NAC Advisory NEF/Roper Poll 2006

[HarleyNude]

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ****
NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
ADVISORY
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ****
http://www.naturist action.org
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ****
Copyright 2006 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible
for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding
or redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced
in its entirety and without alteration.

DATE : October 16, 2006
SUBJECT: NEF/Roper Poll 2006
TO : All

The Naturist Education Foundation has issued the following release for
wide distribution.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, October 16, 2006

NATURIST EDUCATION FOUNDATION ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF NATIONWIDE ROPER POLL
ON SKINNY-DIPPING AND NUDE SUNBATHING

OSHKOSH, Wisconsin - A new nationwide poll commissioned by the Naturist
Education Foundation (NEF) and conducted by the prestigious polling firm
of Roper Public Affairs, indicates that close to three-quarters of
Americans approve of nude sunbathing on beaches set aside for that
purpose.

In the scientific sampling of 1009 U.S. adults conducted recently by
Roper, 74 percent of those polled said they believed people who enjoy
nude sunbathing should be able to do so without interference from local
officials as long as they do so at a beach that is accepted for that
purpose. The sustained high approval rating for nude beaches is up
slightly from the 72% who responded favorably to an identical poll
question posed by Gallup in 1983, and off a bit from the high of 80% who
approved in a 2000 poll commissioned by NEF and administered by Roper.

The NEF/Roper Poll 2006 was conducted September 8th-10th, 2006, and
surveyed 1,009 adult U.S. residents. The poll has a margin of error of
+/- 3 percentage points. Roper Public Affairs is a subsidiary of GfK
NOP,
LLC, an international research business.

Responses to other questions in the poll suggest that more than 55
million Americans have, at one time or another, skinny-dipped or
sunbathed nude in mixed-gender groups.

A majority of Americans favor the proposal that a portion of public land
should be set aside by governments for nude recreation, as is often done
for other special recreation interests like snowmobiling, surfing and
hunting. Approval for government designation of clothing-optional areas
has risen from 39% in 1983 to 48% in 2000, and has reached 54% in the
2006 survey.

\"Public approval has been building continually for designating
clothing-optional areas,\" noted NEF Chair Bob Morton. \"But governmental
agencies have been slow to respond to the emerging demand. This updated
poll demonstrates that the trend is certainly no fluke. A majority now
expects governments to respond.\"

The Naturist Education Foundation, Inc. is the nonprofit educational and
informational adjunct to The Naturist Society, an organization with
thousands of members who enjoy nude recreation throughout the U.S. and
Canada. By gathering and disseminating information, NEF promotes body
acceptance and an understanding of naturist issues.

For more information on the Naturist Education Foundation and the
NEF/Roper Poll 2006, visit the NEF web site at:
http://www.naturist education. org, email NEF at
pollinfo@naturisted ucation.org, or call (512) 282-6621 during business
hours (Central Time).

---------- END ----------

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton - execdir@naturistact ion.org
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick - naturist@sunclad. com
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -


Ryan


.

[sara]

Interesting poll.  I\'d just posted the same thing before I realised that Ryan had beaten me to it by 12 days !

I fear there may still be a vocal minority that will try to ignore the views of the silent majority.

[Brandon]

74 percent of those polled said they believed people who enjoy nude sunbathing should be able to do so without interference from local officials as long as they do so at a beach that is accepted for that purpose.

Approval for government designation of clothing-optional areas ... has reached 54% in the 2006 survey.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the 20% gap between those two questions.

Does it mean 20% of people think the present number of nude beaches is adequate and no more should be designated?

Does it mean 20% of people think beaches should be converted to nude beaches by "acceptance" rather than designation?

Does the question that only received 54% approval suggest inland, non-beach areas, and perhaps people are less comfortable with encountering nudists when hiking or camping than at a beach?

Could it be that the 20% were concerned about or unfamiliar with the expression "clothing optional" would have responded more favorably to "nude" or "nude sunbathing," as used in the first question?

[sara]

Hi Brandon, 

Personally I would have thought the main reason for the lower 54% figure is the bit in the following paragrah :  \"that a portion of public land be set aside \"

A majority of Americans favor the proposal that a portion of public land
should be set aside by governments for nude recreation, as is often done
for other special recreation interests like snowmobiling, surfing and
hunting. Approval for government designation of clothing-optional areas
has risen from 39% in 1983 to 48% in 2000, and has reached 54% in the
2006 survey.

