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.

Is AANR Overstepping Its Bounds?

AANR Executive Director Erich Schuttauf in a blog post today addressed two hot button issues - the case of the nude coffee guy in Virginia, and the parents arrested for taking nude photos of their children in Arizona.

I’ll acknowledge that with most such cases, AANR faces a significant obstacle that must be overcome to respond to the news story properly: like all “merely mortal” readers, viewers, and listeners, we often do not have first-hand knowledge of the facts. Did the parents of the young girls take photos that came too close to the line? Did Mr. Coffee simply stumble around the kitchen preparing brew, or did he stand spread eagle in open doorways and a large plate glass picture window at 8:40 in the morning-and were mother and son taking only a small shortcut between two very public sidewalks from which one could have just as easily seen a purposeful display as has also been alleged?

Responding too quickly, without knowing all the facts for certain, brings peril if initial reports and assumptions turn out untrue. Yet the early innings of a story are usually the stage where our blood is boiling at its hottest. DAMN IT. If AANR knows about this it should be DOING something.

The media likes to hear us say “damn it.” “Damn it” makes us buy newspapers. “Damn it” keeps us listening over the commercial break.

I want all our members and clubs to be assured that AANR hears the frustration in your phone calls and e-mail messages. I cannot promise you that we will be goaded into premature action because doing so can all-too-easily detract from a reputation of providing a credible voice of reason for nude recreation.

But I do promise you that AANR will continue to track events, to take the extra time that it takes to research the facts, or find out what the jury determined so that we can continue providing reliable guidance. And that we WILL speak out in cases of clear injustice to nudists.

Yes, news stories like these have an affect on nudists and naturists because they are reflective of public perceptions and societal shifts, and they should be discussed openly and frankly by all concerned. This is why I write about strip club ordinances, child pornography, sexting and other issues involving the human body and sexuality, which are not directly related to nudism, but speak to trends and attitudes.

And I'm glad that the powers-that-be at AANR are also concerned about these issues, and keep track of laws and ordinances.

BUT (and you knew this "but" was coming), I think it's disastrous public relations for the Executive Director of The American Association for Nude Recreation directly linking his organization with potential crimes involving indecent exposure and child pornography. While it's perfectly OK for bloggers like me to raise these issues, or even for AANR members to discuss them in a forum, it's a huge mistake, in my opinion, for Mr. Schuttauf to take them on himself.

It's a good thing that AANR has not taken an official stand on these stories, but by even discussing them in an official capacity associates nude recreation with crimes involving nude people.

The public perception can only be that AANR is open to defending flashers and pornographers. Yes, when all the facts are known and the issues are found to have a direct bearing on nude recreation, issue a statement, but open speculation and "thinking out loud" is not wise. When contacted by the press about these sort of news stories, it's best to issue a "no comment" on the basis that there is no evidence that these people are practicing nudists, belong to any nudist organizations, or that their alleged crimes have any relationship at all to nude recreation.

[UPDATE: Clarification - when I recommend a "no comment", that's what it should be, just "no comment". The bases I described are reasons for keeping mum, not meant to be given out as part of the "no comment". Otherwise the "no comment" becomes a "comment." See my previous post on this issue, where spokesperson Carlyn Hawkins declined to comment on the specifics of the naked coffee guy case, but added some general defense of nudism in general. By making her "no comment" into a "comment", her words got into the news, and linked AANR with a guy arrested for indecent exposure.]

My guess is that members of the Naturist Action Committee cringed when they read Mr. Schuttauf''s public post, which devoted 15 paragraphs to these current news issues, while a post made on 10/24 about the San Onofre lawsuit defeat was only two paragraphs. There's plenty of work to be done on the public lands issue, and valuable time and resources should not be wasted in chasing down every hot button story that comes along. The NAC chooses its battles wisely.

In addition, there is no evidence that the story of Naked Coffee Guy or the one involving the parents in Arizona will result in any changes to any laws. If anything, the public appears to be far more sympathetic to the people arrested in these cases, and outraged that they would be charged with crimes over things we've always taken for granted. Chances are these already overblown cases will quietly go away on their own.

Again, I'm glad that AANR keeps up to date on current events involving nudity issues, but unless there is some direct affect on nude recreation, nudist rights, or changes to anti-nudity laws and ordinances, officers in the organization should avoid making unnecessary public comments, in my opinion. The general population is already confused enough with the merging of swinging and nudism at some clubs, and AANR needs to remain focused on promoting positive nudist family values, and not be distracted by every viral story that comes along.

A Call to Action for Nudists and Naturists

Today Tom Mulhall, board member of AANR West and owner of the Terra Cotta Inn, recommended that nudists and naturists join both the American Association for Nude Recreation and The Naturist Society, and urged all to donate to their legal defense funds.

I wholeheartedly agree.

