NAC Blasts AANR Over San Onofre

Any regular reader of this blog knows that I have repeatedly supported the Naturist Action Committee and their efforts to save the clothing-optional status of San Onofre State Beach in California, while at the same time being aghast at AANR's appeasement of the California Parks and Recreation and refusal to join in on the NAC lawsuit.

In the latest issue of the NAC newsletter, edited by Bob Morton, an article proclaims that a total of ten dismissals and no convictions for defendants cited for nudity have been achieved with the help of defense attorney and NAC Board member Allen Baylis, who has insisted on jury trials for his clients. In each case, the San Diego County District has been unwilling to proceed to trial.

The NAC is to be commended for standing up for naturists at San Onofre, thus showing that they truly represent nude rights and are not merely presenting meaningless words on paper.

In the same article, AANR comes under fire.

NAC invited AANR to sign the petition for designation, but AANR refused. Forgetting AANR's own history of litigation on behalf of nudists, and overlooking the fact that AANR-West had donated thousands of dollars to support NAC's lawsuit, former AANR Executive Director Erich Schuttauf declared publicly that he didn't wish to be seen as "signing on to a petition presented by an organization associated with legal confrontation."

The California Department of Parks and Recreation desperately needs a nudist organization to endorse its fraudulent crime statistics and accept the shameful fact that nudists and naturists at San Onofre State Beach have been thrown under the bus. AANR is positioning itself to be the nudist partner that unquestioningly endorses the Department's manufactured crime statistics, while it quite noticeably turns its back on the naturists and nudists at San Onofre.

Meanwhile, the Naturist Action Committee is defending those who have been cited for nudity at San Onofre - and is winning those cases. Proactively, NAC is pursuing a petition that would result in statewide designation of clothing-optional areas in California state parks.

AANR's Government Affairs Chair Dave Graber wrote recently: "The Naturist Society and the Naturist Action Committee have a different philosophy than AANR and its Government Affairs Team."

That much is obviously true.

I've said many times that naturists at San Onofre have been "thrown under the bus" by AANR, but it's still a bit surprising to hear naturist leaders using the same language.

This does illustrate quite pointedly the deepening rift between the two major American nudist/naturist organizations, and the lessening likelihood that they will ever see eye to eye on major issues like that at San Onofre.

The Nude and Natural Newsletter May 2011 pdf

AANR Refuses to Sign San Onofre Nude Beach Petition

Continuing its bizarre anti-nudity stance, the American Association for Nude Recreation refused to sign a petition initiated by the Naturist Action Committee which asks the California Department of Parks and Recreation to set aside public lands for nude recreation.

AANR continues its unilateral approach of appeasement with the DPR with the following statement:

AANR chooses to work to continue to build a working relationship with the State and not to jeopardize a positive relationship it has taken years to build by signing on to a petition presented by an organization associated with legal confrontation.

Never mind that 16 nudist and naturist groups have signed onto the petition, leaving AANR and AANR-West as the only notable invitees who refused to support the cause. It's truly extraordinary that a national nudist organization would refuse to side with so many nudists and naturists on such an important issue, whatever the reason.

The petition and links to supporting information about the fight at San Onofre can be found here.

I am asking all my readers to support this petition and to closely follow the NAC instructions about how you can help.

I am also asking everyone to let AANR know exactly how you feel about this issue. You can join in on AANR's online discussion group here, or you can contact them directly here.

Family Nudism Controversy in Arizona

Prosecutors have declined to press any charges against an Arizona mother and stepfather for practicing nudism in front of their two adolescent boys. When the 13 year-old complained to his father that the nudity made him "uncomfortable", police were called in and recommended that the couple be charged with a crime.

"You do not know how familiar this story is," said Bob Morton, executive director of the Naturist Action Committee, a non-profit that advocates for nudist legal issues.

He said battling ex-spouses and family members often try to use one parent's decision to practice nudism as an issue in custody cases.