74% say that they believed people who enjoyed nude sunbathing should be able to do so without interference from local officials.  However, to me, it is a step further to say that a portion of public land shuld be set aside.  I would have thought that could largely explain the 20% difference.

[Brandon]

I\'m in the horns of a dilemma here, because I don\'t favor public lands being set aside for hunting or snowmobiling.

[Wolf]

I\'m in the horns of a dilemma here, because I don\'t favor public lands being set aside for hunting or snowmobiling.

me eather.

And nothing aginst our lifestyler or anything, but this shows the very reason im against it.  They were quick to say that \"well they have it, we should too\" and if the governemnt does agree and set aside land, then every freaking recreation group in the county is going to beg for the same thing.

 The only thing i might keep, is camping, but even that would be a strech.

[Brandon]

I don't think areas need to be set aside for nude recreation -- it should just be permitted everywhere, as it sort of is now.  According to our member from Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, there is no federal requirement that clothing be worn on federal land in the US.  From other things I have read on the internet, that appears to be the case, but many states have laws prohibiting nudity, and those laws apply in national parks, national forests, etc., in those states.

(Disclaimer: This post should not be taken as legal advice.)

[HarleyNude]

I don\'t think areas need to be set aside for nude recreation -- it should just be permitted everywhere, as it sort of is now.  According to our member from Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, there is no federal requirement that clothing be worn on federal land in the US.  From other things I have read on the internet, that appears to be the case, but many states have laws prohibiting nudity, and those laws apply in national parks, national forests, etc., in those states.

(Disclaimer: This post should not be taken as legal advice.)

I noticed this reply earlier... and wanted to address it...it just took me some free time to get back to it.

You are right it should be permitted anywhere.  Unfortunately it is not.  As a result, we need to work hard to establish officially recognized, set aside areas for nude beach recreation.  This is precisely why on other threads I\'ve advocated for protecting the naturist status of beaches along the coasts.  ALL beaches allow suits to be worn.  We need to establish our rights at going without suits.  It is a long uphill battle, as there are many conservative groups that have nothing but time, publicity, and money to try and impose their views over the top of ours.

There is no prohibition against simple nudity on federal lands. However, depending on where you are, the federal authorities may enforce any local or state prohibitions. This is called \"concurrent jurisdiction.\"  Many of the warmer states in the US have laws or local ordinances prohibiting nudity along beaches unless designated otherwise.  You are absolutely correct that nudism is currently legal on federal lands under the auspices of  a federal court decision (Williams vs Hathaway 400F Supp.122 {D.Mass.1975})


With the pending transfer of some state authority onto National Forest lands, I posed a question in one of the forums I\'m a member of. The question was \"How would this transfer affect the perceived ease of being nude in our National Forests. One reply stood out as carefully thought out and full of excellent advice. I post it here in it\'s entirety because it is worthwill sharing.

Where does this lead if the state patrol or a county sheriff could have applied state or county law on federal lands? Some things make sense and we can all agree to . . . like setting unsafe fires in fire-prone areas. What about nudity . . . illegal in the state and county but perfectly legal on federal lands?  This subject is VERY tricky, and I\'ll cover some of what I covered on Naturist Hikers group here.  The subject of local law enforcement on NFS land is very tricky, and varies from section to section and forest to forest. There are several Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements between Local Law Enforcement, USDA, and NFS. The scope of these agreements varies, and you should inform yourself about the situation in your particular area and those areas where you visit.  Here\'s one example:

COOPERATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST ROLLA, MISSOURI Under the Act of August 10, 1971, (Public Law 92-82) (16 U.S.C. 551a)

A. The Missouri State Highway Patrol agrees:
1. To continue to enforce the civil and criminal laws of the State on lands and water within or a part of ANY Unit of the National Forest System within the normal scope of its duty without reimbursement by the Service.

