Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nude No More: San Onofre

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nude No More: San Onofre

    Yet another little piece on San Onofre State Beach (Trail 6):
    http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/07/nude_no_more.php
    Please, leave a thoughtful comment before the trolls do!

    This weekend was beautiful and crowded, and the Rangers seemed extremely pleasant--go figure.

  • #2
    Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

    It is sad that they feel the need to subvert the law that they have been operating under rather than listen to what the people actually have to say. These are the elected tyrants

    Bob S.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

      That's unfortunate. All the times I went to San Diego, I ended up going to Black's, and I never made it to San Onofre. I wish I had.
      Last edited by KW; 07-14-2009, 03:50 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Nude No More: Enjoy nudity at San Onofre while you can; After Labor day citations

        Originally posted by maxnude
        State to cite nudists at San Onofre beach after Labor Day

        A naturist group plans to appeal the nudity ban ruling regarding Trail 6 to the California Supreme Court.

        CINDY CARCAMO - The Orange County Register

        July 13, 2009


        Bare beachgoers at Trail 6 in San Onofre State Beach will get away with a warning through the summer.


        State officials said they plan to educate the public at the traditionally clothing-optional beach about the new ban -- posting signs and verbally warning state park visitors through Labor Day weekend.


        "After that time, appropriate enforcement action will be taken including citation and arrest if necessary," said Ken Kramer, district superintendent of the Orange Coast District. The citation fine is unclear because it's ultimately determined by the courts, Kramer said.


        At the same time, a group of nudists who want to keep it clothing-optional at the 1,000-foot stretch of beach are considering appealing their case to the state's Supreme Court after they lost the latest legal wrangling.


        A panel of justices at the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled last month that a policy that addresses nudity at state beaches is invalid. The ruling favored state officials who last spring decided to crack down on a more than 20-year tradition of nude sunbathing at the beach.


        Huntington Beach attorney Allen Baylis, who led the fight against the ban, said the Naturist Action Committee group contends the clothing optional beach there is one of the reasons San Onofre has so many visitors.


        "Apparently, they are happy to collect the significant revenue Trail 6 generates in day use fees," Baylis said of the citation delay.


        A panel of justices ruled June 25 that a policy that allowed nudity at state beaches – the Cahill Policy – is an invalid policy because they said it didn't go through the proper procedures before it was adopted years ago.


        Their decision overturned a lower court's decision in which an Orange County Superior Court judge ruled that the Cahill Policy is indeed a regulation and that state Department of Parks and Recreation violated procedure when they adopted a nudity ban without first seeking public feedback.


        The appellate justices heard from two sides of an ensuing battle over Trail 6, which has traditionally been a safe haven for naturists.


        Park officials said the agency followed the rules and did not violate any policy because they said they never set aside a designated area for nudity. They contend public nudity is not allowed on state beaches.


        Instead, state officials said, they chose to look the other way and allowed public nudity at the beach until they started getting complaints.


        Nudist officials told the judge that a 1988 letter written by the then-deputy director for operations at the park essentially set a 20-year policy, called the Cahill Policy.


        State officials contended that the policy was not a regulation, but instead a set of guidelines.


        Officials said the naturists have to adhere to a code in state law called nudity prohibited, which states that "no person shall appear nude while in any unit except in authorized areas set aside for that purpose by the department."


        Roy Stearns, a state parks spokesman, has said the Cahill Policy allows the enforcement of nude sunbathing regulations when complaints are received by private citizens.


        Stearns also said the new superintendant's decision to ban nudity at the beach came after an increase in complaints about the influx of people to the area in recent years, stating that the area is no longer remote.


        Some in the naturist community disagree, however.


        "To suggest that the change is necessary because Trail – 6 is no longer remote is a fallacy,'' Baylis said. "Remoteness has never been a necessary element in application of the Cahill Policy. (They) "simply created the remoteness requirement in order to support its change in policy."