There are a lot of nudist and not-so-nudist web sites out there trying to get your money. Most of them are really selling photos and videos for profit, and while they often do reflect true nudist and naturist values, they really do not add much to the table when it comes to public affairs. If you are spending $50 here and $50 there for social networks or photo sites, re-think your priorities and steer those dollars towards one of the national organizations that are working for you, not just for themselves.

The Internet is not a substitute for social nudism. If you are someone who has only experienced social nudism in the virtual world, get off your bare buns and join AANR or TNS and attend a real, live nudist event or venue.

So here's another challenge to Tom, and a call to action for nudists and naturists everywhere. Since Tom and Mary Clare state that they are no longer members of TNS, I will purchase them a gift membership. A membership application can be downloaded here. Tom, just print it, fill it out, let me know, and I will mail you a check, no strings attached.

The call to action is for all members of AANR and/or TNS to purchase a gift membership for a friend. It is the holidays after all, and I'll bet that most of us know at least one person at our local clubs and venues who is not a member, or perhaps someone online.

And all you nudist bloggers and web site owners can run with this challenge, too. And if everyone reading this can pass on the challenge on their favorite forum, we can begin to make a difference.

Tom Mulhall has shown that egos can be set aside when a common cause is being threatened. The only way to move forward on nudist and naturist rights is to organize, and in order to organize people have to join and contribute.

So stop paying for photos and videos online, give up Starbucks for a couple of weeks, drop pennies into a jar, whatever it takes, and support YOUR nudist and naturist organizations today.

Up, Up and Away

Frank Rich has a thought-provoking and highly perceptive column today, using the Colorado balloon hoax incident as a metaphor for our own media-hyped economic bubble, and its eventual crash to the ground.

Next to the other hoaxes and fantasies that have been abetted by the news media in recent years, both the “balloon boy” and Chamber of Commerce ruses are benign. The Colorado balloon may have led to the rerouting of flights and the wasteful deployment of law enforcement resources. But at least it didn’t lead the country into fiasco the way George W. Bush’s flyboy spectacle on an aircraft carrier helped beguile most of the Beltway press and too much of the public into believing that the mission had been accomplished in Iraq. The Chamber of Commerce stunt was a blip of a business news hoax next to the constant parade of carnival barkers who flogged empty stocks on cable during the speculative Wall Street orgies of the dot-com and housing booms.

As Rich points out, Richard Henne is more likely to spend time behind bars for his hoax, than the "reckless gamblers at the top of Citigroup and A.I.G." will for theirs.

As a society we always tend to chase the bright shiny object rather than focus on the real problems. We prosecute children for "sexting" and ignore the underlying dangers of unprotected sex among teenagers. We arrest people for being nude in their own homes, yet we regulate and protect the pornography industry. We round up women for baring their breasts in coffee shops and charge them with prostitution, when it is actually men who buy and sell women as products. We arrest parents, charge them with child pornography, and take away their children over innocent vacation photos, while the true child pornographers still exploit and ruin young lives.

The balloon whipping across the Colorado sky was a distraction from the realities on the ground, a hypnotic spinning object which transfixed the country for an afternoon. It was simple to understand, gripping in its one dramatic belief, that there was a little boy inside and he was in almost certain fatal danger.

At the same time we were focused on the hoax, an average of 5 children under the age of 14 died in automobile accidents, and 504 were injured. In Miami, drowning has claimed the lives of 200 children since 2007. 5 children die from abuse each day.

And 45,000 people in America die each year because they have no health insurance.

Instead of solving the hard problems, we go after the easy. The alleged boy in the balloon was someone we could save with helicopters and emergency vehicles. When it turned out to be a hoax, we could show outrage, charge the parents with fraud, saddle them with millions of dollars in expenses for the rescue effort, and take their kids away for their own welfare.

And then we'll all feel better because justice was done.

It's like the Roman Polanski case. Even though he spent 42 days in custody 30 years ago, voluntarily deported himself, made financial restitution, has been forgiven by his victim, and will be forever known as a child rapist, we want to punish him even more, spending perhaps millions of dollars extraditing him, putting him on trial, and throwing him in jail.

One would think that police and government officials would better serve their community by working to rid Los Angeles of the term "Gang Capital of the Nation", a city which has a homicide rate of 9.6 (per 100,000 population), a forcible rape rate of 18.9, robbery 310.2, assault 302.4, and burglary 464.5.

But those problems are hard. Holding up Polanski as a law enforcement trophy will make everyone feel better, and will get lots of media attention as the "shiny balloon du jour."

To relate this to nudism and naturism, it was the NAC which did the hard thing when it came to the San Onofre beach case. When confronted with the California Department of Parks and Recreation's decision to ban nude sunbathing at that location, the NAC first tried negotiation, and when that failed, went to court.

AANR, on the other hand, decided instead to look at the shiny balloon in the sky, claiming "victory" by waving about a letter from the DPR which promised some sort of compromise.

Just like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waved his "Munich Agreement" with Adolf Hitler and declared "peace for our time", when he opted for the shiny balloon instead of a real solution to the difficult problems of the day.

