San Onofre No Longer Clothing Optional [Archive]

FireProf

06-01-2008, 10:09 AM

Leave it to the media to report the news...Incorrectly!

The Friends of San Onofre Beach and the NAC are currently working on this issue and the fight is not over. The education process and the date to begin citing has not been reached. It is the FOSOB and NAC's hope to work things out with the Dept. of Parks and Rec. for the state.

Subsequent meetings are scheduled and I see this issue being taken to the top. The NAC and FOSOB are not taking this lying down and will fight to keep this beach open for naturist use.

If you haven't already, send the Director of Parks and Recreation an email stating you are in favor of keeping San Onofre Beach...Trail 6 open for naturist use and that the naturist community not only discourages and speaks out against lewd acts but polices the beach for this in their absence.

director@parks.ca.gov

Go online and vote to keep San O Beach open at this poll:

http://beach.freedomblogging.com/2008/05/30/state-cracks-down-on-san-onofre-nude-beach/

FireProf............FOSOB member and frequent San O beach user.

:)

Here's FOSOB updated information:

SAN ONOFRE UNDER ATTACK
Update 5-30-08

Yesterday, four representatives of the naturist community met with
representatives of the Department of Parks and Recreation, including
Tony Perez, Southern Division Chief. The naturist included Lloyd Johnson
from Blacks Beach Bares two people from the San Onofre Volleyball group,
and me as President of Friends of San Onofre Beach and Director of the
Naturist Action Committee. We presented our points well and provided
documents in support of keeping the Cahill Policy in place at San
Onofre.

Coming out of the meeting, we were told that they would consider moving
ahead with "public education" campaign and perhaps delay the beginning
of enforcement action to a later date. We told them that if the
Department was going to delay enforcement, a delay in commencing the
"public education" phase was also necessary.

However, the nature of bureaucracies is that any challenge to a decision
that has already been made or to the authority to make that decision is
met with fierce resistance and an iron fist. It is their firm belief
that the only way to rid the park of the criminals in the parking lot,
on the Marine Base and the occasional miscreant on our beach is to
remove the most supportive and positive influence there, the honest
naturists at Trail 6.

Late this afternoon, I receive a call from Tony Perez. He informed me
that the decision had been made to delay the commencement of the "public
education" phase from June 1 to June 2, as they didn't want to start on
a weekend. They also felt that 30 days was not long enough to get the
word out to enough people and they also didn't want to interfere with
the July 4th holiday on the beach. He left the issue as to when the
enforcement phase would start open.

We encourage you to continue to come to the beach and enjoy it as
always. Do not be intimidated if a ranger comes up to you to "educate"
you. Be polite, but also remember that you have the right to be left
alone.

We are not going to take this laying down. Friends of San Onofre Beach
and the Naturist Acton Committee are working hard on the next steps. No
option is off the table, and we are willing to go the mat to save our
beach. Your assistance and contribution are extremely important.
To donate to Friends of San Onofre Beach, checks can be sent to:
Friends of San Onofre Beach
P. O. Box 6283
Huntington Beach, CA 92615-6283

To donate to the Naturist Action Committee, go to:
www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you for your support.
Allen Baylis
Friends of San Onofre Beach

Bryan and Jen

06-08-2008, 07:22 AM

Being from Florida and planning to visit Haulover this upcoming week, I really appriate having beaches like San Onofre. I am taking the time to write to everyone they said to in the latest nudes in the news. Hopefully we can all band together and fight this. Someday i hope to get our west and enjoy the beach.

Evernude

06-08-2008, 12:53 PM

I just sent an email to the director explaining the situation and solutions reached at Pirate’s Cove in San Luis Obispo. The local Sherriff has been setting up sting operations to stop the same problem there. It has been working well. The operation is not targeting beach goers or the nude use of the beach, only the perverts in the parking lot and on the cliffs and trails above the beach. Beach users take care of the rest, but the perverts rarely have the courage to actually get on the beach anyway. I emphasized cooperation with NAC, AANR and TNS and local authorities at San Onofre to set up a similar operation to fix the problem. Furthermore, a petition needs to be developed with the intent to introduce legislation that will permanently establish the traditional nude beaches in California as officially clothing optional recreation areas, and define clothing optional use areas and rules of conduct within all State Parks. If cooperation is not possible, I think the NAC needs to get the ACLU involved at some point and take this situation to court.
Get involved people! As California goes, so goes the nation. If we lose here, we lose everywhere.

NakedGary

06-08-2008, 03:02 PM

For your information:

Posts
Questions
Answers
Comments
And a Poll

On the State of California's Parks and Recreation Department termination of application of the Cahill Policy to clothing-optional portions of San Onofre State Beach in San Diego County is a legal issue spread across three or more CFF Forums.

Legal Issues Forum: [ 4 Pages ]
http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=198304#post198304 (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=198304#post198304)

Nudes in the News Forum: [1 page]
http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=12443&highlight=San+Onofre (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=12443&highlight=San+Onofre)

Fun of Nude Recreation: [1 page] http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=12440 (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=12440)

You may also find other information on San Onofre beach, and posts mentioning San Onofre by using the CFF Forums Search Button at the top of most CFF forum pages by typing in "San Onofre" into the search window.
.

naturistoftheyear

07-05-2008, 03:40 AM

There are many threads about San Onofre, and maybe this has been mentioned already in another one, but the Los Angeles Times now has a report and 11 pictures about the issue on its web site:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nudebeach5-2008jul05,0,7671185.story

Stu2630

07-05-2008, 04:19 AM

Sanslines

This only means that nudists need to come together and fight back harder to prohibit this nonsense. Enough of the tickets and abuse! We need to stop messing about and work to get this beach legalized.

What? You want to get a nudist beach - a "ghetto" - a place where you are "segregated and penned" - legalized?

You want it both ways. You want your own beaches to be protected while having the right to get naked on everyone else's beaches, too!!! No wonder the authorities have little sympathy with nudists.

Until nudists enter into a meaningful dialog with the textile majority, and express respect for the wishes of people to be protected from the sight of nakedness, this sort of thing will happen and nudists will be persecuted. You can't demand respect for yourself if you are not prepared to give it to everyone else.

Stu

Sanslines

07-05-2008, 04:32 AM

Sanslines

What? You want to get a nudist beach - a "ghetto" - a place where you are "segregated and penned" - legalized?

