Historic
Beach Documents
Revised December 29, 2022
Cape Canaveral, Florida
MacArthur Beach State
Park, Florida
Haulover Beach, Dade County, Florida
California State Parks
San Onofre State Park, California
Vermont
More than 450
years of
documented family Naturism in America
Timucua
Indians wading
to an island picnic near Jacksonville, Florida in 1564-65
Engraving
after the
now-lost painting of Jacques Lemoyne
History of
Nudity at Cape
Canaveral
We
are archiving two important documents on nude use of Cape
Canaveral National Seashore. This first one comes to us,
courtesy
of Marvin Frandsen. Personal addresses have been removed.
CHARLIE C.
CARLSON
COMMAND
SERGEANT-MAJOR,
USA, Ret.
EDGEWATER
FLORIDA
7 FEB 94
Tom Pitton
New Smyrna
Beach, Fl.
Dear Tom,
In
response to your request for a brief history of nude sun bathing along
the beaches of Volusia county I am providing the following
information. These are items which I have come across as a
researcher of Florida Military History, Florida Folklore and Oddities,
and as a certified Genealogist. Being a seventh
generation Floridian,
with most of my generations living along the east coast, I have
included some items found while researching my own family as it applies
to the subject.
For
fun let's start with some ancient history:
I
suppose the first people
without clothes along what is
now
Canaveral Seashore were
the aboriginals, the
Timucuan and Ais.
These are described in various accounts
of Jacque Le Moyne in 1564, and in 1605 by Alvaro Mexia as being "naked" or
"scantily dressed."
Mentioned in these accounts is that these people lived around the Mound
of Surruque (today's Turtle Mound).
An
account by Father Francisco
Pareja, 1595, refers to "women wearing
only skimpy garments
of moss." Pareja was obviously upset by such customs and
sought
to change things by imposing his values of Christianity on these people.
(Confessionario published in 1613 described native attire.)
It is
ironic
that 399 years later
certain "officials" are still trying to clad "beach natives."
Jonathan Dickinson's Journal described 24 shipwrecked
survivors (1696),
women and men, who lived
among the natives as they made their
way from Jupiter Inlet, thru the Canaveral coast, on their way to St.
Augustine. They had
few remaining clothes and most were naked.
This was often
the case with survivors of shipwrecks along the coast. Most
all
accounts of salvage
operations
of the early Spanish along this coast employed naked divers.
Now
let's move up to later times:
In
researching some old papers and letters while doing family research
I ran
across a letter referring to "the men would go down to red shell to
kill turtles." (Red Shell is the old timers' name for what is
now
called Apollo Beach.) In the same writing I found the
following
mention, "we ran around
jaybird" and "took off
our britches to keep salt from ruining the thread."
I
gather that these men would go on turtle hunts and remove their
clothes; while protection of clothing may have been of concern, the
entry "ran around jaybird" seems to have implied some enjoyment of the
sun and surf by these fellows.
During Prohibition
there was a lot of activity along this stretch of seashore, ranging
from speakeasy beach parties, smuggling of whiskey, much of which went
through Oakhill, and a lot of moonlight
skinny dippers (circa 1920 to
1933). The stories of
what went on were
told for many years by those who knew, but of course "claimed to not
have participated."
Prior to Prohibition in 1917
the state passed FS
800.03, which was to prohibit indecent exposure. This is
considered by many as a forerunner to other Victorian style prohibition
laws which followed and lasted up to about 1933. In reality the FS
800.03 had no
effect on the remote beach users until recently.
In
the old days the Canaveral Seashore was extremely remote; the last point of
civilization was
Bethune Beach, which was a segregated beach
for the black
citizens. Beyond
this was a rough, washboard of a road
that was only fit for a vehicle as far as Turtle Mound. So
most
people would use a beach buggy and drive south on the beach, or use a
boat and come in from the river side. It was always known as
"a
place where nobody would bother you" and therefore attracted anyone
looking for privacy to sunbathe or skinny dip.