Parents have a right to decide what goes on inside their homes unless there's criminal conduct, Morton said.

Former sex crimes prosecutor Robert J. Campos said that he was "skeptical" of the entire investigation and that the criminal case was a "real stretch."

But more government regulations for parents would be considered controversial in a nation that prides itself on myriad freedoms, said Campos, the former prosecutor.

"Part of being free means accepting the possible harm that comes with it," he said. "You just can't legislate the harm out of the world."

AANR takes a much more conservative stand on the issue.

"We do believe that respecting boundaries and communicating is critical to a successful nude-recreation experience," said Erich Schuttauf, executive director of the American Association for Nude Recreation.

He said parents who decide to try out naturist activities or to visit a resort should talk to their children first. If a child seems uncomfortable, parents should let the child's views dictate their plans.

That could mean enjoying a nudist vacation without the child or stripping down only when the child isn't around, Schuttauf said.

"Parents should let the child's view dictate their plans." As any parent knows, letting the child make the call on family decisions is just plain stupid, otherwise all meals would consist of cake and ice cream, and all vacations would be at Disney World. Children are "uncomfortable" in church, at the dentist, at summer camp, in school, in gym class, etc. It's up to the parent to make the best possible decision for the welfare of the child. With all the benefits of nudism, from improved body image to healthier minds and bodies, nude recreation is good for people of all ages.

This does not mean that parents should drag their kids kicking and screaming to nudist resorts. Common sense needs to prevail, but it should be up to the parents to make the common sense decisions, not the children.

By suggesting that family nudism should be the sole decision of the child, Schuttauf infers that parental nudism in the home, and at nudist resorts, without the full support of the child, is tantamount to abuse, and that police and child protection agencies have the right to step in.

I'm not surprised that AANR would take the "appeasement" route, especially since it abandoned San Onofre Beach, and virtually convicted the "naked coffee guy" in Virginia before the full facts of the case were known. And don't forget that Schuttauf also raised questions about the other Arizona couple who had their children temporarily removed over some nude family photos, and astoundingly endorsed full body scanners at airports.

Nudists and naturists need to advocate clearly for the nude lifestyle and not take these "politically correct" stances which only serve to further stigmatize nudity. Kudos to Bob Morton of the NAC for properly analyzing this particular situation, and boos to AANR for once again failing to recognize the right of nudity in the home.

Naturist Action Committee Newsletter for May 2010 Now Online

May 2010 Contents

• Manitoba: Beaconia Beach Hangs in the Balance - by Judy Williams. Activists in Manitoba fight to save a traditional clothing-optional beach from a naked land grab.
• Maine: Topfree in Maine. Bare female breasts are legal in the state. Are high profile public topfree walks creating greater acceptance?
• The "proper" setting for TNS events. Before you show up, a great deal of thoughtful consideration is put into choosing a venue.

View pdf file here.

Of particular note is the NAC declaration of support for topfreedom:

For many, topfreedom is about women’s rights; for naturists it can also be an incremental march towards full body freedom. Both goals merit our support and applause.

Naturist Action Committee Newsletter for April 2010 Now Online

The Naturist Action Committee newsletter, entitled "The Newsletter", is now online for April with articles on World Naked Gardening Day, Apple iPhone censorship, and the hysteria over teen sexting. It's available on pdf file here.

Sweet Grapes?

All of you are certainly familiar with the Aesop tale about the fox and the grapes, where the animal tries and tries to reach some grapes hanging on a vine, and when unable to get to them exclaims "the grapes are sour anyway".

What you don't know about is the fox's friend who was watching nearby. When the first fox fails, the second one, who is bigger and stronger, comes along and says that the grapes are the sweetest in the world and that he can get them. The second fox jumps and jumps, and finally manages to bite off a single grape. When he bites down, it is the most unripe and sour fruit he has ever tasted, but he turns to his friend and exclaims that it is delicious.

Such is the case with some recent nudist and naturist news, with people putting a positive spin on some bad news, and declaring it all good.