You want it both ways. You want your own beaches to be protected while having the right to get naked on everyone else's beaches, too!!! No wonder the authorities have little sympathy with nudists.

Until nudists enter into a meaningful dialog with the textile majority, and express respect for the wishes of people to be protected from the sight of nakedness, this sort of thing will happen and nudists will be persecuted. You can't demand respect for yourself if you are not prepared to give it to everyone else.

Stu

Wrong.....wrong......wrong ............and more of your anti nudist rantings! Nudists do't need your biased opinions and are well advised to ignore them and do what is best for themselves. Stu knows absolutely nothing about California and the fact that MOST people could give a rats arse about a nudist beach. The fact is that it is an easy target for politicians and a few outspoken zealots who are forcing their warped morality upon a populace.

If Stu was being honest in this thread, he would acknowledge the fact that the real issue is inappropriate behavior and the authorities are abusing their powers by going after all nudists on this beach. The genuine nudists who come to this beach to relax and enjoy the beach are NOT the problem and the authorities know this.

Once again Stu prefers to provoke nudists with his obvious anti nudist agenda.

This thread is about the anti nudist actions that are being taken at San Onofre Beach. This thread is a place for naturists to share their thoughts and opinions as to how best to resist the changes. Please do not come this thread and hijack it with you biased anti nudist opinions. This is not the place and it is past time that YOU show some respect for others in this thread!

Stu2630

07-05-2008, 06:16 AM

Sanslines

Wrong.....wrong......wrong ............and more of your anti nudist rantings!I wasn't being anti-nudist, but rather pointing out the inconsistency in your position. My response was aimed at YOUR posting. On the one hand you say you want a nudist beach to be "legalized", which means it is given recognition as a nudist beach, yet elsewhere you express contempt for nudists having segregated beaches.

The fact is that it is an easy target for politicians and a few outspoken zealots who are forcing their warped morality upon a populace.In this case, it seems that politicians are responding to public complaints!! I'm not saying that I agree with the response of stopping the nudists using this beach - I don't - quite the opposite - I would support the nudists fighting to keep this beach (yes, me, the one you call "anti-nudist"!). But in order to be able to influence the authorities, nudists will have to enter into a dialog with them and that means showing mutual respect for each other's position. The attitude which YOU show, however, is anything but respectful. You don't think people should have any right to be able to enjoy a nudity-free public environment. You think people who are offended by nudity should have to just get over it. That's not being respectful.

The genuine nudists who come to this beach to relax and enjoy the beach are NOT the problem and the authorities know this.I agree. And nudists need to enter into a dialog with the authorities in order to make this point. That's what I was saying.

This thread is a place for naturists to share their thoughts and opinions as to how best to resist the changes. Please do not come this thread and hijack it with you biased anti nudist opinions.Calling for mutual respect and dialog is not "anti nudist": it is a thoughtful and constructive contribution.

Stu

Sanslines

07-05-2008, 08:59 AM

Stu,

I am not gonig to debate this topic with you. You obviously know nothing about this particular beach and the problems at this beach. I have a personal interest in this beach for I have attended this beach, have talked with many fine people at this beach, and feel very sorry and compassionate for what people are now going through at this beach.
I am also concerned that Black's Beach may be next on the 'hit' list.

This topic is not about you and your crazy negotiations. You know nothing about the real history of this beach or what is at state. Yet you continue to twist what I have said in some attempt at provocation for 'debate'. This beach is a personal issue for some people - understand that clearly!

Stu2630

07-05-2008, 09:55 AM

Sanslines

I have read the postings on here about this beach - what else is there to know?

So far as the beach in question is concerned, I have said that I support nudists being able to retain any beaches with a long established tradition of nudist use, including this one. That's it. In order to prevent the loss of this, or any other nudist beach, negotiation with the authorities is essential. That means entering into a meaningful dialog and, for that to happen, there must be mutual respect.

I agree that there is nothing to debate because the issue is straightforward.

:D

Stu

Naturist Mark

07-05-2008, 10:17 AM

In order to prevent the loss of this, or any other nudist beach, negotiation with the authorities is essential.

It seems the inevitable outcome of negotiations is to lose some part of what you had before.

How about we negotiate the status of the clothing required beaches.

-Mark

Stu2630

07-05-2008, 12:02 PM

NaturistMark

It seems the inevitable outcome of negotiations is to lose some part of what you had before.

Not necessarily. If the authorities have suddenly decided to ban nudity after many years of accepting it - what's changed? If they are now receiving complaints, what are people complaining about? Can you address the concerns people are expressing? If you can, then maybe the authorities could be persuaded to think again.

How about we negotiate the status of the clothing required beaches.

To an extent, yes. You should certainly try your luck at negotiating for some more nude and/or clothing optional beaches by showing that the number of nudists warrants more beach space. You are at something of a disadvantage when it comes to negotiation because the other side holds practically all the chips. The only bargaining chip you hold is to promise that, in return for a fair share of beach space, you will encourage nudists to use only the allocated nudist areas and not bother textiles on their beaches. That requires a channel of dialog with the authorities and a pre-requisite of any meaningful dialog is trust - founded on mutual respect.

Stu

Sanslines

07-05-2008, 04:14 PM

It seems the inevitable outcome of negotiations is to lose some part of what you had before.

How about we negotiate the status of the clothing required beaches.

-Mark

Mark,

You are correct and I am certain that you understand that the naturists at San Onofre would most probably like nothing better then to negotiate based upon mutual respect. The Calif State Parks Superintendent made a decision to prohibit nudism at San Onofre and nothing short of legal challenges will change this decision. Therefore, at this point in time, it is absolutely ludicrous and nonsensical for anyone to make simplistic statements about 'negotiations based upon mutual respect' and such comments only rub dirt into the open wounds of the San Onofre naturists.

nimrod

07-05-2008, 06:14 PM

What? You want to get a nudist beach - a "ghetto" - a place where you are "segregated and penned" - legalized?

You want it both ways. You want your own beaches to be protected while having the right to get naked on everyone else's beaches, too!!! No wonder the authorities have little sympathy with nudists.

Stu

It is a matter of losing the little we already have. We are segregated to a few beaches now to lose one means we are further segregated. We have to protect our beaches first then work for more and better.

