Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

[fluffy]

Dawnland, how much beach is there between the lake and the high water mark ? In feet or meters please ? I've asked a couple of times but haven't got a precise answer yet and you speak as if you have been there recently, can you help ? Anyone ?

[Dawnland]

Fluffy;
I have heard conflicting information as to what the high watermark actually is. As the waterline varies throughout the year I have no idea.
When I attend in the summer, the foreshore area that I spoke of in my previous post is only about 10 feet.
If anyone on here is a member of the '3 mile clothing off beach' facebook page, you'll see that there has been developments from a meeting at city hall today.
Please realize that this area is not accessible from the property above. The owner cannot walk from his property up top to the beachfront, there is no pathway or stairs. He must leave the property up top, walk the roadway and then access this slip area (that he never had before) via the same pathways as everyone else.
He or any other potential buyer would be unidentifiable as if they were anyone else visiting the area. Which then bares the question,"why would he have been chased off?"
As a frequent visitor, it has always been a risk that if we do not care for what we are given access to, it could very well be taken away. If a potential buyer came to visit, knowing the people there, we would have thrown him a BBQ and regaled him with plenty of stories to hopefully lure him to purchase the property and provide us with the necessary permission to use this area.

[LANDM]

The article said "extremely wealthy".

Jealously? Maybe for the person trying to sell his land to the extremely wealthy guy. The whole world falling over themselves to please a handful of people. I find it amusing watching everyone scramble and sell themselves out for gold, that's all.

A security guard guarding 3 feet of high water beach mark access? In shiny boots?

The "extremely wealthy man from Alberta walking away with his hands raised"...because of some nude people on a beach he knows he can't own? Oh boy, lol. I can only imagine the "BC hippies/makes a pot smoking motion with his hand" comments.

Ever been to Hawaii? I hung out on Julia Roberts beach infront of her house. No security. "Nobody owns the water, man".

So what if the article said extremely wealthy....you are extremely wealthy to the homeless guy downtown perhaps. Who cares?

Would you prefer a security guard in dirty boots? Trying to tie in a militaristic bent to this, I see.
Perhaps if Julia Roberts had people walking into her property and using her yard as a nude beach she would have the security guard with the shiny boots.
I don't see anyone scrambling to sell themselves out....I see a private property owner who apparently wants to sell his land and wants to get it in a saleable condition.....by ensuring that current trespass conditions are mitigated. Wouldn't you do the same if you were selling your property?

[Drip_Torch]

.

[fluffy]

The group is also trying to protect a restored lakeside wetland and a thriving lakeside riparian ecosystem, as well as securing access so that future generations can continue to enjoy and explore their options in a natural setting. A setting that IMHO should be preserved.

Are these areas you speak of on the private land or the foreshore ?

[Drip_Torch]

All of this is in area designated by the OCP as a riparian development permit area - not that it means anything.

[Anonymous123]

Most people don't "hang out" there when they are sunbathing.They tend to go further in land, which apparently is private property.

Anonymous 123, I wonder if you have ever actually sunbathed there or even gone there?
The only time 'most' venture away from the foreshore is when there is no room left because it is so busy.
One bather who showed up in the afternoon walked to the waters edge and said,"look at all of you, packed in here like corduroy" because we enjoy every bit of beach we can access.

It seems like there are a number of people expressing opinions based on preconceived notions of what the clothing optional beach environment is actually like. Just because you look at a map or know someone who knows someone who went there once, doesn't mean you know about the beach or the people who actually care for and respect the area. And when I say respecting the area I do not mean the property boundaries, I mean the riparian swamp area, the blue-tailed skink, frogs, ducks and natural inhabitants of the land.

I grew up in the area in the sixties and seventies. I have slept on three mile. I know where the high level water mark is and I have seen the "natural habitants (read critters)" in the area. My point in all this, is that someone spouted off that the RCMP told them not to get a sunburn this early in the year, and my thoughts on that were that if you are out in the open right next to the "public beach", the RCMP might not take the public nudity quite so lightly. Without the "private property" there is not much to conceal your clothing optional choices.

[Dawnland]

Anonymous 123;
I was actually there two years ago in the peak summer sun on a weekend.
An RCMP officer came to the beach because there was a 'creeper' watching us through binoculars from his jet ski about 50 feet offshore.
The RCMP officer got the man's attention and told him to move along. It was so validating to have an RCMP officer protect the peace so respectfully.
By the way, no one from the clothing optional area called the police. There were some clothed people on the public beach that were freaked out by his behavior. The people that attend the public beach are perfectly aware that there is clothing optional and if they really wanted to kick up a fuss about it, it would have happened already. People have been using it since 1930. If it was so offensive then, and still allowed to happen in such conservative times; why not let it happen now as a sign of a more progressive town? What a fabulous way to market to young professionals.