In the February 2010 Naturist Action Committee newsletter, Morley Schloss tries to turn a visit from child protection authorities into something positive for naturism.

The officials looked at the photos of the children enjoying the Youth Camp. They remarked something to the effect of, “No problem, it looks like the kids are having fun.” We then shook hands and they left.

And over on the rec.nude Google group, John Purbrick seconds the "victory":

This is just more proof that we don't have anything to fear, if we live right. In fact, as Morley says, we actually prove our innocence when children are invited to join in, and enjoy themselves, and anyone at all can visit and verify that.

The truth of the matter is that the visit by the police and a social worker to Sunsport Gardens Family Naturist Resort is an ominous development in an era when all nude depictions of anyone under 18 years of age can be considered child pornography. We live in a society where a Pennsylvania district attorney can announce that he has the power to prosecute young girls in bikinis on a beach because they are dressed "provocatively'.

I applaud Morley for standing up for his principles. He is right - there is nothing lewd about a nude child having fun at camp. Morley is one of the last naturists with the courage to keep posting nude photos of children enjoying nude recreation.

I wish him continued success, but I fear that the day will soon come where an ambitious politician or district attorney in Florida will make children in nudism a hot-button issue, and unlike Mark Foley's failed attempt several years ago, the social climate has changed, and the next attack could prove to be successful.

Another "victory" has been declared by AANR over a recent incident at an Oregon shopping mall where a banner touting nude recreation drew complaints and had to be removed from a local chamber of commerce event.

From time to time, I am asked, “Why do we even need an AANR?” I hope this story provides another answer. We’ll continue to do what we have done since 1931: advocating for nudity within appropriate settings and educating the public about the wholesome benefits that enjoying nudity offers.

Again, the truth of the matter is that AANR was censored at a public mall, doing more harm to nudism. Executive Director Erich Schuttauf can talk all he wants about other stores in the mall with provocative advertising, and that a "well-stated" letter was fired off the the chamber president, but the banner showing "discreet" nudity probably should not have been raised in the first place.

You cannot advocate for nudity "within appropriate settings" and then raise a banner in a shopping mall with depictions of nudity.

Is this really the best our national organizations can do?

Naturist Education Foundation 2009 California Poll

If you ever had any doubt that the California Department of Parks and Recreation was going against the will of the people in banning nudity at San Onofre Beach, the 2009 Naturist Education Foundation poll shows that in California there is strong support for nude sunbathing, overwhelming acceptance for the personal rights of people to be nude in their homes or on their property, and clear rejection of the notion that most Californians are offended by nudity. A whopping 62% believe that the DPR should establish clothing-optional areas in state parks.

The Naturist Action Committee Advisory on the poll can be found here, and the entire poll results are here.

This is a scientific poll conducted by Zogby with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Highlights are that 79% of respondents agree that people should be able to enjoy nude sunbathing, 70% agree that areas should be set aside for nude recreation, 68% agree that people have the right to be nude in their homes or on their property even if occasionally visible to others, and 60% disagree that they are personally offended by the non-sexual nudity of others.

Another astounding number is that 40% or respondents have personally gone skinny-dipping or nude sunbathing with others. That calculates to approximately 10 million people in the state of California alone.

Contrast this important work being done by the NEF with the lame self-serving poll conducted by AANR last month on its blog.

Congratulations and thanks to the NEF and this watershed poll on which naturists can begin to build a system of public lands for the personal liberty and human right of being nude in nature.

State of California Spent $42,000 Fighting Nudity at San Onofre Beach

Public records show the State of California has spent $42,000 fighting the Naturist Action Committee over the issue of nudity at San Onofre Beach, and that the Parks Department took action against nudists over only two written complaints, according to a story today in the Orange County Register.

Ken Kramer, district superintendent of the Orange Coast District, said the money spent was well worth it.