I would also make the sugestion of not putting words into others mouths. You can only see through your bigoted attitude towards nudist, so you will twist the things we say to fit into your prejudices. The autorities have little sympathy with nudists because of prejudices, also the laws are not on our side, it as little to nothing to do with what we want.

Bob S.

07-05-2008, 07:52 PM

Stu2630

07-06-2008, 06:49 AM

Nimrod

You can only see through your bigoted attitude towards nudist, so you will twist the things we say to fit into your prejudices.

My post was a jibe at Sanslines, and others who on the one hand complain of segregation while on the other hand complain that they are losing a segregated nudist beach. I think you should remember before accusing me of having a "bigoted attitude towards nudist [sic]" that I am actually on the side of nudists in this particular instance.

The autorities have little sympathy with nudists because of prejudices, also the laws are not on our side,

I agree. But I am on your side in this.

BobS

I appreciate, and sympathise, with the nudists' problem regarding San Onofre nude beach. You should NOT be penalised because of a few individuals, who are not genuine nudists, abusing the status of the beach. I wish the nudists every success in persuading the authorities that they are wrong to prohibit nudists from using it.

Stu::"You want to get a nudist beach - a "ghetto" - a place where you are "segregated and penned" - legalized?"

Yes Stu, we want to keep our beaches. The alternative is not having anywhere.

My point was specifically aimed at Sanslines who, among others, seem to be demanding an end to segregation of nudists while, at the same time, demanding the retention of a segregated beach just for them. This is incompatible and is not a sustainable position from which to negotiate with the authorities.

Nudists always are trying to enter into meaningful dialogue with the textiles. It is the textiles who refuse to enter into any meaningful dialogue with us.

I accept that. Nudists must remember however, that a precondition for any dialogue is mutual respect for each other's beliefs, values and sensibilities. Some people here have no respect for those of us with a more prudish nature and they believe our sensibilities should be simply disregarded as being "our problem". That's not respect and it doesn't help you make friends and influence people, and nudism needs friends in the textile community just as gays needed friends in the straight community.

You need not - and should not - start from a "defensive mode", but you have to begin with an understanding that many people are not comfortable with nudity you have some sympathy for that. If you make it clear that you respect their feelings and have every intention of protecting such people, then you are demonstrating the necessary respect and are entitled to respect in return.

Stu

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 07:17 AM

Stu, the issue that started this whole thing were trespassers who went over to the forbidden Camp Pendleton Marine Base beach to have sex. None of them were San Onofre nude beach regulars, but simply textiles who wanted to have outdoors sex. Nothing happened on the nudist beach that abuts the Military property and nudists have no control over it.

And Stu, you must understand that posts on a nudist forum do not represent how nudists deal with the public in real life. There are many nudist activists who are in regular, professional contact with government people in many states. The problem here is the person who decided to rescind the decades-old Cahill policy is not friendly to nude beaches and finds them problematic even when they are not.

Stu::"You want to get a nudist beach - a "ghetto" - a place where you are "segregated and penned" - legalized?"

Yes Stu, we want to keep our beaches. The alternative is not having anywhere. It would be then that all bets would be off.

Stu:" Until nudists enter into a meaningful dialog with the textile majority..."

Stu, i think you just write that to rile us. Nudists always are trying to enter into meaningful dialogue with the textiles. It is the textiles who refuse to enter into any meaningful dialogue with us. Their answer is to ban it if things get too public. Exactly when was the last time the textiles really entered into meaningful dialogue with nudists to help us out? We are too often in defensive mode to be able to truly be able to enter into meaningful dialogue.

Bob S.

Bob,

You are entirely correct. Stu's attempt to dig up a relatively old posting of mine solely to provoke me and throw mud into my face speaks volumes about his attitude towards nudists. Stu either has no clue and continues to offer simplistic solutions to complicated problems that he refuses to understand or he is just playing games with us. I tend to believe that he is just playing games for his real intentions do show through from time to time behind his 'facade of niceness'.

Stu claims to have read all of the posts concerning this topic and yet he seems to not understand them. He promotes the same old tired lines about fairness and negotiation without acknowledging that, in many cases, it is impossible to negotiate. He will also not acknowledge that the laws are indeed stacked against nudists and nudists in many cases have to fight an uphill battle. Such will be the case concerning San Onofre.

Stu's jab at me demonstrates that he knows nothing about the situation in California concerning nudism and that nudists really have a rather tenuous hold on nudism in that state. He is obviously doesn't understand that San Onofre exists today as a nudist beach. It is what people have. It is a place for people to go to to be free and nude. There are only a very few places in San Diego County where nudists can go. The loss of San Onofre will be a major loss to nudists. It will be the beginning and Black's Beach may be next. I remember the events leading up to loss of part of Black's Beach. It was not a very pretty sight.

Stu's jab really is not only a jab at me but a jab to all nudists who are fighting to retain the places that they have and are also trying to secure more places. He shows his real intentions towards nudists and they are not very nice intentions. Yet, he continues to hide behind his 'niceness' as if he can fool or con others into not seeing his real intentions. Perhaps some are fooled. I wish to believe that most are not and see that Stu is only pursuing his own selfish interests in order to control nudists and keep them segregated in their ghettos so he will never have to see anyone nude. If only he would spend his time trying to deal with his phobia rather then trying to manipulate others into agreeing to limit their activities for the sole reason to accomodate Stu and his phobias. If only............

If Stu really believes that he is sincere about helping nudists, then he needs to start by helping himself. He needs to face his nudity phobia and deal with it. He does not need to come to a forum and lecture nudists about what they should and should not do. We have enough competent and experienced nudists who know exactly what they can and can not do based upon real world experience.

Stu2630

07-06-2008, 09:06 AM

Sanslines

You make a habit of being wrong, don't you?

Stu claims to have read all of the posts concerning this topic and yet he seems to not understand them.

I have never claimed to have "read all the posts concerning this topic".

He promotes the same old tired lines about fairness and negotiation without acknowledging that, in many cases, it is impossible to negotiate.

I acknowledge that there may be times when it's impossible to negotiate. My suggestions about mutual respect are intended to increase the chances that nudists will be able to enter into negotiations, but I realise that is not always possible.

He will also not acknowledge that the laws are indeed stacked against nudists and nudists in many cases have to fight an uphill battle.

I fully accept that nudists sometimes face an uphill battle.