However the earliest recollection I have of nude sunbathers
was
not in the Canaveral Seashore area but just north of today's Club
Breakers. In the mid-fifties
there were a lot of secluded
sand dunes just north of the Old Casino; people used to go behind the
dunes to take their suits off for sun.
This went on for
years; of course most of us kids knew what was going on and would
occasionally sneak-a-peek. Today this area is built up with
condominiums and houses.
Most
of the high school kids
from
Seminole High considered the
area south of Turtle
Mound as a
place for skinny dipping in the late fifties. By 1967
the "Flower Children"
or "Hippies"
would frequent the beaches south of Bethune, sometimes camping out for
a week or more. An old Hippy Volkswagen is still stuck down
there
under the sand. This really began the consistent use of the
beach
for nude sunbathers and swimmers. By 1976 there
were quite a number
of folks using the beach; about a quarter of the nudists were a group
of school teachers who hardly missed a weekend.
We had to
drive a washboard road to number five, then would take the winding dirt
road by the river to Target Rock (about a mile and a half south of
five). When the Park Service took over the area they build a
wooden walkover at Target Rock. That walkover has long since
disappeared. It was a remote area and no one bothered the
naturists; even one of the
first Park Rangers would join the group on his days off, running in the
buff with everybody else.
Then
the National Park Service paved the road to number five, put in
facilities and closed the river road to Target Rock. The rest
of
course is the history as you know it. When I think about it
there
was probably more
freedom at
this seashore during the Prohibition Era than there is in 1994.
I
hope this gives you a brief history of the "naturist use" of the
seashore now known as Canaveral National Seashore. I think
what I
have offered is a fairly accurate account from old records and personal
knowledge. I have added some of my credentials for your
information and reference.
Sincerely,
Charlie C.
Carlson, CSM
USA Ret.
Research
Historian of:
Florida
Military History
Florida
Folklore
Oddities
Florida
Genealogy
Member:
Florida
State Genealogy
Society
Florida
State
Historical Society
Royal Order
of Florida
Crackers
Florida
Pioneer
Descendant
(Certified
by FSGS
Certificate 1465)
Awarded
Florida State
Distinguished Service Medal
By Order of
the
Governor Oct 1991
Graduate of
Columbia
College 1979 (major history)
Author of
various
articles on Florida History which have been published in "The Florida
Genealogist," "The Florida Anthropologist," and several newspapers.
The
Infamous Black Notebook
and the
Weldon Amendment
by Paul LeValley
In 1994, Representative Randy Ball introduced a bill
in the Florida legislature that would have prohibited all nudity in the
state, including private resorts. We killed the bill in
committee. It did not escape anyone’s notice that Rep. Ball
happened to be the son-in-law of the minister who was raising a fuss at
Playalinda Beach in the Canaveral National Seashore. After
church, caravans of the faithful would drive past all twelve clothed
beaches, and whip out their binoculars in hope of being offended at the
traditionally clothing-optional section.
During the hearings, Ball pointed to a black
notebook which he said contained evidence of great wrongdoing at
Canaveral. When he threatened to bring the bill back the
following year, Richard Mason of South Florida Free Beaches filed a
Freedom of Information request to see inside the notebook. He was
informed on short notice that the book would be available for viewing
for just a few hours on March 9, 1995--in an office at the other end of
the state in Tallahassee. Since I live in Tallahassee, Richard
telephoned to ask if I could go examine the notebook. My report
follows.
Two years later, on July 15, 1997, Congressman Dave
Weldon bypassed all committee hearings and introduced on the floor of
the U. S. House of Representatives an amendment to a spending
appropriations bill that would prohibit signs at Canaveral National
Seashore informing people where the nude section began and ended.
The reason was that signs work in reducing conflict. Canaveral
had tried them briefly, and the church people found too few conflicts
to agitate about.
Weldon’s amendment read, “None of the
funds made available in this or any other Act for any fiscal year may
be used to designate, or to post any sign designating, any portion of
Canaveral National Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a
clothing-optional area or as an area in which public nudity is
permitted, if such designation would be contrary to county
ordinance.”