"Our approach to this issue transcends dollars and cents," Kramer said. "This is money well spent to make sure we address these concerns. We have the duty to make sure that with this type of increased popularity and visitation that we have a park where all visitors feel welcome and that there is lawful activity occurring."

When asked about the shockingly low number of written complaints, Kramer said that the majority of the complaints were verbal, yet there is no documentation of those, and no explanation as to why records were not kept. Kramer also would not directly blame the nudists as the source of the complaints, yet showed his own bias by claiming that there was a "correlation between the two" without presenting any actual proof.

Kramer also indicated that if people did not comply with the San Onofre nudity ban, that his department would be "forced to take it to the next level."

It's abundantly clear that the California Department of Parks and Recreation, which is cash strapped to begin with, has done something overwhelmingly unpopular by banning nudity at San Onofre. Read the comments on the article and take the poll - the vast majority of respondents already feel that this is all a complete waste of taxpayer money and resources.

NAC might have lost the battle, but stands to win the war by taking a stand for naturist and nudist rights against out-of-control parks management. As more details emerge, AANR appears to be more and more in the wrong on this issue. It's hard to fathom an organization like AANR, which professes to represent nudists and their rights to be clothes-free in designated areas, would actually cave in on such an important case, and cede the loss of San Onofre as something acceptable in appeasing parks officials, who have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted.

Thanks must go to Cindy Carcamo of the OC Register for researching and reporting this story. These new revelations should open the door for a new strategy to restore nudity at San Onofre. The question is: will AANR finally admit that it has been tragically wrong on this particular issue and unite with the NAC and the Friends of San Onofre to finally present a united front against those who would further erode our civil liberties and natural rights?

USA Today Covers the California Nude Beach Story

USA Today picked up on the banning of nudity at California's San Onofre Beach, and both Bob Morton and Allen Baylis are quoted. It's noteworthy that AANR was not interviewed for the article.

Park Superintendent Richard Haydon warns:

"We are going to be moving forward with starting to enforce the nudity statute down at San Onofre, and basically returning that portion of the beach to all people who want to go down there without fear of running into something they didn't think they would," Haydon said. "People should very well be under notice."

I really despise this so-called "rationale". How can you exclaim that you are returning the beach to "all" people by banning those who most frequent the area? This is clear discrimination. All that needs to be done is put up a sign or two warning about nude sunbathers so people don't have to live in "fear" of seeing too much flesh.

Most of the article is retread material, but Baylis does note that people are ready to be arrested in order to bring the matter before the criminal courts as a matter of civil disobedience. Unfortunately, with a government intent on robbing people of basic freedoms, sometimes that's the only way. I only hope that Baylis has the numbers of people necessary to make such a protest effective.

Have You Donated to the Naturist Action Committee?

I have. Please join me in making a generous contribution to the Naturist Action Committee. There is no better way to put your money where your mouth is by supporting this organization which exists solely to protect nudist and naturist rights in America. The NAC needs your help NOW.

THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO ALL NUDIST AND NATURIST BLOGGERS TO PROMINENTLY FEATURE THIS DONATION LINK!! (You too, Tom Mulhall!)

It doesn't matter if you are a member of AANR or TNS, you need to donate to the NAC to keep their work moving forward. If you are not a member of any of the national organizations, the annual fees are very minimal and you need to join today. In fact, you need to join BOTH. We cannot unite nudists and naturists until we all join together and work for a common cause.

Preaching to the Choir

Still a lot of chatter going on about my post yesterday, which was a reaction to The Academic Naturist's post here.

A surprising number of people actually think that censoring nudist and naturist publications, such as removing nude photos from the cover and on the inside, is a good idea.

In replying to the Academic Naturist, CGHill said, "Perhaps TNS should consider an edited or stripped-down (sorry) version of the book for distribution to libraries and schools and such."

Regin said, "The point of the book is information, right? Travel and destination information. Not nekkid pictures. The book can be just as informative without the pictures. And without the added expense of reproducing the additional pictures, it may even cost less."