        Source: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/s...dity-officials
        Send a big thank you to AANR for this.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

          Sadly, no surprise here. It has been know for years that the attitude of at least one person in authority at AANR was to trade beaches for clubs. In other words, AANR would not object to having beaches closed if the government(s) woud leave the clubs alone. So much for supporting nudism outside of the clubs.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

            This sounds to me like an attempt by AANR to look out solely for their own interests and not for nudists in general. I will never support them for the reason that, as a taxpayer and an American, I feel I have a right to be nude outdoors on the beaches and deserts and mtns. of this country, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

              Another reason why I am leaving AANR and going back to TNS... Think we are heading down to San O today for some beach rays before it's too late, will post a report and let everyone know how it went.

              Thought I would report back on our visit this Tuesday. Small group of us on the beach with the Lifeguards going by once in their truck. No visit from the Rangers and saw no warnings or citations being handed out by anyone, overall a very nice day at the beach. Only hope it can stay this way...

              Seems the new signs put up are not going over to well though.
              Attached Files
              Last edited by 1Ace; 07-18-2009, 05:38 PM. Reason: Addittions

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

                Originally posted by naturalmanwa View Post
                This sounds to me like an attempt by AANR to look out solely for their own interests and not for nudists in general. I will never support them for the reason that, as a taxpayer and an American, I feel I have a right to be nude outdoors on the beaches and deserts and mtns. of this country, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others.

                It is looking after their OWN interests. I agree with you we have the right to be nude outdoors on beaches, deserts, mountains, our own yards, etc. This type of behavior for an organization is unacceptable.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

                  My wife and I are members of both AANR and TNS. We are also members of the Friends of San Onofre Beach. This past weekend the group had a beach cleanup day and BBQ. Allen Baylis was on had to answer questions but didn't get into specifics of what AANR had done but focused on what is being done to stop the state Dept. of Parks and Rec from taking San O, Trail 6, away as a tolerated clothing optional site.

                  After the court decision was handed down and we had lost that battle, the FOSOB and NAC have decided to appeal this decision to the state Supreme Court. Since that has happened a over zealous Ranger has taken it upon himself to begin telling naturist to cover up or be cited. His actions are against the law and court order. This has been stopped and no citations will be given out until Sept. '09. You are urged to visit San O, Trail 6, and enjoy the beach nude and unmolested. If you should be harassed by a ranger before Sept. , please notify the Friends of San Onofre via email and report the rangers name and badge number to Allen Baylis. Comply with the orders so you don't give them reason to arrest or cite you for other infractions. This shouldn't happen, since FOSOB made some phone calls and contacted Supervisors.

                  I have sent emails to both AANR and TNS demanding, as a member, that they work together and stop the bickering. We should be progressing forward and not backward. We shouldn't be giving up on ONE naturist place to save others. To lose ONE naturist place is unacceptable when these two org's have so many strengths and weaknesses that they should be working together instead of against each other.

                  If you are a member of AANR.......I urge you to send an email to them voicing your demands that they work with TNS, NAC and the Friends of San Onofre Beach to stop the state from taking this small stretch of beach away that has served naturists for over 35 years.

                  FP
                  Last edited by FireProf; 07-14-2009, 08:48 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

                    Originally posted by FireProf View Post

                    If you are a member of AANR.......I urge you to send an email to them voicing your demands that they work with TNS, NAC and the Friends of San Onofre Beach to stop the state from taking this small stretch of beach away that has served naturists for over 35 years.

                    FP
                    It would be best to identify a specific individual within AANR who clearly understands that nudism is not about beaches OR clubs. It is about beaches, clubs, and other appropriate venues. Attempting to protect clubs by selling out the beaches is unacceptable and should never be tolerated under threat of cancelling one's AANR membership.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

                      The American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR http://aanr.com) is very much for protecting nudist rights on public lands. They have adopted nude beaches through the Oregon State Park Adopt-A-Park program. See: http://www.stateparks.com/rooster_rock.html

                      AANR Government Affairs Chair, Alonzo Stevens discussed the issue of public lands and the need to work with The Naturist Society and the Naturist Action Committee to protect nude use of public beaches such as San Onofre in California . AANR-West was acknowledged for making a $3,000 contribution to NAC to help with the legal battles now going on regarding San Onofre Beach. Alonzo Stevens asks all AANR members to send him an email at [email protected] mindspring. com, regarding public places where they have enjoyed nude recreation. Please include the location and also names, if known, of any park rangers that were dealt with and if they were friendly or hostile to our cause. We are on your side.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

                        Let us not go overboard with the blame over AANR. The blame lies solely on the idiots in the Ca Parks Dept for turning their backs on the three decade old Cahill policy and spending the money that they don't have to defend their actions rather than simply go to the people and hold a public meeting regarding this polcy. This is about a govt refusing to be of the people.