He is obviously doesn't understand that San Onofre exists today as a nudist beach

I am perfectly well aware that San Onofre exists today as a nudist beach. I support nudists trying to keep it a nudist beach.

I wish to believe that most are not and see that Stu is only pursuing his own selfish interests in order to control nudists and keep them segregated in their ghettos so he will never have to see anyone nude

I want nudists to have plentiful baches in good locations and with the same standard of facilities that are enjoyed by textiles. Segregation - yes. Ghettos - no.

If only he would spend his time trying to deal with his phobia rather then trying to manipulate others into agreeing to limit their activities for the sole reason to accomodate Stu and his phobias

I'm happy as I am, thanks. You like nudity - I don't. You have places where you can enjoy it - I have places where I can avoid it. That way, we can all be happy.

He needs to face his nudity phobia and deal with it. He does not need to come to a forum and lecture nudists about what they should and should not do

I don't have a 'phobia'. I used to have one, but I don't now. I see naked guys in my gym locker rooms and it doesn't worry me. I occasionally see topless women at the beaches and it doesn't unduly worry me. My "phobia" has been transformed into just a strong dislike. Nudity isn't something I'm afraid of any more - it's just something I don't want in my life and will avoid if I possibly can. The way things are, I can avoid it and I intend to keep things that way. But nudists are generally nice people, and I will always support their right to have places designated for their use.

Stu

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 09:36 AM

Sanslines

[quote]You make a habit of being wrong, don't you?

No, I make a habit of pointing out your constant inconsistencies.

I have never claimed to have "read all the posts concerning this topic".

You said this: "I have read the postings on here about this beach - what else is there to know?"

You constantly phrase everything is such a way as to always leave an 'out' for you. Your phrase clearly implies that you read a sufficient number of posts to understand the issue at hand. Can you not answer direct questions with direct answers? Is this even a remote possibility for you?

If you think that you can then answer these clear and direct questions:

Do you fully and completely understand the issue at hand based upon your readings of past posts concerning this topic?

Do you or do you not understand that the way that you phrased your statement above is such that any reasonable person would conclude that you are indicating that you fully understand the issue at hand?

If you do not fully understand the issue at hand, then what parts of the issue at hand do you not understand?

Can you not understand that focusing upon reading 'all' the posts or reading a 'sufficient number of posts' is nitpicking and dodging the real question at hand?

I acknowledge that there may be times when it's impossible to negotiate. My suggestions about mutual respect are intended to increase the chances that nudists will be able to enter into negotiations, but I realise that is not always possible.

Stu, You are the BEST example that we have this forum of someone who is IMPOSSIBLE to negotiate with.

I don't have a 'phobia'. I used to have one, but I don't now. I see naked guys in my gym locker rooms and it doesn't worry me. I occasionally see topless women at the beaches and it doesn't unduly worry me. My "phobia" has been transformed into just a strong dislike. Nudity isn't something I'm afraid of any more - it's just something I don't want in my life and will avoid if I possibly can. The way things are, I can avoid it and I intend to keep things that way. But nudists are generally nice people, and I will always support their right to have places designated for their use.
Stu

Stu You have a severe phobia that you will never admit to. It's the same thing with an alcoholic that refuses to admit that he or she has a drinking problem.

You came into this topic and clearly took a jab at me and all nudists with your sarcastic and condescending comments. This is the REAL you and demonstrates what you honestly believe about us. You could very well have come into this topic and offered support and encouragement to those who are fighting the San Onofre battle. You chose not to do this. You are now trying to 'be nice' in some 'after the fact' attempt that is clearly insincere. Save it!

You are now following your traditional pattern and going back to your 'safe zone' where you make comments along the lines of 'I am supportive of nudism, can't we all get along, let's all negotiate, etc'. We fully know your pattern and your positions concerning nudism as you have been repeating them over and over again ad naseum for the past five years.

You just don't seem to understand that you come into a nudist 'home' such as this forum and promote your antinudism disguised under your 'nice talk'. Most are not fooled or deceived by this. Yet you talk about mutual respect. Where is your respect for nudists and this 'home' for nudists.

I suggest that you go and find a smoker's forum where smokers are discussing their enjoyment of tobacco. Go there and start making posts of how smokers are being fined, arrested, etc for smoking in non smoking areas. See how the smokers will react to you. It's the same thing here. You come to places where people want to discuss what interests them and all that you do is to remind people of what they have to face in the real world? Is there no forum or no place where nudists can be free to enjoy their lifestyle without the Stu's of this world constantly reminding them of their limitations and what they have to deal with in the real world???

Stu2630

07-06-2008, 10:01 AM

Sanslines

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> I have never claimed to have "read all the posts concerning this topic". </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
You said this: "I have read the postings on here about this beach - what else is there to know?"

When I wrote that, I had, at that time, read all the postings "about this beach", as I said. That's not the same as having "read all the posts concerning this topic".

Your phrase clearly implies that you read a sufficient number of posts to understand the issue at hand.

Precisely. I understand the issue at hand.

Do you fully and completely understand the issue at hand based upon your readings of past posts concerning this topic?

I believe I do.

Do you or do you not understand that the way that you phrased your statement above is such that any reasonable person would conclude that you are indicating that you fully understand the issue at hand?

No.If you do not fully understand the issue at hand, then what parts of the issue at hand do you not understand?

I have the gist of the issue at hand.

Can you not understand that focusing upon reading 'all' the posts or reading a 'sufficient number of posts' is nitpicking and dodging the real question at hand?

Nope. I don't know what you are driving at.

You came into this topic and clearly took a jab at me and all nudists with your sarcastic and condescending comments.

I wasn't being sarcastic or condescending. Your input on this thread gave me the opportunity to show you that your view on segregation is inconsistent. So I did.

You could very well have come into this topic and offered support and encouragement to those who are fighting the San Onofre battle. You chose not to do this.

No, I did voice support for nudists trying to protect their use of this beach. I always support nudists trying to protect beaches they have traditionally used.

You just don't seem to understand that you come into a nudist 'home' such as this forum and promote your antinudism disguised under your 'nice talk'.

I don't have an anti-nudist bone in my body. I support responsible and considerate nudism. I don't support people who want to force me to have to se naked people in my environment, whether that's under the umbrella of nudism, protest or spontaneous amusement.