Rick at MojoNude chimed in with, "The answer is probably somewhere in between but it’s nebulous. There’s plenty of discussion and materials within the nudist/naturist community but what guidance do we have for promoting and presenting our lifestyle to non-nudists?"

Naturally Nude added, But the question remains: how do you disseminate information about naturism "to their level" (non-naturists) without offending or aliening your intended audience? Do we self-censor and not show any nudity? Or do we show our lifestyle as it really is?"

And Dr. Paul Rapoport of TERA and the Federation of Canadian Naturists, in response to my post yesterday, said:

The most encouraging part of The Academic Naturist's engaging report on this is the last paragraph, where, he explains, with NAC's support, he intends to fight the library's censorship.

Of course it's necessary to do some things you don't want to do to get other things done. Wearing clothes in general society is an example. Stephen Gough is a good (bad) example of how to stay naked all the time, win a battle or two, and lose the war.

Each type of case needs its own evaluation. Sometimes I agree that information with no nudity is a good idea. In other situations it falsifies naturism. If censorship isn't needed, it's a bad idea, and the more of it there is in one place, the worse it gets. Lee Baxandall used to refer to faux nudity in the matter of hiding body parts, which the media are rather good at. If it happens rarely, it may not matter. When it becomes policy, it matters a great deal.

I agree that a library is no place for censorship, only managing its materials properly. I hope Academic Naturist and others continue to take TNS's book to libraries.

Physical censorship with black bars, pixellation, etc. provides the ironic result of often drawing more attention to body parts than there would be without it. It also often ruins an image, violates the original intent, and in a paternalistically moralistic fashion is supremely presumptuous and condescending to viewers.

OK. let's go back to the what prompted this discussion - a public library's refusal to carry a copy of The Naturist Society's book, "The World's Best Nude Beaches and Resorts." In his frustration with the library's total censorship of this material, The Academic Naturist considered taking a marker and blacking out all the naughty bits in an attempt to make the book more palatable to whatever prudish librarian made this awful decision. After some advice from bloggers and the Naturist Action Committee, TAN came to the conclusion that fighting the censorship was the wisest path to take.

Anyone considering self-censorship as an acceptable means of appeasing a distrustful public needs to do some research into the history of book burnings and bannings. Check out Judy Blume's site, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Library Association's page on banned and challenged books, as well as their page on Banned Books Week, and the one for their Office of Intellectual Freedom. The ACLU works to defend the freedom to read:

The ACLU is dedicated to the protection of free speech and free expression. When a small group of individuals tries to keep the rest of society from reading a book or viewing a painting they are impeding that freedom by attempting to dictate what is and is not acceptable expression.

The freedom to read is guaranteed to all Americans by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Period. A public librarian who takes it upon him or herself to decide whether or not a particular book is acceptable is acting contrary to the basic principles of the American Library Association, which states, "ALA actively advocates in defense of the rights of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment. A publicly supported library provides free and equal access to information for all people of that community. We enjoy this basic right in our democratic society. It is a core value of the library profession."

An online search of the Columbus, Ohio, public library returns 422 matches for the word "nude", 58 for "Mapplethorpe", 1264 for "Hitler", 52 for "KKK", 530 for "erotica", and while the words "nudism" and "naturism" returned a few results, I could find no meaningful books on the nudist lifestyle, or nude recreation.

I had better luck online with The Ohio State University Libraries, where "nudism" brought back 22 results, including Mark Storey's "Cinema au Naturel", and Dennis Craig Smith's "The Naked Child: Growing Up Without Shame."

In both of these incidences, I doubt if censorship is an issue, but rather that they simply don't have the materials.

Not a problem at all on Amazon.com, where the word "nudism" returns 2436 results (not all of them completely relevant, but a lot of books nonetheless).

So if libraries don't have nudist and naturist books, is that due to censorship, or simply the lack of materials? Are we all just preaching to the choir when it comes to the nude lifestyle, and failing to spread the message to the public at large?