Now, that\'s just a small part of that whole agreement. You can see, however, that the agreement allows for the application of State law on Federal land.  Frequently I hear naturists make the claim, \"There is no law regarding simple nudity on Federal (NFS) land.\" While that may be true on some NFS land, it isn\'t true on all Federal land. Also, just because there isn\'t a Federal law governing an activity, that does NOT mean that the activity is actually legal.  NFS land is governed by Orders, and the administration for each NFS reigion may set rules based on 36 CFR 261.  http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/about/regulations/cfrs.shtml

------end part 1 due to 5000 character limit----

[HarleyNude]

----continuation from part 1 -------
Looking at the Order for the Southern Reigion, for instance, \"Being publically nude.\" is specifically forbidden. http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/alabama/law/  The Order includes this language:
\"Violation of the above is a Class B Misdemeanor punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under 16 USC 551/36 CFR. Copies of Supervisor\'s Orders are on file at the District Ranger Office and Forest Supervisor Office in accordance with 36 CFR 261.51\"  This is based entirely within the NFS rules. Section 261.58: Occupancy and use. \"When provided by an order, the following are prohibited:\" - and Being publically nude is one of the prohibited activities.

What does \'Being publically nude\' mean?

36 CFR 261.2 Definitions

Publicly nude means nude in any place where a person may be observed by another person. Any person is nude if the person has failed to cover the rectal area, pubic area or genitals. A female person is also nude if she has failed to cover both breasts below a point immediately above the top of the areola. Each such covering must be fully opaque. No person under the age of 10 years shall be considered publicly nude.

That\'s fairly clear.  So, an administrator may post an Order prohibiting \'Being publically nude\'. What is entailed in posting an Order?

261.50 Orders.
(a) The Chief, each Regional Forester, each Experiment Station Director, the Administrator of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and each Forest Supervisor may issue orders which close or restrict the use of described areas within the area over which he has jurisdiction. An order may close an area to entry or may restrict the use of an area by applying any or all of the prohibitions authorized in this subpart or any portion thereof.

(5) Be posted in accordance with §261.51 §261.51 Posting. Posting is accomplished by:
(a) Placing a copy of the order imposing each prohibition in the offices of the Forest Supervisor and District Ranger, or equivalent officer who have jurisdiction over the lands affected by the order, and
(b) Displaying each prohibition imposed by an order in such locations and manner as to reasonably bring the prohibition to the attention of the public.

So, to make sure you know what the Orders for your reigion are, you should check with the District Office, and look for signs with Orders posted. In some instances - like in and around some hot springs - nudity is officially sanctioned.  Even if you do not find a specific order against simple nudity, you CAN still be fined for indecency, disorderly conduct, and a variety of other things depending on the disposition of the ranger.  What\'s the penalty for violating an Order?

Sec. 261.1b Penalty.
Any violation of the prohibitions of this part (261) shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months or both pursuant to title 16 U.S.C., section 551, unless otherwise provided.

Having said ALL of that, you can still enjoy Body Freedom on National Forest Service land...BUT:

You have to understand the scope of the rules, and the scope of their enforcement.  It\'s perfectly legal to shoot on NFS land, for instance. There are rules that apply. You can\'t shoot across roads or trails. You can\'t shoot in campgrounds. You can\'t do anything that might be considered \'threatening\' with a firearm. If you play by the rules, however, you can shoot on NFS land.  In our context, the rule prohibits \'public nudity\', and it\'s important to understand what that means. What it means is that if you don\'t get caught, it ain\'t illegal. If you stroll around in a public campgroud in the nude, then you\'re going to get a complaint, and you\'re going to get a ticket. The ticket you get is going to be a \'disorderly conduct\' ticket. If you give the ranger any lip, or if the ranger is having a bad day, you might get arrested. This is arguably better than what you\'d get in any incorporated city, where you WOULD be arrested no questions asked.  Past strolling around naked at a campground, you have to consider the scope of patrol and enforcement. \"The Law\" doesn\'t reach everywhere. For the most part, there aren\'t enough NFS rangers to go around and cover every square foot of NFS land. They mostly drive around in their pickup trucks, check the campgrounds, drive the back roads, respond to complaints, and look for forest fires. They don\'t have the manpower to be everywhere, and most of them don\'t have the time or energy to walk deep in the back country. In my area - in the South - I have NEVER seen a ranger more than maybe half a mile down any trail or away from any road. EXCEPT in an emergency, or those doing trail maintanance.

