of passage this session. The Naturist Action Committee took action quickly, hiring a professional legislative lobbyist and offering alternate language for HB 123 and SB 1307, which were companion bills.

Substitute language for HB 123 was endorsed by the legislative committee to which it had been assigned, but it was not language that was acceptable to NAC. Consequently, NAC turned its effort to seeing that none of the bills would pass into law.

OUTCOME:

None of the four bills passed into law.

HB 123 was reported favorably from the Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee after having been substituted, but the bill did not receive a floor vote in the House.

SB 1307 never made it out of committee.

HB 124 was passed by the House and was assigned to a Senate committee, but was not considered in the Senate.  HB 736 was reported favorably from the House County Affairs Committee. A committee substitute changed the bill so that it would apply only to counties that have a population of 650,000 or more and are located within 100 miles of an international border. In Texas, that description fits only El Paso County, home of the bill’s original sponsor. Regardless, the legislation did not make it to a vote on the floor of the House.

These are favorable and important outcomes for naturists, and especially for naturist and nudist resorts, camps and parks in the state of Texas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND THANKS:

Throughout this entire effort, NAC has had the cooperation of AANR-Southwest, a regional division of the American Association for Nude Recreation. NAC thanks AANR-SW!

WHAT IS NAC ASKING YOU TO DO?

This is an Advisory and an announcement of a specific success. The Naturist Action Committee is NOT asking you to take action at this time. The threats from HB 123, HB 124, HB 736 and SB 1307 have been disarmed. Please watch for NAC Action Alerts, Advisories and Updates on other topics of vital interest to naturists.

MORE INFORMATION:

You can access additional information on the Web site of the Naturist Action Committee.

http://www.naturistaction.org

Select “Alerts, Advisories and Updates.” Under Current Advisories, you’ll find the text of this NAC Advisory. The web version includes links to the texts of the various bills

PLEASE HELP NAC HELP NATURISTS:

As the nonprofit volunteer political adjunct to The Naturist Society, the Naturist Action Committee is an important first line of defense against threats to naturists and their interests. Many times, NAC identifies and deals with frightening legislation that others simply miss.

NAC stands up for private naturist and nudist resorts, parks and camps, just as it champions the clothing-optional use of public lands. Both are important, and for both responsibilities, NAC relies entirely on your voluntary support. Hiring lobbyists to defend the rights and interests of naturists is expensive. Please donate generously with a check to:

NAC
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or use your credit card to make a direct donation online through NAC’s Web site: http://www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you once again for choosing to make a difference!

Naturally,

Bob Morton
Executive Director
Naturist Action Committee

—————————————————————
Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton       - execdir@naturistaction.org
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick  - naturist@sunclad.com
—————————————————————

This is an update from the Naturist Action Committee on the status of San Onofre State Beach and NAC’s ongoing effort to assure that it remains open for clothing-optional recreation.

The beach at Trail 6 of San Onofre remains clothing-optional, despite the effort begun by the California Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR) more than a year ago to prohibit nudity at the popular and traditional clothing-optional site.

*********************************************************************
NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
UPDATE
**********************************************************************
http://www.naturistaction.org
**********************************************************************
Copyright 2009 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible
for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or
redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its
entirety and without alteration.

DATE    : June 21, 2009
SUBJECT : San Onofre Update
TO      : All naturists and other concerned citizens

Dear Naturist,

This is an update from the Naturist Action Committee on the status of San Onofre State Beach and NAC’s ongoing effort to assure that it remains open for clothing-optional recreation.

The beach at Trail 6 of San Onofre remains clothing-optional, despite the effort begun by the California Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR) more than a year ago to prohibit nudity at the popular and traditional clothing-optional site. Joined by Friends of San Onofre Beach, the local naturist group, NAC filed a lawsuit against DPR last July.

At issue was whether DPR had followed proper procedure in abrogating the Cahill Policy, a long-standing and well-known means for managing and regulating the clothing-optional use of portions of state parks. The policy was named for former DPR Director Russell Cahill, who issued it in 1979. The Cahill Policy has figured prominently in the successful appeal of a criminal conviction for nudity in a state park (People v. Bost, 1989). The policy was affirmed and interpreted by DPR’s Deputy Director for Operations, Jack Harrison, in a 1988 letter. Together, the Cahill Policy and the Harrison letter form a state regulation dealing with clothing-optional recreation in California state parks.

In August of 2008, a California Superior Court ruled in favor of NAC, affirming that Cahill/Harrison is indeed a regulation, and further declaring: “Dept of Parks must comply with the provisions of the California Administrative Procedures Act before it makes any changes in its enforcement.” Further, the Court said, “until the administrative process is completed, Parks shall maintain the status quo, and enforce the Cahill Policy as it has done since its issuance and subsequent interpretation by the Harrison letter, at Trail 6 in San Onofre State Beach.”

The State has appealed the ruling. The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled. That ruling may come at any time.

OTHER FACETS

Meanwhile, the American Association for Nude Recreation chose to contact and meet with the California Department of Parks & Recreation. However improvident such a meeting may have been, let it not be said that AANR fails to care about public lands or that it hadn’t a right to the meeting.