One thing that I am convinced of is that self-censorship is not the answer, for all the reasons Dr. Rapoport outlined above. To block out, or remove images of nudism from AANR or TNS materials is not only self-defeating, it's a tacit admission that there is something dirty, shameful and downright wrong with the human body.

Censorship is a giant step backwards in the fight for acceptance.

How about this idea: The Naturist Society develops a program whereby members are encouraged to purchase naturist books and donate them to libraries. The Academic Naturist took it upon himself to do this, but there should be some sort of organized effort to spread the word.

As Rick noted above, "what guidance do we have for promoting and presenting our lifestyle to non-nudists?" Any grassroots effort needs guidance from organizations and experienced activists. In this proposed "naturist book drive", there would need to be guidelines for individuals who want to take these materials to their local libraries, how to deal with librarians, what to do if the book is refused, etc.

I think that many nudists and naturists online are looking for ways to become involved. There's a lot of untapped enthusiasm out there. Social networks, chat rooms, forums, blogs, etc. are all means to bring people together, and perhaps now it's time to give them all something to do.

UPDATE: An online search of The New York Public Library returns 72 results for the word "nudism", including some nudist magazines like "Naturally" and "Nude and Natural", all categorized as "adult". And they do have two different editions of Lee Baxandall's "World Guide to Nude Beaches and Recreation", but not the newest edition. There are 12 results for "Jock Sturges."

UPDATE 2: Lee's guide to nude beaches is also in The Library of Congress, and a search for "nudism" returns 133 results.

Nudist, Cover Thyself?

I don't often disagree with my friend, The Academic Naturist, but I have an issue with his post today "Free Book? Rejected!"

After donating a copy of the TNS book "The World's Best Nude Beaches and Resorts" to his local library, someone told him that they would put it in the adult section. After a time he received a call telling him that the library decided not to accept the book after all.

As we picked it up, we were told that "it's a really good informative book, but we don't have a place for it." In other words, they don't want to put it in the travel section and don't want to make an adult section.

Since 1948, the Library Bill of Rights has "guided the philosophy of the freedom and professionalism of libraries in democratic societies." [source]

Number one on the list is "Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. In other words, libraries should not act as censors. Number three on the list decrees that libraries should challenge censorship, not impose it.

From someone who wrote the call to arms "Guerrilla Naturism" post of a couple of weeks ago, it comes as a surprise to me that The Academic Naturist is willing to take a copy of the TNS book and actually block out all the nudity in order to appease some prudish librarian.

The answer is that we need to bite the bullet and censor ourselves to get past the firewall of society. It's fine to have uncensored books and DVD's for naturist consumers, but it's also a good idea to have censored versions as well just in case they are required by non-naturist consumers.

Sorry, but this is completely wrongheaded. The answer is to work with organizations like the Naturist Action Committee and the ACLU to get this book placed in the library, not to roll over and cave in to censorship. The book is from a reputable publisher, it's informative, and it's 100% legal, so it belongs in a public library where people have the right to choose their reading materials.

Yes, in some instances, nudists need to cover up. TAN suggests that TNS produce a brochure which contains no nudity for public tourist information centers, and I see no harm in that, although these centers might toss them away simply due to the nudist text content. And aside from some instances of protest and civil disobedience, nobody is suggesting that people break any anti-nudity laws.

I have two versions of this blog, one with nudity, and one without, but this is because my blogs are hosted on Google, a company which has its own standards and terms, and can basically shut down any blog for whatever reason it deems necessary. Facebook recently banned images of mothers breastfeeding their children, and although protest was widespread and very vocal against such action, the censorship remains. When dealing within the bureaucracy of private enterprise, nudists and naturists need to adapt.

But libraries were created to serve the public under the First Amendment. Americans have the freedom to read or view whatever they want within the law. The ACLU has a web page here to protect free speech in films, books, music, and online.