I suggest that you go and find a smoker's forum where smokers are discussing their enjoyment of tobacco. Go there and start making posts of how smokers are being fined, arrested, etc for smoking in non smoking areas. See how the smokers will react to you.

Good analogy - thanks - I'll use it! I think smokers, like nudists, don't get a fair deal in society and they should have a fair proportion of segregated places where they can enjoy their chosen leisure activity. A bit like nudists, really. The difference is that most smokers would be delighted to be given their own comfortable rooms in public buildings instead of being forced outside into the street regardless of the weather. Most smokers I know respect the rights of non-smokers to live in environments free of their smoke, and if they don't then they should. Similarly, I think many nudists would be delighted to have more and better nudist venues to use and don't expect to be able to be naked anywhere in public, and they respect the right of people to live in a nudity-free environment if they choose to do so.

Stu

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 10:28 AM

Sanslines

When I wrote that, I had, at that time, read all the postings "about this beach", as I said. That's not the same as having "read all the posts concerning this topic".

Are you or are you not going to post specific answers to the list of very specific questions that I had asked you???

Are you now saying that you have read all posts about San Onofre beach but that you have picked only those posts in this thread that specifically mention San Onofre beach and ignored the rest? Are you therefore saying that you are replying to posts without even reading them?? This is STRANGE!!!

Precisely. I understand the issue at hand.

Specific question: What is the issue at hand?

Also, how can you claim to understand the issue at hand if you have ignored posts contained within this thread? This is even STRANGER yet!

I believe I do.

Without reading all of the posts in this thread?? Amazing and TOTALLY STRANGE!!

No.

No what??? Please read the question and answer in a non nebulous way.

I have the gist of the issue at hand.

Thats not what I had asked. Please reread the question carefully and answer in a non nebulous way to indicate that you fully understand that question that was asked.

Nope. I don't know what you are driving at.

c'mon Stu, sure you do! Fess up and answer the question!

I wasn't being sarcastic or condescending. Your input on this thread gave me the opportunity to show you that your view on segregation is inconsistent. So I did.

My 'alleged' inconsistencies have nothing to do with the topic at hand. So you are admitting that you intentionally hijacked this thread to provoke someone??? Totally amazing and yet you demand respect from nudists?

No, I did voice support for nudists trying to protect their use of this beach. I always support nudists trying to protect beaches they have traditionally used.

I clearly stated WHEN you voiced your support. Your first post was only to throw stones and me in some attempt to demonstrate my alleged inconsistencies. Again you are playing games for you know fully well that your primarly intention (based upon the sequence of your posts) was NOT to INITIALLY voice any support. You did thia 'after the fact' in a smoke and mirror attempt to pacify the audience here into believing intentions that are NOT really there. It's all a mirage!! No one is fooled!

I don't have an anti-nudist bone in my body. I support responsible and considerate nudism. I don't support people who want to force me to have to se naked people in my environment, whether that's under the umbrella of nudism, protest or spontaneous amusement.

Believe what you chose but your posts demonstrate something entiely different.

Good analogy - thanks - I'll use it! I think smokers, like nudists, don't get a fair deal in society and they should have a fair proportion of segregated places where they can enjoy their chosen leisure activity. A bit like nudists, really. The difference is that most smokers would be delighted to be given their own comfortable rooms in public buildings instead of being forced outside into the street regardless of the weather. Most smokers I know respect the rights of non-smokers to live in environments free of their smoke, and if they don't then they should. Similarly, I think many nudists would be delighted to have more and better nudist venues to use and don't expect to be able to be naked anywhere in public, and they respect the right of people to live in a nudity-free environment if they choose to do so.

I assume now that you can not either understand or chose not to understand that point that I was making about smokers. Just another example of how you twist things to suit your diabolical purposes. More smoke and mirrors to mask your real intentions - anti nudity agenda at work! No one is fooled by your attempts at generating mirages! No one!!

Stu2630

07-06-2008, 11:03 AM

Sanslines

Are you or are you not going to post specific answers to the list of very specific questions that I had asked you???

I have answered them - again and again and again!!!

Are you therefore saying that you are replying to posts without even reading them?? This is STRANGE!!!

I read the posts which were concerned with the problem at San Onofre beach. I read most of the other posts on this thread. I can't swear that I have read every word in every posting.

Specific question: What is the issue at hand?

Nude sunbathers on San Onofre State Beachwill soon be asked to put their clothes back on. The change comes after several complaints about lewd behavior at the beach. For decades, nudists have been going to a clothing-optional stretch of sand encased by 50 feet tall, rocky cliffs at the beach . But after Labour Day, the state will begin cracking down on nudity and rangers will be able to ticket those without clothes. The criticism is unfair because naturists abide by strict guidelines and watch out for lewd conduct. Imminently, park rangers will begin warning beach-goers of the changes.

That's as far as I'm going on this line. I get the gist of the issue at hand and that's all hat matters.

My 'alleged' inconsistencies have nothing to do with the topic at hand. So you are admitting that you intentionally hijacked this thread to provoke someone??? Totally amazing and yet you demand respect from nudists?

Your inconsistencies (which, by the way, are shared by some others on here) are very relevant to this thread. Nudists are being treated unfairly with regard to this beach, and similar beaches, and they need a solid position from which to argue their case. You go into negotiations on the basis that (a) you want to keep this beach for nudist use, and (b) by the way, you want the right to be nude anywhere in public where you feel like it, then you will not be listened to. This position is untenable because you are making demands which are entirely unreasonable and disrespectful of the feelings of textiles. If you are suspected of having such ambitions, you will be regarded as extremists, hippies, crackpots etc and ignored.

More smoke and mirrors to mask your real intentions - anti nudity agenda at work! No one is fooled by your attempts at generating mirages! No one!!

More smoke and mirrors to mask your real intentions - anti nudity agenda at work! No one is fooled by your attempts at generating mirages! No one!!

The more you say things like this, the more paranoid you appear. You show me any cause for considerate nudism and I will support it. All I am opposed to is public nudity in full view of people who may be offended by it. Most textiles, and even quite a few nudists, would think that was reasonable.

Stu

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 12:46 PM

You show me any cause for considerate nudism and I will support it. All I am opposed to is public nudity in full view of people who may be offended by it. Most textiles, and even quite a few nudists, would think that was reasonable.