A month prior to the actual meeting, AANR Government Affairs Chair Alonzo Stevens published (in the September issue of The Bulletin, AANR’s house organ) the “facts” concerning the numbers of criminal arrests at San Onofre.  Those numbers led Stevens to conclude in print that there certainly seemed to be a problem with criminal behavior at San Onofre. The truth is that Stevens simply used the numbers supplied to him by DPR, and those numbers were fabrications.

DPR was happy for the distribution, and no one at AANR had bothered to check the veracity of the figures. NAC had obtained the actual numbers through multiple and persistent Public Records Acts requests. The real numbers are far different from those supplied by the DPR and passed along by AANR, and they confirm neither DPR’s fiction nor Stevens’ agreement to it.

AANR’s October meeting with DPR would hardly be worthy of comment, except for two factors associated with it.

1)  AANR solicited and subsequently received a letter from Tony Perez, Acting Deputy Director for Park Operations. That letter, now widely circulated by AANR, allowed Perez to declare that the Cahill/Harrison regulation applies only in “remote” areas. The truth of the matter is that neither the Cahill Policy nor the interpretation of it in the Harrison letter ever mentioned anything about remoteness. In fact, the detailed DPR study that led to the Cahill Policy recommended that designated clothing-optional beaches be located near population centers to accommodate the obvious demand.

The notion that a clothing-optional site must be “remote” to be considered under Cahill/Harrison is another fabrication by DPR, contrived only relatively recently to justify DPR’s ill-conceived attempt to close San Onofre State Beach to nude use. Despite the court order to “maintain the status quo,” DPR has attempted to interject a new condition. DPR’s argument is faulty, it’s dangerous, and it simply deals in bad faith with the ruling of the California Superior Court that decided the case. AANR’s eager acceptance of that deceitful posture shows little understanding of what’s at stake.

2)  The second factor that causes AANR’s October meeting to become worthy of mention is AANR’s own trumpeting of its meeting with DPR’s Tony Perez and the letter that followed from Perez as a “Major Public Lands Victory” (AANR Bulletin, June 2009).

It was not a victory for naturists or nudists. Referring, in the June issue of AANR’s Bulletin, to the Perez letter that attempts to append “remoteness” as a condition of the Cahill/Harrison regulation, AANR’s Executive Director Erich Schuttauf wrote: “there is a big difference in ‘getting it in writing.’” Indeed.

Mr. Schuttauf wrote that “[w]ritten reaffirmation of the Cahill Policy is a huge victory for nude recreation.”  Unfortunately, the “huge victory” offers very little to celebrate. It has been delivered with the recently invented and completely unacceptable “remoteness” condition attached to it, something AANR appears willing to accept and eager to celebrate, even if it means that DPR has thrown San Onofre under the bus in the process.

In his June article, Mr. Schuttauf complained that AANR’s “ongoing discussions about modification of the San Onofre policy” had been “derailed” by NAC’s lawsuit against DPR. The truth is that NAC had been involved with DPR and the proposed San Onofre closure for more than a month before AANR engaged. The further truth is that without NAC’s prompt action and its lawsuit, there would be no nudity today at San Onofre State Beach.

WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

As she was being lobbied from within the DPR to close San Onofre to nudity, a big concern for DPR Director Ruth Coleman became the specter of a sexual harassment lawsuit. She had been led to believe that such a suit could be filed by an employee whose job was to deal with nude beachgoers. It was of little consequence to Director Coleman that employment law simply doesn’t work that way.

Within the last year, however, there has been a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against the Department over alleged activity at its San Onofre unit. The suit, which is ongoing, alleges improper behavior by male rangers toward a female ranger. It does not involve naturists or nudity on the beach.

NAC THANKS YOU!

When the Naturist Action Committee asked for your help last year in contacting the Director of DPR, you responded magnificently. Many of you are demonstrating through your generous contributions to NAC that you understand the significant expense associated with the Naturist Action Committee’s important defense of naturism on public lands. NAC continues to rely on your support.

Friends of San Onofre Beach, NAC’s co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, continues to do meaningful local fund raising. Also worthy of special mention yet again is the gracious contribution made to NAC last summer by the members of AANR-West.

NAC thanks all those who are choosing to make a difference!

MORE INFORMATION

Details of this situation and specifics of the Cahill/Harrison Regulation and associated documents may be found on the NAC Web page:   http://www.naturistaction.org/sanonofre

There, you will find background documents and important files related to NAC’s lawsuit.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Naturist Action Committee is in this for the long haul. Our successes have been significant, but the battle is not ended.

NAC will continue to issue Action Alerts, Advisories and Updates on this issue as circumstances require. Look for them.

PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

NAC is committed to the defense of clothing-optional use of public land. NAC does not hesitate to hire lawyers and lobbyists, and it has done exactly that in the San Onofre situation. That can be very expensive. NAC does not have a membership roster on which it can simply assess dues. NAC relies entirely on the voluntary support of people like YOU.

Won’t you please send a generous donation to:

NAC
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 (8AM-4PM, Central Time, weekdays) to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: http://www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you for choosing to make a difference.

Naturally,

Bob Morton
Executive Director
Naturist Action Committee

—————————————————————
Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton       - execdir@naturistaction.org
Board Member Allen Baylis       - rab@baylislaw.com
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick  - naturist@sunclad.com
—————————————————————