Each year, the American Library Association's (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom receives hundreds of reports on books and other materials that were "challenged" (their removal from school or library shelves was requested). The ALA estimates the number represents only about a quarter of the actual challenges. "Most Challenged" titles include the popular Harry Potter series of fantasy books for children by J.K. Rowling. The series drew complaints from parents and others who believe the books promote witchcraft to children. [source]

On the library issue, nudists and naturists need to stand up and fight, and not succumb to censorship. I hope The Academic Naturist can get the NAC or the ACLU to help him fight for his right to read naturist materials at his public library.

UPDATE: The Academic Naturist has updated his post to say that he is going to fight the library's censorship with the help of the Naturist Action Committee. Way to go!

Rally Sunday at San Onofre

A nude rally is being planned for Sunday, September 13, between the hours of 11:30 a.m and 1 p.m., to protest the California Department of Parks and Recreation's nudity ban at San Onofre Beach.

"Really it kind of comes down to that the state has better things to spend their money on than running after naked people on the beach," said Allen Baylis, a Huntington Beach attorney who is a leader of the Naturist Action Committee.

State parks spokesman Roy Stearns questioned Sunday's protest.

"You know forcing a confrontation doesn't solve this problem and just makes the lack of civility in this issue worse," Stearns said. "They're entitled to have a rally but what's the purpose of the rally I would ask."

This ludicrous statement from Stearns shows how clueless, indifferent and callous the DPR is on this issue. It shows the state is not listening, and doesn't want to listen to nudist and naturist groups. And what exactly "solves" this issue? The NAC tried to negotiate, the state rebuffed them. The NAC then took them to court and won, then the state won on appeal, and now the case is in the hands of the state Supreme Court.

By stating that tickets will now be issued for nudity at San Onofre, the state is showing contempt for its own court system by enforcing a policy which is under appeal.

This is the moment where all nudists and naturists who can walk, run, ride or fly to San Onofre should be there to show support for the public lands issue. Without officially sanctioned areas of beaches and parks set aside for nude recreation, people who enjoy the clothes-free lifestyle will continue to be marginalized and restricted to gated clubs and resorts.

Friends of San Onofre Beach

Laura Leyrer Throws Nudism Overboard

"Detroit Nudist Adventures Examiner" Laura Leyrer has continued her descent into adult lifestyles recreation with her latest column touting a French Nude Cruise, which has an affiliation with Caliente Resorts, recently outed by AANR as having ties with swingers groups.

This is not the sort of promotion needed by nudist and naturist groups. There is nothing wrong with adult cruises, or swingers groups, but AANR, TNS and the NAC must distance themselves from those who seek to sell sex vacations under the guise of nudism and naturism.

I really don't know what motivaed Ms. Leyrer to turn from family-friendly nudist activities to hedonistic vacations. She showed such promise in her early writings, too.

I encourage all readers to post comments on Ms. Leyrer's articles urging her to stop promoting adult lifestyle resorts and travel agencies under the guise of nudism.

The Battle for Bates Beach

Santa Barbara's Nude Beach Alliance is making a public statement on restoring a clothing-optional section of Carpinteria's Bates Beach.

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 Alliance proposes a Beach Ambassador progam similar to Neighborhood Watch, where volunteers monitor beach behavior for potential problems, and claims that the return of clothing-optional status will actually improve the safety of the area. The clothed rally held this past weekend is just the sort of peaceful activism that is needed to help secure naturist rights on public lands.

NAC Appeals San Onofre to California Supreme Court

Story here.

"We're pretty hopeful," said Huntington Beach attorney Allen Baylis of the Naturist Action Committee. "Things are going back and forth, but we're pounding away on it." The Supreme Court has up to 90 days to decide whether they want to hear the case. Until then, Baylis said, the appellate ruling is on hold.

Damage Control

With California now set to crack down on nudity on state beaches, AANR is spinning wildly to do damage control on its decision to throw San Onofre Beach under the bus.