Stu

You conveniently left out the part about how you will act as sole judge and determine what is reasonable (considerate) and what is not. You also forgot to own up to your repeated inconsiderations of nudists. Negotiations also require flexibility of position.......something that so far you have not demonstrated.

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 12:49 PM

More smoke and mirrors to mask your real intentions - anti nudity agenda at work! No one is fooled by your attempts at generating mirages! No one!!

The more you say things like this, the more paranoid you appear. You show me any cause for considerate nudism and I will support it. All I am opposed to is public nudity in full view of people who may be offended by it. Most textiles, and even quite a few nudists, would think that was reasonable.

Stu

The more that I say things like this, the more that I expose your real intentions. C'mon Stu, even you must admit that it is 'peculiar' for someone to come to a forum and preach the same old dogma year after year.

baregreg

07-06-2008, 05:13 PM

The more that I say things like this, the more that I expose your real intentions. C'mon Stu, even you must admit that it is 'peculiar' for someone to come to a forum and preach the same old dogma year after year.
Hi Sanslines

Ignore this guy. This is how he gets his jollies. He has already admitted it in thread I posted in.

Ignore him and he may just go away. ;)

NudeAl

07-06-2008, 05:49 PM

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 06:00 PM

Hi Sanslines

Ignore this guy. This is how he gets his jollies. He has already admitted it in thread I posted in.

Ignore him and he may just go away. ;)

Hi barereg,

Thanks for the advice! You may just be right as there are more productive ways to spend our time then wasting it with such endless nonsense.

MJ_KC

07-06-2008, 06:02 PM

Stu, I hate to go against you on this but the area is known for nudity and if you do not want to see it all you have to do is not walk the additional 1/2 mile onto the nude section.

I have been there one time and it is a long walk to the nude section and you are not supposed to go south of this area because you would be trespassing on a military base. You can tell that most everyone is nude before you would actually be in the nude use area.

I don't see why it is a problem with people using this remote area in the nude. If I didn't want to get nude on this beach, there is no way that I would walk that far when there are lots of good places to use the beach without the long walk.

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 06:08 PM

I used to be a regular at this beach. I went there 2-5 times a week during the season from Memeorial Day (last weekend of May) to Labor Day(last weekend of August). I was a regular and I can tell you that if you did not want to see nudity all you had to do was stay on your side of the line. It is not the fault of the nudists that there was no signage. We were trying for more than 20 years to get the benenfit of signage however the powers that be wouldn't hear of it. They even went so far as to lie about the existance of a nude beach. What a bunch of jackasses!

Stu, I hate to go against you on this but the area is known for nudity and if you do not want to see it all you have to do is not walk the additional 1/2 mile onto the nude section. We really are down on the far end of this beach, with no where else we can go and we have had a good relationship with the public. No trouble what so ever. How in the Hell could we do any more?

You are barking up the wrong tree with this one. We have done all that can be asked.

Al,

Why would you hate to go against Stu with this one when you must know fullly well that there are many decent regulars on San Onofre beach who only want to be left alone to enjoy their freedom. They bother no one, create no problems, and don't look for problems. You must also know that negotiations will go nowhere with those who are not open to such advice.
Only those who actually go to nude beaches and know the history of the beach will understand that nudists are generally on the losing end of a very short stick. It was only a matter of time before the Cahill Policy would be challenged as that policy was a so called 'compromise' that did not fully and legally protect the rights of nudists to be nude at designated beaches. Russell Cahill actually tried to secure more protections for nudists by designation certain portions of beaches as official clothing optional area but certain powerful groups prohibited this.

This is a copy of the Memorandums:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=8><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD align=left colSpan=2>State of California</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD align=left colSpan=2>M e m o r a n d u m</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Date:</TD><TD>MAY 3 1 1979</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>To:</TD><TD>

All Division/Office ChiefsAll District SuperintendentsAll Area Managers

</PRE></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD align=left colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>From:</TD><TD>Department of Parks and Recreation <TR vAlign=top><TD>Subject:</TD><TD>

Clothing Optional Beaches

</PRE>

</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD></TD><TD>

No clothing optional beaches will be designated within the California State Park System at this time. During the public meeting process, it became clear to me that the public is extremely polarized on this issue. It also became clear that there is a serious concern on the part of clothing optional beach opponents about the extra costs of patrolling beaches so designated. Proponents' arguments that a few miles of beach be set aside for their usewere pervasive. However, serious opposition from legislators, county supervisors and local governing bodies lead me to believe that designating such areas will focus opponents' attention upon what seems to be a victimless crime at worst, and certainly an innocuous action.The cost of extra services argument is a good one. Therefore, it shall be the policy of the Department that enforcement of nude sunbathing regulations within the State Park System shall be made only upon the complaint of a private citizen. Citations or arrests shall be made only after attempts are made to elicit voluntary compliance with the regulations. This policy should free up enforcement people to concentrate on other pressing duties.

</PRE></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD></TD><TD>http://www.bayareanaturists.org/cahill_sign.gif</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD></TD><TD>

Russell W. CahillDirector

</PRE>

</PRE>

</PRE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>Furthermore for additional background:

<TABLE width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGENCY</TD><TD align=right>GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<HR>
<TABLE width="100%"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD align=left>DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO 94296-0001

</TD><TD align=right>http://www.bayareanaturists.org/ca-seal.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

(916) 445-2358JUN 14, 1988Cec CinderWestern Sunbathing Association Inc.P.O. Box 328Moreno Valley, CA 92337Dear Cec Cinder:In People vs. Eric John Bost (http://www.bayareanaturists.org/bost.html), Placer County Superior (Appellate) No. 75689,the court held that the public receives fair notice that clothing-optionalactivities like "skinny dipping" are permitted only at recognized locationswithin the state parks, unless a request for cessation of such activities ismade by an enforcement officer upon public complaint. Upon such warning, theactivity must stop for the day. By prohibiting the activity for the balanceof the day, it is likely that the skinny dipper and complaining party will notencounter one another again thus serving the purpose of the "Cahill policy"in a rational, easily understandable way.This construction also fairly advises law enforcement and prosecutors of howthe law is to be enforced. So long as the activity takes place in atraditionally recognized area it is legal unless and until a complaint from amember of the public is received. Upon such complaint a warning is to beissued and, if not heeded, a violation (of Title 14, California Code ofRegulations Section 4322) has occurred. Further activities of a person sowarned are prohibited for the balance of the day, but activities on later daysare proscribed only if preceded by a new public complaint and renewed warning.This Department concurs in the holding of the court and will not seekappellate review of this court's judgment.A copy of the opinion (http://www.bayareanaturists.org/bost.html) is enclosed for your use.Sincerely,

</PRE>http://www.bayareanaturists.org/jvhsig.gif

Jack V. HarrisonDeputy Director for OperationsG-7729XEnclosurecc: All Regional Directors Mr. Bruce Kranz, District Superintendent Folsom Lake District

</PRE>

</PRE>

You can follow the link to the 'People versus Eric Bost" for information.