In his hand, Weldon waved a black notebook,
declaiming, “I have a beach in my district, Canaveral National
Seashore. It is a beautiful beach, a pristine beach, considered
by many to be one of the most beautiful on the entire east coast of the
United States. Several years ago this beach began to be taken
over by nudists and other people who engage in lewd and lascivious
activity. I have with me today a binder containing more than 250
police reports indicating the nature of this lewd and lascivious
behavior.
“This amendment is not about prohibiting
people from sunbathing in the nude or swimming in the nude. This
amendment is about sexual harassment of a form and nature that pales in
comparison to what we see on job sites in many of our places
today. Indeed if I were to describe some of the content of what
is going on on this beach in my district, we would need a rating system
for C-SPAN.
“I repeat, this is not just about nude
sunbathers. This is about a lot of behavior that I would rather
not even describe here on the floor of the House.” The
passage of Weldon’s amendment on the floor of the U. S. House of
Representatives was assured by the solid majority of members from his
own party. Twenty-five Democrats stood against the amendment, but
they gave reasons that had nothing to do with nudity--mostly that
counties do not determine the rules for federal land.
Republican leaders carried the prohibition forward
into appropriations bills for the next ten years. When Democrats
took control of the House in 2007, the Weldon Amendment quietly
disappeared. (That has not prevented Canaveral officials from
claiming that it is still in effect, preventing them from putting up
informational signage. They have, however, spent federal money to
put up signs about a county anti-nudity ordinance that rangers do not
enforce.)
Richard Mason again filed a Freedom of Information
request to see what was inside Weldon’s notebook. But the
book had mysteriously disappeared. Weldon claimed he had borrowed
it from the National Parks Service and returned it to them. They
claimed to know nothing about any notebook. It has never surfaced
again. Richard Mason writes, “I am 99% sure that the Weldon
book is the same prop that Ball was using.” Indeed, if
Weldon’s count is accurate, no one had even bothered to add the
reports from 1994, ‘95, or ‘96. And so it seems that
I am the only non-government person ever to set eyes on the contents of
the infamous black notebook.
What I found was 267 Incident Reports (plus 15
duplicate reports) spread over four years--a remarkably low number for
the millions of visitors each year. An Incident Report does not
necessarily mean violation of any law. Vague busybody complaints
heard later in the day qualify as incidents. Even politely asking
the ranger for directions to the nude section of the beach was once
written up as an incident. Nor did the reports indicate on which
section of Canaveral’s beach they had taken place--whether in the
one clothing-optional area, or the twelve swimsuit-required areas.
The notebook showed what we already knew: that park
rangers notoriously issue tickets for breaking the wrong law. If
someone refuses to pay the fine and insists on fighting the case in
court, the Prosecuting Attorney then changes the charge to something he
hopes he can win. Most of the reports had nothing to do with nude
recreation. Rangers are supposed to list which law they think is
being broken. The notebook contained these:
FL 800.03--Exposure of Sexual Organs. The Florida Supreme Court
has ruled that this law does not apply to skinny-dipping unless lewd
behavior is also present. Prosecutors know this, but many rangers
do not.
FL 877.03--Disorderly Conduct. Prosecutors like this vague
charge--though the courts have ruled that a person must be awake to be
disorderly. Most of the Disorderly conduct reports involved loud
radios or alcohol--seldom nudity.
FL 798.02--Lewd and Lascivious Behavior. Nudists have long
insisted that this is the appropriate law for sexual acts--nude or
not. In fact, most of the reports made no mention of
nudity. The law is aimed mainly at unmarried couples living
together.
