Wasson argued that the bucket qualified as a "receptacle... or place provided for such purposes". That is parallel to someone using a WAG bag in the Whitney Zone, and then leaving it behind.
I think there's a stronger parallel to someone pooping in a cat hole in the Whitney Zone then leaving it behind; in both instances the waste would neither be removed from the area, nor deposited in a "receptacle provided."
(By the way not sure where you are reading that the bucket was "abandoned"...I think Wasson was occupying the campsite when he was cited, not 100% sure of that though.)
Ironically, the text goes on to say, "For example, a person could comply with Wasson's reading of 36 C.F.R. §261.11(d) by depositing waste such as the human feces at issue in this case in anything from a used coffee cup to an empty soda can to a plastic garbage bag."
Not sure why this would be ironic, as the court was rejecting this reading of the regulation. Had the forest service provided a plastic bag for waste disposal (as it "provided" for disposal of waste in a Porta-Potty or cat holes via agreement with Wasson), then Wasson could have successfully argued that the bag was a provided receptacle. (I think you may be making a joke here that I am missing haha.)
The Wasson case is quite interesting. But it does not address the situation that Inyo N.F., in all backcountry areas of its jurisdiction except the Whitney Zone, does not require the carrying out of human waste. How would the courts look at the situation of unequal enforcement of §261.11(d) by Inyo?
Can you flesh this out a little bit?