...other venues where nudity has been traditionally enjoyed may be under threat now that California’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling regarding the Cahill Policy. This situation is, of course, what the American Association for Nude Recreation feared could happen when the Naturist Action Committee filed suit against the California Parks System.

What a crock. Nudity was under threat the minute the California Department of Parks and Recreation declared an end to nude sunbathing on San Onofre. It was not the NAC's lawsuit which caused this, so blaming them is appalingly disingenuous. What AANR really did was hedge its bets, taking a path of appeasement with the DPR instead of doing the right thing and standing up for naturist rights. It was not hard to predict the the NAC lawsuit would ultimately fail, mainly because it was over administrative process, claiming that the DPR did not go through the proper procedures to ban naturism from San Onofre.

AANR is urging everyone to stick to the facts, but is failing to present a full and honest explanation, in my opinion. The fact is that AANR has nothing, only some vague communications and what they call an "atmosphere" with the DPR, and when they ultimately come up empty-handed they are prepared to blame the NAC lawsuit for poisoning the waters of negotiation. This is all merely political posturing and does nothing for the interests of nudists and naturists.

The DPR must have been delighted when AANR failed to join the NAC lawsuit, and sensing a split and weakness in the nudist community, they played AANR for the fool, taking them out of the game with empty promises. Now that the DPR is set to start banning nudity in other areas, the fact that they cannot be trusted has become abundantly clear.

Blind faith in political leaders, and trusting them to do the right thing, leads to loss of freedoms and civil rights.

It's time for AANR to admit its mistake and work to unite all nudists and naturists to fight this threat.

NAC Advisory: California

Tuesday, July 21, 2009
NAC Advisory: California

**********************************************************
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: 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: 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: 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
------------------------------------------------------

Action Alert for All Naturists

The Naturist Action Committee is requesting that all nudists and naturists immediately send an email supporting a clothing-optional beach in Key West, Florida. Full details here.

Pissing Contest

AANR has responded to the NAC Update of June 20.

This is not what I pay dues for. These so-called professional organizations, who profess to represent essentially the same nudist and naturist philosophies, are falling all over themselves to point fingers at each other over the ending of nude sunbathing at San Onofre Beach.

FACT: The California Department of Parks and Recreation completely blindsided the nudists at San Onofre by declaring the end of nude sunbathing due to an increased number of complaints concerning sexual activity. The NAC has proven that the complaints were overstated.

FACT: The Naturist Action Committee took the DPR to court and won. Even though the state won on appeal, San Onofre remained clothing optional for about a year and a half due to the litigation.

FACT: AANR decided that NAC's lawsuit would eventually fail, which it did, and hedged its bets on an appeasement policy with the DPR, instead of standing up for the rights of nudists at San Onofre, essentially throwing them under the bus.

FACT: AANR has a letter, and nothing more, from the DPR. In that letter, the DPR adds the word "remote" as a modification to the original Cahill policy, esentially banishing nude recreation from view on public parklands. Waving such a letter and claiming victory evokes the image of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain proclaiming that his negotiations with Hitler had achieved "peace for our time."

Has AANR been played the fool by the DPR? Only time will tell, but with the victory in the higher court, it seems very unlikely that the DPR will allow any nudity zones in public parklands. The situation at San Onofre shows that the people running the Parks Department cannot be trusted.

Being on the winning side in a single battle does not always mean ultimate victory in the war.

I also believe that any further litigation by the NAC would be pointless, since the DPR can just change its policy anyway. This has always been about administrative procedure, basically just buying more time for San Onofre, and not a referendum on whether or not the DPR has the right to ban nudity.

Had AANR joined forces with the NAC and presented a much stronger front in this battle, the end result might well have been the same, but instead of bickering over who started what when, the two organizations could have been working together to make progress on other fronts.

I urge all dues-paying members of these organizations to urge them to stop the infighting and get back to business. The rights and interests of nudists and naturists are far more important than who wins a pissing contest.