2.04(2)(E)--A catch-all park regulation that includes “creating a
hazardous or physically offensive condition.” (Filing a
false report with a ranger also comes under this provision, but it was
not used for that.)
|
|
|
1990 |
cited |
warned |
uncaught |
|
|
|
|
800.03--34
incidents |
5 |
|
5 |
Nude
recreation |
1 |
|
|
Sleeping
nude on beach |
|
|
1 |
Nude in boat |
8 |
2 |
3 |
Sex acts |
|
1 |
|
Skin-colored
swimsuit |
|
1 |
|
Picking
flowers (clothed) |
|
1 |
6 |
Insufficient
detail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law unlisted--49
incidents & 15
duplicates |
9 |
5 |
2 |
Nude
recreation |
|
1 |
|
Nude
castaway |
1 |
|
|
Sleeping
nude on beach |
|
1 |
|
Mentally
incompetent nude |
2 |
|
2 |
Changing,
showering,
relieving oneself |
2 |
|
1 |
Nude or
topfree photography |
9 |
1 |
9 |
Sex acts |
|
1 |
|
Alcohol (no
nudity) |
|
|
1 |
Cut hand
(no nudity) |
1 |
|
|
Illegal
size fish |
2 |
|
|
Insufficient
detail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
800.03--20
incidents reported |
5 |
4 |
|
Nude
recreation |
|
1 |
|
Relieving
oneself |
|
1 |
|
Topfree
photography |
2 |
|
1 |
Sex acts |
|
1 |
|
Thong
swimsuit |
|
|
4 |
Insufficient
detail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
877.03--18
non-nude incidents, plus: |
2 |
|
|
Relieving
oneself |
|
1 |
|
Pretending
to undress |
|
|
1 |
Wet T-shirt
in single-sex
shower |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
798.02--23
non-nude incidents, plus: |
1 |
|
|
Nude
recreation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.04(2)(E)--8
incidents |
|
|
2 |
Nude
recreation |
3 |
|
|
Theatrical
nudity |
1 |
|
|
Sex acts |
2 |
|
|
Thong
swimsuit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law unlisted--7
incidents |
|
1 |
|
Nude
recreation |
1 |
|
1 |
Sex acts |
|
|
2 |
Sex acts
(fully clothed) |
|
|
2 |
Insufficient
detail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
800.03--33
incidents |
6 |
3 |
1 |
Nude
recreation |
2 |
1 |
|
Partial
nudity in car |
|
|
1 |
Relieving
oneself |
7 |
1 |
2 |
Sex acts |
|
1 |
|
Inquiry for
directions to
nude beach |
|
|
8 |
Insufficient
detail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
877.03--26
incidents, none involving
nudity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
798.02--15
incidents, all sex acts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
800.03--43
incidents |
13 |
3 |
|
Nude
recreation |
1 |
|
|
Partial
nudity in car |
1 |
|
|
Changing or
showering |
9 |
3 |
1 |
Sex acts |
|
|
1 |
Nude gawking |
|
|
1 |
Entering
wrong-sex restroom |
|
1 |
|
Unleashed
dog.
Secondary “mooning” of officer by pulling leg of
swimsuit
up over 1 buttock |
|
1 |
|
Argument
(no nudity) |
|
|
18 |
Insufficient
detail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
877.03--43
non-nude incidents, plus: |
3 |
|
|
Nude
recreation |
|
|
1 |
Sex acts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
798.02--13
non-nude incidents, plus |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Nude
recreation |
Notes
877.03
incidents were
mostly loud radios or alcohol.
798.02
incidents were
mostly sex acts.
Sex
offenders were
mostly flashers, or masturbators in slightly lowered
swimsuits.
No rapes reported.
The very
few cases
involving juveniles all had to do with clothed rowdiness.
MacArthur Beach State
Park, Florida
For more than 25
years, philanthropist and skinny-dipper John D. MacArthur owned the
oceanfront Florida property popularly called "Air Force Beach" because
of nude sunbathing by the many pilots stationed in nearby Palm
Beach. Walt Disney and other visiting celebrities probably
skinny-dipped there too. MacArthur expressed the wish that this
little piece of paradise be preserved in the Florida State Park
System. His son, Rod, carried out that wish.
Almost
immediately, park officials began arresting the traditional
skinny-dippers. Rod MacArthur wrote the following letter to
clarify the intentions of his gift. Unfortunately, the writer
died shortly afterward, and the family's wishes were ignored.