[fluffy]

I found this snippet of the Criminal Code of Canada on a naturist site:

Section 174

(1) Everyone who, without lawful excuse, (a) is nude in a public place, or (b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property…is guilty of an offence... (2) For the purpose of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.

Notes:

This offence is not aimed at conduct such as swimming nude at an isolated beach, even where the accused misjudges the loneliness of the beach. (Benolkin et al., 1977)

(3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.

To me that says that if the area can no longer be termed "isolated", as it is now where it is around the corner and out of public view for the most part, that nudity becomes a criminal offense. I imagine this would be the case were someone to build in view of the beach.

[Anonymous123]

I found this snippet of the Criminal Code of Canada on a naturist site:

Section 174

(1) Everyone who, without lawful excuse, (a) is nude in a public place, or (b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property…is guilty of an offence... (2) For the purpose of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.

Notes:

This offence is not aimed at conduct such as swimming nude at an isolated beach, even where the accused misjudges the loneliness of the beach. (Benolkin et al., 1977)

(3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.

To me that says that if the area can no longer be termed "isolated", as it is now where it is around the corner and out of public view for the most part, that nudity becomes a criminal offense. I imagine this would be the case were someone to build in view of the beach.

Thank you Fluffy, this has been my point all along. I am neither for nor against clothing optional at three mile, just saying the times they are a-changing.

[LANDM]

This would be the area of the private property adjacent to the crown land.

As I understand it, the wetland, some refer to as the swamp, is very near to what was once the site of a home that was taken out by a tsunami triggered by a massive landslip on the other side of the lake in the 1950's.

All of this is in area designated by the OCP as a riparian development permit area.

But it is private land, regardless of it being a riparian development area. The first 15 meters from the natural boundary of the lake (yet another term, but it is different from the high water mark) is generally riparian development area. As is the area around creeks, streams, rivers etc.
I saw the picture and it was difficult to tell if they were on public foreshore or private land. If it was the private land, they should remove themselves. People are talking about the use since the 1930's as if that is legally meaningful.
If it is that historically significant to the users, and the land is being offered for sale, then the users should open their collective piggy banks and buy it. It is a really simple and fair solution and nothing should be holding them back.

Oh.....the price is holding them back???? Hmmmmm.....so that really means that they *do* expect the private landowner to subsidize their leisure activities.

[wanderingchef]

I say we lobby the PIB to turn "Airport" beach into one MASSIVE nude beach.

Honestly though. I get the land owners deal about private land and access and all that other BS. It is a shame people act the way they do sometimes but it is very common to see disputes like this when land swaps hands or in in the process of changing hands. What really boggles my brain is all the chatter over nudity. I don't get why it is such a hot topic. Doesn't every decent lake/town have a nude beach? A good chunk of the world is quite comfortable bathing in the nude. Why are we so uptight? People are actually citing the legal code here..... It is just skin.

At the end of the day, I hope we manage to work out a way to make everyone happy.

[Drip_Torch]

.

[Dawnland]

Really people?!? Puh-leeease. Your harsh judgment of nude people to a beach that you've obviously never been to is palpable.
There is public knowledge of this being a clothing optional area. If the RCMP or city had an issue with it sometime between 1930 and today, it would have been addressed and charges laid.
Your slacktivism leaves something to be desired. Throwing attitudes around like systems live and breathe for their policies, leaving no room for actual people and adults to behave and act appropriately. Wreck Beach is clothing optional, if the LAW has an issue with it, that beach would be closed too.
This owner has never had an issue with bathers on his property, until now. No other property owner has had issues either which has nurtured this environment.
This beach should be public, not private, that is why this group is seeking intervention. It should never be put at risk again and the city has the potential to issue vendor licenses for the area. Promote the hell out of the area because it's a key indicator of a progressive community.
PIB would not be interested in having the nude beach at the airport because it is being developed as part of a lease agreement with the barefoot beach resort and Skaha Hills.

[Dawnland]

LANDM

Oh.....the price is holding them back???? Hmmmmm.....so that really means that they *do* expect the private landowner to subsidize their leisure activities

If the land owner sold only the one area "terraces" that the bathers use, then it would be affordable and we might be able to purchase the property. The owner will not subdivide his property to allow for that because the main selling feature is the 850 feet of waterfront. The naturalists and bathers are not interested in getting into the vineyard market.