History has shown that there have been no additional patrolling costs as compared to textile beaches. Also no additional services have been provided and it must also be acknowledged that nudists pay entrance fees to gain admission to a California State Park that more then compensates the state for use of a very small portion of a state park.

</PRE>

NudeAl

07-07-2008, 06:54 PM

I understand that Sanslines I guess I was just trying to be polite. We are in a fight for our way of life here I hope we have the where with all to continue to resist. If I were still in the area I would still be a regular as this was my favorite beach and I certainly would continue to go there as long as NAC was willing to help in that fight. Here is a email from Allen Baylis the beach Mayor of San O he is looking to see if antone has been harrassed by the parks police.

Friends,

We have received a report that the Park Rangers swept the beach on Monday, 6/30,
afternoon demanding that those who were nude cover up or receive a citation.
I am requesting that any person who was present whether you were cited or
not please contact me and let me know what happened. You can email me at:
allen@friendsofsanonofre.org or call me at 714-962-0915

Thanks,
Allen Baylis
President, Friends of San Onofre Beach

NudeAl

07-07-2008, 07:01 PM

FireProf

07-07-2008, 10:28 PM

My wife and I visited San O today. It was pretty quiet and not many people. No ranger patrols and most everyone was nude...but you could see the uneasyness of the regulars....us included.

We had heard reports, on the news last night, that rangers would begin citing people but no patrols of the ranger vehicle from 11a - 5p.

A news crew was there interviewing but we were napping when the arrived and they passed us up for others that were awake.

We plan on making further trips to San O before the Labor Day holiday.

FP ;)

Sanslines

07-08-2008, 03:36 AM

I had a thought here after reading the memorandum AKA the Cahill Policy. I note it says at this time no nude beaches will be established however I think it is time to rethink that policy. I also seem to remember that Gray Whale Cove was given to the CA State Parks by a private party and that they specifically stated that the beach MUST continue to be operated as a nude beach or the contract was null and void. If that is the case they the technically do have nude beaches so, where can we go with this? Is it time to put this on the ballot for this comming election??

The justifications given by the Cahill Policy (as demanded by the textile crowd) have long been proven to be false. It has been proven that there are no required additional charged associated with a naturist beach as compared to a regular one. There have also been no additional services provided (although I have long thought that Port-A-Poties and garbage bins on the beach would be very helpful). Considering that natursts pay an entrance fee at San Onofre to gain admission to the state park, some sort of facilities should be provided. Heck, at Gunnison (where enormous amounts of revenues are generated each Summer from the naturists who pay the so called parking fee, improvements have been made in the past including an expansion of the parkng lot and toilet and shower facilities right by the entrance to the beach.

NudeAl

07-09-2008, 07:11 PM

The Friends of San Onofre are having a beach picnic on this coming Saturday. I am reposting the email I got on this here in the hopes that many of you will be able to attend and show support for this endangered beach. If any of you are interested in attending here are the details.

Dear Naturist Friends,

Friends of San Onofre Beach and Naturists in the OC will be celebrating Nude Recreation Week with a picnic at San Onofre on Saturday, July 12. We will have BBQ's going with hamburgers, and chips etc. Lunch will be at noon. Bring your own beverages. Feel free to bring a sign or banner expressing your support for our fight to save our clothing optional beach!

Allen Baylis,
Friends of San Onofre Beach

FireProf

07-10-2008, 08:52 AM

We're planning on being there on Saturday..............naked, "Nude Beaches...YES" signs and meeting everyone.....including the media!

;)

baregreg

07-10-2008, 12:19 PM

Here's a recent article (sorry if this has already been posted)
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/state-baylis-public-2089604-beach-policy
Also check out the vote poll.

FireProf

07-10-2008, 02:56 PM

It still amazes me that with those voting in this poll, 76% are in favor of allowing this clothing optional beach to continue and the other 24% are hateful, ignorant fools that don't understand what a simple thing like sharing is and they still want to argue the fact that "no one wants this." What about the 76% that voted in favor!?

(Clothed fools way of thinking)....Let's see, we don't use the 4+ miles of beach we have already but we want the 1000 ft. of beach that the nudist have because we don't want them there even though we don't go down to the end of the beach....and we think they should keep their clothes on because we just might see them if we venture down to that end of the beach we KNOW there are nude people, we don't want to see.

Who parented these people anyway!!?

Navigator

07-10-2008, 04:21 PM

Who parented these people anyway!!?

Orange County Republicans? :laugh:

ClothingOptionalHawaii

07-10-2008, 04:23 PM

Orange County Republicans? :laugh:

I am a Republican!

I strongly believe in individual freedoms, which is one of the main reasons I am a Republican. I think what the government is doing here is WRONG.

You'd be shocked if you knew how many nudist Republicans there were. :D

Navigator

07-10-2008, 04:53 PM

I am a Republican!

I strongly believe in individual freedoms, which is one of the main reasons I am a Republican. I think what the government is doing here is WRONG.

You'd be shocked if you knew how many nudist Republicans there were. :D

I was just joking COH. I was also a lifelong Republican until Dubya came along....and I'm well aware of how many nudist Republicans there are.

But I don't think we should hijack this thread for a discussion of politics. The nude beach at San Onofre is important to all our lifestyles and it needs it's own thread.

Until recent years I've been a long time regular at San Onofre for a large portion of my life. I met my wife on the nude beach there 16 years ago.

Still...if you read the comments of the people who wrote in to the paper I think you'll find that they are advocating anything but individual freedom.

Somehow, they just don't sound like Democrats to me.

Best...

Navigator

FireProf

07-10-2008, 05:20 PM

Orange County Republicans? :laugh:

Now that's funny!!!!