When T. A. Wyner protested this miscarriage of justice, park officials
arrested her. She fought the arrest on first amendment grounds,
and won. But park officials continue to issue warnings and/or
tickets for skinny-dipping at this traditional nude beach. Just
lately, there has been more tolerance.
John D. and Catherine
T.
MacArthur Foundation
May 21, 1982
Governor Bob Graham
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Dear Governor Graham:
Thank you again for your very friendly reception when we visited last
March on the occasion of presenting our John D. MacArthur Beach State
Park plan to you and your cabinet. Thanks, too, for your well
wishes on the opening of my exhibit in Palm Beach Gardens.
In connection with the State Park, Elton Gissendanner and Ney Landrum
of the Department of Natural Resources have asked me to write you in
support of the people who have traditionally practiced
clothing-optional bathing and sunbathing on its beach.
As you may remember, my father owned the entire 345-acre area, part of
which was sold and part donated to become the State Park.
He always resisted the temptation to exploit it commercially and not
only tolerated but positively approved of the nude bathing and
sunbathing which became customary at the beach. (He'd always been
a "skinnydipper" himself.) So the use of this beach by the
clothing-optional people has been institutionalized over a quarter of a
century.
Since this is a very long beach of a mile and a half, it has been
proposed that this usage now be restricted to a very small
proportionate area of some 1500 feet at the most extreme end away from
the entrance area, this isolated section to be clearly marked and its
limits respected.
Unfortunately, misunderstanding and controversy were unnecessarily
produced recently when the state started to prohibit the
clothing-optional people from using any part of the beach because it
was incorrectly claimed that they were trying to retain the entire
beach.
As far as I know, this was never the case, but from the beginning of my
efforts to make the area a state park, I have always assumed that these
people would be permitted to continue in a small isolated section of
the beach. I very much hope you will agree and will deeply
appreciate your help.
Very sincerely
yours,
[signed Rod MacArthur]
J. Roderick MacArthur
rm/jr
cc The Governor's Cabinet
Dr. Elton Gissendanner
Mr. Ney Landrum
Suite 700, 140 South
Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-726-8000
Haulover Beach, Dade County, Florida
Metro Dade County Police Dept.
from Laurie Collins
Police Legal Advisor
April 15, 1992
Florida Statutes Section 800.03 makes it a first degree misdemeanor for
any person to expose or exhibit his or her sexual organs in
any public place. However, the mere act of being nude in
public is not a violation of section 800.03. In order for there
to be a Section 800.03 violation, the Florida Supreme Court
requires the nudity to be a lewd or lascivious exhibition or exposure
of the sexual organs. Hoffman v. Carson,
250 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1971). "Lewd" or "lascivious" means the
exposure or exhibition of sexual organs involves "an unlawful
indulgernce in lust, eager for sexual indulgence." Gooodmakers v. State,
450 So.2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Thus 800.03. Additionally
urinating in public is also not a violation of Section 800.03. Payne v. State,
463 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2s DCA 1984). Although nether the mere act
of public nudity nor urinating in public may be violations of
Section 800.03, these acts could be violative of Section 877.03,
disorderly conduct, if all the elements of that crime are present.
Miriam Royalle, Spokesperson
Metro-Dade Police Department
on Chanel 6 TV, 6 PM broadcast,
Saturday, February 13, 1993
"Basically, if they taake their clothes off on the beach and they lay
out there naked, as long as that's all they're doing and they're not
attracting people in any kind of lewd ways or lascivious way, it's OK
with the law."
The Cahill Policy
California State Parks
1979-2008
On May 31, 1979,
Russell Cahill, Director of the California Department of Parks and
Recreation, issued this policy:
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 use were 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.
On February 22,
1988, in People vs. Eric John Bost, the Placer County Superior
(Apellate) Court put in writing the implementation practice that had
evolved:
Applying these rules to the statute in question we
reach several conclusions. First, we conclude that, though the
1979 Cahill policy eschews an intention on the part of the Department
to designate clothing optional beaches, the subsequent enforcement
practices and policies of the Department have resulted in the
designation of certain areas as "clothing optional," Bear Cove is such
an area. Secondly, we conclude that the department has availed
itself of the discretion granted it by the legislature to make the
clothing optional use of these beaches conditioned upon the absence of
citizen complaint to law enforcement officers. We also conclude
that a reasonable construction of this policy which is consistent with
legislative intent and the policies and practices established at the
trial is that a warning to discontinue nude activities cannot be
construed to be a ban "forever" of the future pursuit of nude
activities at the state park. We find that the policy
contemplates that an individual may return to the same location on a
subsequent day after a complete cessation of nude activities on request
of an enforcement officer.