----end part 2 due to 5000 character limit----

[HarleyNude]

----continuation from part 2 due to 5000 character limit-----

Due to some budget cuts, there are fewer rangers. NPS and NFS rangers are like any other law enforcement. As a law enforcement trainer, I can speak to this in our context. For the most part, rangers are going to stick to \'easy ground\'. They are going to patrol campgrounds and other high use areas. They are sometimes going to \'patrol\' high traffic areas like trails and canoeable streams. Really, though, it\'s quite rare in my experience to meet a ranger more than a little way down any trail - and never off the beaten track.  The lesson there is to simply walk far enough away from \'standard\' patrol zones to be off the radar.  The second thing to consider is the nature of NFS \'enforcement\'. NFS rangers tend to be of two types. The vast majority are easy going, very friendly people. A very small few have bad attitudes for whatever reason. None of them really like to write tickets - and they really don\'t want to arrest anybody because it makes a lot of paperwork. ALL rangers, wheather you like them or not, are providing a service - and they ARE the GOOD GUYS. They don\'t make the rules, they just enforce them.  The rules have been changing in the National Forests recently for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is the expanding phenomenon known as the \'Rainbow Family\'. Here is an example:

http://www.strecorsoc.org/rainbow/oregon06.html

If you look at the report, and then you look at the new FS rules, you\'ll see a correlation...

Rules are in place to make a good experience for everybody. Normally rangers don\'t initiate complaints - and in some instances they cannot. While out west I was caught skinny dipping alone by a female NPS (not NFS) ranger. I got out of the water and covered up. She started writing me a ticket and I said, \"Did someone complain?\", and she said no. I said, \"Then you can\'t write me a ticket.\" - and she couldn\'t. I knew the rules. She was going to write a disorderly conduct ticket on me - a $50 fine - because where I was nudity wasn\'t illegal in and of itself. Without the complaint, she couldn\'t write the ticket. We had a good conversation and she left me alone. Now that the rules specifically censor nudity, a ranger can initiate the complaint. There are some things to remember, however.

Rangers are people too, and if confronted by a ranger, it\'s best to cover up, stay calm, and stay friendly. Most rangers become rangers because they love nature as much as you do. They aren\'t just there to make your life miserable. You could get lucky and wind up confronted with someone who likes to walk naked on their off time. If you start acting like a fruitcake or you start spouting constitutional law or you start on about how it isn\'t illegal to be a human being then you aren\'t going to do well.

Cover up and say, \"Oh! I didn\'t expect to meet anybody out here!\" Smile. Be polite. Be cooperative. Take the warning if you get one. USUALLY you will simply get a, \"I\'m sorry, you can\'t skinny dip/hike naked/be naked here.\" No matter what, apologize and stay friendly. Take the ticket if you get one. Be friendly. Talk to the officer like a human being. The more personable you are, the more likely you\'ll get off with a warning. If you get a good ranger, and you are out in the middle of nowhere having a dip, you aren\'t going to have any trouble at all. You might get a, \"If somebody comes along, you\'ll need to cover up!\", warning and they\'ll leave you be.

If you are obnoxious, you\'ll just make trouble for yourself.

If you have to make any kind of defense on the spot, say things in a very easy non-arumentative way. Pick something and stick with it. DO NOT go into body freedom arguments, or start badmouthing \'stupid rules\'. No matter what, cover up immediately. Don\'t just stand there in all your glory while the person who decides wheather or not you go to jail today is present. Pick something, say it, and, then keep your mouth shut. Say as little as possible.

1. \"I\'m sorry sir/ma\'am. I really thought it was acceptable to skinny dip here. Has the rule been changed recently?\"
2. \"Oh, I\'ve been walking out here for a long time, and I\'ve never seen anybody else. I\'d cover up quick if I did. I\'m not looking to shock anybody.\"

Stuff like that.

Things you should NOT say:

1. \"I know my rights!\"
2. \"Don\'t you have anything better to do like catch crooks?\"
3. \"Hey, baby, wanna date?\"


I hike in DeSoto a lot, and I am usually nude. The new rule makes no difference to me. I\'m out on remote trails or even off trail. I have NEVER seen a ranger or other officer down those trails. If you streak through a campground, you\'re going to have a problem. If you hike nude and cover up when someone is coming, you\'ll do OK.

Ryan

[Brandon]

Thank you for that information!

I found a website that listed that regulation prohibiting public nudity, followed by this link:
Click here to learn more about why regulations may be necessary in wilderness

I clicked it and could find no possible justification for the nudity ban.