:laugh:

NudeAl

07-10-2008, 05:37 PM

I wish I was still in the area to support this event and continue to go to this beach. I think it is vitally important for all local nudists in the SoCal area to patronize this beach and to let the rangers at the gate know when you go there that you are going there specifically because of the nude beach. If you can get to the event on the 12th great but if you are not able to go this day go when you can and get the message out that we are not going to take this laying down.

cenfldh

07-10-2008, 07:05 PM

Hey FireProf, I also visited San Onofre mid-afternoon (about 2-4) on Tuesday 7/8. Wish I had known you were there so I could have said hi to you and your wife. Did you guys happen to be the first couple you would come upon when reaching the nude section? Did you see me? I was one of the relatively few nudies. ;-)

I had left my wife up the coast to stay with her mother an additional week and was enroute to catch a flight at San Diego so I decided to take advantage of San Onofre before the announced enforcement. My wife and I are pretty new to this but have visited several nude beaches and resorts. I'm always more timid and lonely when she's not with me. With all the news and threatened enforcement, I was a bit nervous. Then, on my way down the trail, there was a man in fronte of me (I assume a reporter) with a huge camera zoom lens heading for the nude section. He lingered at the edges, talked on his cell phone, then seemed to disappear. All this made me somewhat edgy, but I still stripped down and enjoyed myself after he seemed to be long gone. The marine layer pretty much blocked the sun and kept the temperature in the low 70's. I waded in the water and found it much too cold to go all the way in without sunshine. But the beach is beautiful! Hope the nude use can be saved! Lots of military maneuvers going on--ships off shore and helicopter fly-overs.

FireProf

07-10-2008, 07:35 PM

cenfldh,

No...we were down near the end of the beach about 25-30 yards from the fence line. We were under an umbrella in green chairs, blanket and sheet layed out. My wife was covered a little because of the breeze. She said she was a little cool under the umbrella with the wind.

We both dozed off for a bit when the camera crew came down. We were the couple between the two guys they interviewed. One of the guys had a dog, I believe it was a Whippit (sp?). When we woke up there were interviewing the other two guys that went surfing for some footage they planned to use on their evening telecast. My wife and I then went for a walk, after the camera crew left, and collected some colorful rocks for our waterscape we have on our fireplace mantle.

I wish there were palm size laptops to take to the beach so we could get online and ask.....R U here!!? :D

Sorry we missed meeting you too.

FP

Sanslines

07-13-2008, 04:37 AM

California naturists fight ban on nude sunbathing

</EM>
<AUTHOR>By Guy Adams in Los Angeles</AUTHOR>
Saturday, 12 July 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00038/nude_surfer_38110t.jpg (javascript:launchPopup('http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-naturists-fight-ban-on-nude-sunbathing-865827.html?action=Popup&gallery=no','', 459, 830, true, true, true, false);)
ALAMY
Naturist campaigners argue that nude beaches lead to a lowering of the crime rate

For once, working out how to prevent their body hair from being painfully removed by the sticky waxed surface of their boards isn't the only problem facing California's nude surfers.

A fierce battle is brewing over plans to ban nudity at the picturesque San Onofre State Beach, which has been one of America's most famous naturist destinations for more than 40 years.
Ever since the Summer of Love in 1967, free-spirited visitors have let it all hang out at the secluded beauty spot, which stretches along several miles of Pacific coastline roughly half-way between Los Angeles and San Diego.
However, the arrival of a prudish new parks chief means the era of tolerance that has allowed them to sunbathe and surf without getting any nasty tan-lines is about to end. The acting park superintendent Rich Haydon, who arrived in the job this year, has announced that nudity at San Onofre is to be banned from Labour Day, which falls on the first weekend in September. His officers, who have been upset by reports of lewd behaviour on the beach, will arrest any revellers who refuse to cover up.

Signs explaining the change in policy have already been installed around the car park, and patrons are being verbally warned that their endless summer is to be rudely interrupted.
To the local naturist community, this represents an affront to civil liberties. A wide-ranging campaign of disobedience is being planned, and like most good American controversies, the affair is likely to end up in court.
"On Thursday, we filed a lawsuit at Orange County Superior Court, and if necessary, we will fight this all the way up to Federal level," said R Allen Baylis of Friends of San Onofre Beach, a naturist action group. "The law says that if you want to make a radical change to public policy, you have to seek input from the public. And they have totally failed to do that.
"Legal action is of course expensive and we initially hoped it wouldn't come to this, but there are fundamental libertarian issues at stake, and if necessary we can count on financial support from nudists across North America and the rest of the world," he added.
The crux of the problem is the increasing number of "regular" visitors, including many families, in the area. In 2006, 2.7 million people visited San Onofre, up from 1.6 million in 2000. As a result, growing numbers have complained of unwittingly stumbling upon the nudist hotspot. "Times have changed," Mr Haydon told the Los Angeles Times. "San Onofre ... can no longer be considered a remote beauty spot."
Mr Haydon and his parks authority also say sand-dunes around San Onofre's car park are frequently being used for gay "cruising" and open-air sexual activity has also been reported around the local Marine base, Camp Pendleton. The naturist lobby, for its part, argues that these incidents are the isolated transgressions of a small minority of troublemakers.
"What they don't understand is that real nudists aren't responsible for lewd behaviour," said Steve Hubbard, of the American Association for Nude Recreation. "And if they drive law-abiding nudists from the beach, all they'll be left with is the people who want to go there to take part in indecent activities ... Where nudity is accepted and embraced, history shows that you actually see a lowering of crime."
The case is throwing light on California's opaque laws regarding public nudity. State law prohibits nudity in all parks, "except in authorised areas set aside for the purpose". But there are no such areas. Instead, San Onofre and a couple of other reserves are currently governed by the so-called Cahill policy, under which nudity is tolerated unless it elicits a complaint from the public, in which case "voluntary compliance" is sought. Although Mr Haydon plans to rescind the Cahill policy, local naturists – who are holding a barbecue to raise money for their cause today – say his proposed ban will be impossible to enforce.
"In any case, we are going to fight this tooth and nail," said Daniel Gage, a regular visitor. "I've spoken with my wife, and we are going to go down there on the first day it becomes illegal and get our ticket to register protest. We won't go away."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-naturists-fight-ban-on-nude-sunbathing-865827.html