This construction meets the two elements of due
process notice required by Burg and similar cases. By reading the
long-applied policy as a conditional designation of clothing optional
beaches, the public receives fair notice that clothing optional
activities like "skinny dipping" are permitted only at recognized
locations within the state parks, unless a request for cessation of
such activities is made by an enforcement officer upon public
complaint. Upon such warning, the activity must stop for the
day. By prohibiting the activity for the balance of the day, it
is likely that the skinny dipper and complaining party will not
encounter 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 how the law is to be enforced. So
long as the activity takes place in a traditionally recognized area, it
is legal unless and until a complaint from a member of the public is
received. Upon such complaint, a warning is to be issued and, if
not heeded, a violation has occurred. Further activities of a
person so warned are prohibited for the balance of the day, but
activities on later days are proscribed only if preceded by a new
public complaint and renewed warning.
After nearly 30
years of successful operation, the California Park Service in 2008,
without warning or any public hearing, rescinded the Cahill Policy.
San Onofre State Park, California
State Spent Over
$40,000 to Fight Nudists
By Cindy Carcamo
Our collection of
historic beach documents continues to grow with this recent piece of
fine investigative journalism in California:
Orange County Register
November 25, 2009
SAN ONOFRE--State officials spent more than $42,000
battling a group of nudists who wanted to keep Trail 6 a
clothing-optional beach, California Department of Parks and Recreation
documents show.
Also, a public records request for all reports and
complaints relating to public nudity at Trail 6 revealed only two
written complaints.
Park officials had said a growing number of
complaints were one of the factors for banning nudity at Trail 6.
The documents shed light on more than a year of
legal wrangling between a group of nudists who want to keep a portion
of San Onofre State Beach clothing-optional and park officials who
issued a crackdown on nudity in June 2008.
The fight essentially came to a close when the
California Supreme Court decided against hearing the nudist group's
latest petition.
Allen Baylis, a Huntington Beach attorney who led
the fight against the ban said state officials could have saved the
legal costs and grief, if they had engaged the public rather than
"mandating their point of view."
"They would have saved the state that money if they
had simply decided to go ahead and work with us instead of forcing us
into litigation," said Baylis, a director of the Naturist Action
Committee.
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."
Kramer said providing a safe and comfortable
environment for park employees, an increasing amount of criminal
activity in the area and a growing number of complaints were their
impetus for enforcing a nudity ban at a 1,000-foot stretch of secluded
beach abutting Camp Pendleton.
When asked as to how two complaints about public
nudity jived [jibed] with the claim of a growing number of complaints,
Kramer said that the majority of complaints were verbal.
The agency, however, has not documented nor kept
track of such verbal complaints, Kramer said.
He did not comment about why the agency did not keep
track of verbal complaints.
"It couldn't have been too serious," Baylis said,
questioning Kramer's reasoning. "If they took verbal complaints
seriously, they would have documented them."
Kramer instead pointed to what he said was an
increased level of criminal activity in the surrounding areas of Trail
6.
A document of about 150 criminal incidents for about
the last 10 years includes citations and arrests on suspicion of lewd
conduct, indecent exposure and sexual assault.
While Kramer stopped short of blaming the nudists,
he did say there was a correlation between the two.
"I don't think we can ignore the fact that we have a
substantial criminal activity problem where nude recreation is going
on," he said.
Baylis, who leads Naturists in the O[range]
C[ounty], said the data is not reliable.
He points out that the data includes more than just
the clothing-optional beach but also surrounding areas, such as the
parking lot and areas on top of the bluffs.
