For that matter, part d could be interpreted to mean that carrying out poop is also required. Or does a properly dug cat hole fall under "places provided for such purposes"?
Let me take a stab at making an argument that 36 CFR §261.11(d) provides authority for a district ranger to authorize receptacles for the deposit of human waste and, also, that one may be prosecuted for failing to dispose of human waste by depositing it into an authorized receptacle or by otherwise failing to remove the waste from the site or area.
In
US v. Wasson an Oregon miner was prosecuted for storing feces in a bucket at his forest campsite. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the miner violated §261.11(d) by failing to dispose of his waste either by removing it from the campsite, or by disposing of it in a receptacle provided for such purposes. The miner had notified the Forest Service via email that he would be disposing of campsite waste in a Porta-Potty, and worksite waste in cat holes; the district ranger responded via letter confirming/authorizing that arrangement. The miner however did not use a Porta-Potty for campsite waste but instead stored the waste in a bucket, which both the district and appellate courts decided was not a receptacle provided by the Forest Service for the purpose of waste disposal.
This particular case illustrates both that the Forest Service has authority under §261.11(d) to authorize receptacles for the disposal of human waste, and also that formal rule making and/or a forest order is not necessarily required to do that; here it was done via informal correspondence and agreement between the miner and the district ranger. The way the courts interpreted the regulation, the Forest Service would not have to "provide" the actual receptacles in the dictionary sense (no question that it could do that if it wanted to); the Forest Service could "provide" a receptacle for the purpose of waste disposal, e.g., Porta-Potty or cat hole, by agreeing to or authorizing the receptacle for that purpose.
I think this would answer both of the questions quoted at the top of this post. In the absence of a receptacle provided for the disposal of human waste, the waste must be "remov[ed] from the site or area."
The regulation thus requires a person to dispose of waste by either (1) removing it from “the site or area,” or (2) depositing it “into receptacles or at places provided for such purposes.”
And, the Forest Service is clearly authorized to "provide" receptacles for the purpose of disposal of waste, such as cat holes, Porta-Potties, etc., whether via agreement or by simply providing (in the standard dictionary sense) the receptacle in question.
It is reasonable to conclude from all this that the Forest Service has authority under §261.11(d) to provide/authorize wag bags as a receptacle for human waste in the Whitney Zone. There would also be (in my opinion) a pretty good argument that the Forest Service has express authority under §261.11(d) to do that and would not need a forest order. Would the Forest Service have to issue a forest order authorizing cat holes in wilderness areas as human waste receptacles, or to install a vault toilet along a trail?
But ultimately this is neither here nor there as it relates to the Whitney Zone, because even if a forest order is required to authorize human waste receptacles, and there is no such forest order designating wag bags -- or cat holes or any other receptacles for that matter -- then the default rule applies: human waste must be “removed from the area.” That is the only remaining lawful option. If you don’t remove your waste, you may be prosecuted under §261.11(d).
However the designation/provision of human waste receptacles must be made, the Forest Service could not legitimately say that wag bags are “required” because under §261.11(d) you are not prohibited from using some other method of removing your waste from the site or area. In other words, you could not be prosecuted for failing to use a wag bag (assuming it was a lawfully provided receptacle), but you could be prosecuted for failing to remove your human waste some other way.