                        The AANR meeting may not have been positive, but it was not the cause of this.

                        Bob S.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

                          Originally posted by soundman View Post
                          The American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR http://aanr.com) is very much for protecting nudist rights on public lands. They have adopted nude beaches through the Oregon State Park Adopt-A-Park program. See: http://www.stateparks.com/rooster_rock.html

                          AANR Government Affairs Chair, Alonzo Stevens discussed the issue of public lands and the need to work with The Naturist Society and the Naturist Action Committee to protect nude use of public beaches such as San Onofre in California . AANR-West was acknowledged for making a $3,000 contribution to NAC to help with the legal battles now going on regarding San Onofre Beach. Alonzo Stevens asks all AANR members to send him an email at [email protected] mindspring. com, regarding public places where they have enjoyed nude recreation. Please include the location and also names, if known, of any park rangers that were dealt with and if they were friendly or hostile to our cause. We are on your side.
                          Funny how Mr. Alonzo is stating that AANR and NAC should work together. Why didn't AANR do that in the first place? Let's get the story straight here. NAC was already working on the issue of San O land being used by nude beach goers. They were on the case. AANR just jumped into the situation and went directly to the ranger, w/o the knowledge of NAC, to discuss Cahill rule with rangers. They walked away making some sort of "agreement" or at least that is what AANR thought. In the end, they got screwed and in turn AANR screwed the users of San O.

                          Let's be straight here. AANR is in the business of representing clubs and resorts. This is their speciality. They hardly ever get involve in the political aspect of naturism in US. They are not the one challenging court decisions or ordinances. The few times they have gotten involved politically, they fell flat on their face. Let's recall the Mark Foley kids nude camp fiasco and the dismal and embarrassing representation of nudism on many cable network interviews by AANR representatives. I place majority of the blame on AANR for the outcome of San O. They should never have done what they did and if they really wanted to help, they should have gone to the people who were walking on the issue all along. AANR did not bother to work with NAC or the FOSO. They went and their own thing and in the end, they didn't achieve a thing.

                          I discourage any members for further contacting AANR or Mr. Alonzo. If you have issues or want to discuss San O, contact those directly dealing with the problem, FOSO.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

                            FACTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            http://www.naturistaction.org/blog/labels/Harrison.html

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Nude No More: San Onofre

                              Originally posted by Bob S. View Post
                              Let us not go overboard with the blame over AANR. The blame lies solely on the idiots in the Ca Parks Dept for turning their backs on the three decade old Cahill policy and spending the money that they don't have to defend their actions rather than simply go to the people and hold a public meeting regarding this polcy. This is about a govt refusing to be of the people.

                              The AANR meeting may not have been positive, but it was not the cause of this.

                              Bob S.
                              Based upon my above post, AANR clearly did not work for the best interests of the San Onofre Beachgoers. AANR attempted to strike their own deal with DPR in spite of the on going efforts of NAC and sold out San Onofre. It is obvious which organization has worked for the best interests of San Onofre and which organization has not.

                              AANR represents clubs and not beaches or other venues in spite of what they might say. They represent nudists who attend clubs and not beachgoers or any other non AANR dues paying individuals.

                              It is obvious that, based upon cyclical harrasment of beachgoers at Santa Barbara naturist beaches, and now enormous pressure against naturists at San Onofre, that it is only a matter of time before Black's Beach comes under further restrictions or closure to naturists. When that time comes, it is obvious that NAC will stand up and defend the rights of naturists at Black's Beach. What will AANR do?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X