Appeasement, compromise, negotiation are all viable options to consider if one is bargaining from a position of strength. When an entity like the California Department of Parks and Recreation holds all the cards, including the courts, law enforcement officials and the entire state government, there is no negotiating. They do what they want. The only alternative is to fight.

Nudists and naturists are staggeringly weak when it comes to political power. In the case of San Onofre, when complaints about sexual activity began to rise, the DPR officials opted for the shiny balloon tactic by blaming the naturists instead of working to solve the root cause of the problem. When AANR refused to unite with the NAC in fighting at San Onofre, it cut whatever political power existed in half.

As long as nudists and naturists remain divided, hiding inside locked gates and drawn drapes, we will continue to be one of society's shiny balloons, something people will point to as the cause of many difficult problems, from child pornography to displays of public sexuality. The nude guy is always the first to be tased.

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.

Tom Mulhall Takes My Words Out of Context

In a post today, Tom Mulhall claims that I actually agreed with his position on San Onofre based upon a few words he claims I wrote back on July 19 of this year.

The funny thing is, I cannot find those exact words anywhere on my blog (perhaps they are from an email or another forum), but yes, I did say that following the loss in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, I felt the NAC would better serve the naturist cause by returning to a grassroots effort, because I believed the appeal to the Supreme Court was futile, and I was right.

I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED THE INITIAL NAC LAWSUIT AND HAVE SPOKEN LOUDLY AND OFTEN AGAINST AANR'S APPEASEMENT POLICY WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION.

You can go back and review everything I've written about the San Onofre case here.

Pulling a few words out of context is a patently dishonest way to engage in debate. I would hope that Tom would keep this exchange of ideas and positions on a higher level.

Tom Mulhall Blames the NAC for San Onofre Loss

In a disappointing yet predictable move, Tom Mulhall, owner of the Terra Cotta Inn, has decided to bash the NAC for the loss of nude sunbathing at San Onofre.

I guess some people do not understand the meaning of hazards of litigation and decided to sue. They put at risk nude sunbathing at ALL beaches in California. That was so obvious in the lawsuit.

Worse, not only was Cahill at risk in California, but Cahill was a model policy used by nudist groups in other states to work on getting legal nude beaches.

Sorry Tom, but your argument is bogus. The minute the California Department of Parks and Recreation decided to ban nudity at San Onofre Beach, the Cahill Policy was breached. While AANR made the decision to roll over and accept the loss, the NAC stood up for naturist rights and put up a good fight.

Tom, who is on the AANR West Board of Directors, made this statement upon his election: "I am very happy to be elected to this position of trust for nudists. I won't let you down."

Well, Tom, today you let me down, as well as every member of The Naturist Society and board member of the NAC. This political spitball game is unbecoming of people entrusted to uphold nudist and naturist rights. This is schoolyard childishness that only serves to stroke the egos of all the AANR officials who made the decision some time ago to abandon San Onofre.

“Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.” ~ Clarence Darrow

"I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for. And he fought for them once, for the only reason any man ever fights for them; because of just one plain simple rule: 'Love thy neighbor.'... And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any other. Yes, you even die for them." ~ James Stewart as Senator Jefferson Smith in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

California Supreme Court Refuses to Hear San Onofre Case

The Naturist Action Committee is evaluating its remaining options, whatever they are, in the wake of the California Supreme Court's decision not to hear NAC's appeal of the appellate court ruling in the San Onofre lawsuit. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is now free to issue citations for nudity at any location in the state park system.

Even though it was a loss, I congratulate the NAC for doing the right thing and standing up for nudist and naturist interests, unlike AANR which refused to back the NAC lawsuit, opting instead for pursuing a course of appeasement with the DPR, which so far has led to nothing but empty promises. I have no doubt that AANR will now continue to take the cowardly route and blame NAC for pissing off parks authorities, when the truth is that the state of California started this whole ugly mess when they arbitrarily decided to ban nudity at San Onofre.

Yes, perhaps it was a lost cause in the first place, but had AANR stepped up and supported the NAC lawsuit, at least it would have been a unified effort, with a unified course of action forward from this point.

It's not too late, AANR. Stuff your ego in a fanny pack and get together with the NAC so nudists and naturists can work together for a common cause.

Please donate to the NAC here to help them continue fighting for your nude rights.

So You Think You Can Trust the California Department of Parks and Recreation?

State park officials intend to ticket nude sunbathers at San Onofre Beach even though the case is currently under appeal. Spokesperson Roy Stearns disagrees with Huntington Beach attorney Allen Baylis that the original court ruling still stands.

"(The Supreme Court appeal) doesn't stop us from taking action,'' he said. "As far as we're concerned Cahill has been removed.''

The obliteration of the Cahill Policy essentially means that park rangers no longer need to receive a private citizen complaint before citing someone for nudity at the beach.

No word yet from the NAC or AANR.

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.

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.