In some instances, he said, incidents in the data
are doubled and even quadrupled.
"They inflated their numbers by the way they counted
them," he said.
Baylis said the naturists have helped police the
area, which had been one of the few "clothing optional" beaches for
decades.
Regardless, Kramer said they are forced to enforce
the nudity ban.
"We have to default to protect the interest of folks
who abide by the law," he said. "At some point, I'm sure that
folks will not comply voluntarily, and we'll be forced to take it to
the next level. We'll have to cross that bridge when we get
there."
Three readers wrote in with additional information:
Reader 1:
When reviewing the 150 incident reports, it is clear
that most of these reported incidents occurred in the parking lot, on
Camp Pendelton, in campground sites, close to the restrooms, or as far
away as San Mateo Camp Ground or the intersection of El Camino Real and
Cristianitos Road. If the real intention is to eliminate the lewd
behavior they better close all of San Onofre and San Mateo Campgrounds,
Camp Pendelton and part of San Clemente as well....
The reported lewd activity occurs after hours or
winter months when there are few visitors on the beach, and not when
they are surrounded by naturists. Removing the naturist will
result in less visitors, and consequently more situations for lewd
activity to occur.
Reader 2:
How about the 15 bucks per car parking fee that the
state no longer collects from the nudists? To think the state is
closing state parks because they don't have any money.
Reader 3:
The State park system has wasted your tax
dollars! I have been riding my mountain bike on the trail down
there for about seven years. Once in a while you will see a
guy-to-guy couple showing affection to each other. But it's
south, past the [military] base fence. Not on the state beach
property. I have noticed over the years that if I don't arrive
early all the parking at trail six is full. Also on warm days
trail four and three are full. Half the park? What does
that tell me?
People are willing to spend their hard-earned money
to enjoy the sun and have some peace and quiet. So back
off! For those who are curious, I am not a nudist--just someone
tired of a@#h@les that think they know it all. Look at our state,
a joke that continues to got down the drain! Who do you think
pays for annual passes? HELLO!
Poll:
In a newspaper poll of readers, 95% said the state
should not have spent the money fighting sunbathers, 4% thought the
money was well spent, and 1% couldn’t decide.
In 1971, Senator
Patrick Leahy of Vermont sent this letter to the "Dear Abby" syndicated
newspaper column:
Dear Abby:
I chuckled over your hot tub letters. When I
was a prosecutor in Vermont, a prosecutor in another county had someone
arrested for skinny-dipping in a river. The local judge actually
sentenced the "perpetrator" to jail, which caused an uproar.
Subsequently, I got a call from the state police
about a complaint of skinny-dipping. Apparently the officer
arrived to find an older woman at a farmhouse on a dirt road with no
water in sight. She said: "Go across that field and climb up
through those woods about a mile and a half, and you'll find a stream
where they are bathing naked."
The trooper suggested that maybe he should check
with me; I was the state's attorney. I began by reviewing old
Norman Rockwell paintings showing such activities taking place
allegedly in Vermont. (Along this line, I was unable to either
confirm or refute the persistent rumor that Vermont's No. 1 politician,
Calvin Coolidge, had also engaged in such activity in this state while
subject to Vermont law.)
I also discussed--after grants of
immunity--experiences of this nature enjoyed by some of Vermont's
prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers and sailboat
operators. I even reviewed histories of some of my
contemporaries.
It turned out that most Vermonters I talked to had
engaged in such activity at some time in their lives. Therefore,
to guide any law enforcement officer so lacking in other criminal
matters to investigate, I offered the following guidelines:
(1) In public areas and semi-public areas: Nude
bathing is not acceptable. In such instances the officer
receiving the complaint should order the person to dress. Failure
to stay clothed should result in a summons to court.
(2) On private land out of public view: The state
has no legitimate interest and swimmers should be left alone.
(3) In secluded areas sometimes publicly used: If no
member of the public is offended, no disorderly conduct has taken
place. If members of the public complain, proceed as in No. 1
above.
--Sen. Patrick J. Leahy,
Washington, D.C.
Return
to the SIG home page.