Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Feature Topics
Who's Online
1 registered (JohnnyW), 19 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
3770 Members
10 Forums
5594 Topics
51211 Posts

Max Online: 382 @ 11/07/12 05:45 AM
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#36159 - 04/29/14 05:59 PM Torching Whitney Toilets
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
Over the past years, we have had a number of threads discussing the Wag Bag pack-out system "required" of all Mt Whitney hikers.  These discussions have been carried on here and on the WPS forum (where some lengthy discussions were deleted).  Several forum members have contacted Inyo National Forest management, both current and past, to find out how the present situation came about.  Recently, video presentations from a 2010 conference, Exit Strategies Conference 2010 - Managing Human Waste in the Wild, were made available on the web, and the information from them has been enlightening.

Pulling all the information together, we have collaborated to create a video that includes clips and material from several of the conference presentations, and provides other information gathered over time.  The 18 minute video below is the result.





The above video contains excerpts from several videos contained in the conference web page.  The two presentations are:

1) former Inyo (Whitney) District Ranger Garry Oye:   Mt. Whitney Case Study

and

2) Joe Arnold, engineer at Rocky Mt NP:   Rocky Mountain National Park



Top
#36167 - 04/30/14 05:35 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
Bob West Offline


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Bishop, CA, USA
The comment that Whitney hikers are among the most stupid people on the planet, might also be applied to SEKI and Inyo NF managers.

Why, why, don't local wilderness managers seem to be able to pick up on what has worked successfully in Rocky Mountain? It's like the "left hand" not only doesn't know what the "right hand" is doing, but doesn't want to! So the wheels of government officials continue to grind slowly over each other and us.

Top
#36168 - 04/30/14 08:11 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bob West]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1253
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Thin skinned Garry, if you are listening.

I remember when this guy was assigned to this ranger district they did a feature on him in the Los Angeles Times. There he stated he was very proud of what he accomplished at Shasta, primarily the elimination of the latrines and the institution of a WAG Bag system...and he wanted to do it at Mt. Whitney. He was predisposed to this and he was going to get his way, period. This was about a legacy, not what is right for the area.

People like Garry Oye need to be exposed for the frauds they are. Thanks Steve, Thanks SN for your work in the area.

Garry, if you want to chat, contact me through either of the links below.

Top
#36211 - 05/02/14 05:31 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
Lance Offline


Registered: 03/25/14
Posts: 6
Loc: San Diego
Just finished watching the video and find the facts presented very disturbing. If the information is true and accurate with respect to environmental studies never being completed, public comments being disregarded, and individual action taken by Garry Oye with complete disregard to supervision and process, he should be fired and his boss should be reprimanded for allowing him to continue without regard to policies and procedure put in place to stifle such behavior and prevent this type of action from being taken in the first place. Actually, Garry should be prosecuted for arson, and vandalism, and be required to rebuild the toilets to their previous standard as a replacement for his unauthorized action taken with respect to public structures. To sit so arrogantly on stage and state that the visitors of Whitney are the stupidest people around, they will do what we tell them or no permit, is his ego at work... it was never about what is best for Mt. Whitney, I am a bad-ass and this is what we are doing. It was about what was best for his ego, and whoever has to clean the latrine doesn't have to do that job now. I wonder where all of these bags are being shipped off to? Tightly sealed, with a chemical stabilizer, closed tightly, anaerobically decomposing in plastic, untreated, in the dump just a few miles away. 20,000 individual bags per year? Wonder if that waste is being run over by tractors, and rained on making its way to the Owens River? Seems that the composting toilet was a better answer, dealing with trash being tossed in them possibly a separate issue? Let's just burn them down, no more maintenance here. I just saved $$XX from our budget this year. Very sad. All I can do is my part to keep the area clean and hope others will do the same.

Top
#36242 - 05/05/14 07:57 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Lance]
Marty Offline


Registered: 01/25/10
Posts: 90
Loc: CT
My short-term solution: Provide WagBag disposal dumpsters at the Outpost and Trail Camps. Use stock to empty them as needed. It would be better than having the bags discarded all over the mountain.

Top
#36243 - 05/05/14 08:43 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Marty]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1253
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Originally Posted By: Marty
My short-term solution: Provide WagBag disposal dumpsters at the Outpost and Trail Camps. Use stock to empty them as needed. It would be better than having the bags discarded all over the mountain.


This is a federal wilderness area...it cannot be done easily. There has to be a well established politically powerful group advocating this solution to get anyone in government interested in changing the status quo.

Top
#36370 - 05/08/14 11:25 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Let's face it, WBT, most people do Whitney as a one and done trophy hike. They should care about how the place is managed, but they don't. There are thousands of miles of real wilderness to think about instead. At least this video uncovers the shenanigans behind the scenes for the few who care. Mainly, it sets the record straight about how a wilderness toilet system can be operated without burdening Rangers. Leave it to a good engineer, a small crew of maintenance workers, and a few popular llamas. It's unfortunate that Inyo can't figure this out. But that's what started people looking deeper into this in the first place, the crazy insistence that toilets can't possibly work.

When they start proposing lower and lower trail quotas, maybe people will take notice and remember that video about how toilets can actually work.


Edited by SierraNevada (05/08/14 11:38 PM)

Top
#36373 - 05/09/14 08:30 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: wbtravis]
saltydog Offline


Registered: 02/03/11
Posts: 1565
Loc: Valley Ford CA!!!!
I wonder whether the prospect saving money would have any influence. In the original EA, it was estimated that building new toilets would cost 200,000 to install and about 5,000 per year to operate. The pack it out proposal was estimated to cost 30,000 to implement and 27,000 per year to operate. That's a payback of just over 5 years on a system with at least a 20-year life. It would be nice to know what the actuals are but according to the evidence before Inyo when the decision was made, the present system became more expensive than new toilets about three years ago, and continues to accrue that deficit at the rate of 30,000 per year.
_________________________
Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!

Top
#36376 - 05/09/14 08:54 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: saltydog]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1253
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Saltydog,

As I said this was all about legacy, not doing what works for the public.

Garry Oye is a joke of a man.

Top
#36388 - 05/09/14 11:49 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
WBT, as much as I share your strong feelings about what was done, the insults and condescending attitude verbalized toward Whitney hikers, and seeing a public process get hijacked by one individual "on a mission" (to use his own words), I don't agree with using insulting language. Let's keep it civil, please. The facts speak for themselves without making it personal. Thanks.

Top
#36389 - 05/09/14 12:37 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: saltydog]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
SaltyDog, let's do the math.
20,000 permits at $15 a hiker = $300,000
to operate a trail for a 5-month season.
Wag Bags are roughly 10% of that revenue generated.

By federal law, National Forest and Park user fees are supposed to provide facilities and services for the user paying the fee. The Whitney hiker gets a plastic bag and the pleasure of carrying poop for miles. What a deal!

Maybe the video is right about Whitney hikers, perhaps we are the stupidest people on the planet?



Edited by SierraNevada (05/09/14 01:00 PM)

Top
#36397 - 05/09/14 04:37 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1253
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Now, now, Sierra Nevada, only those making reservations get to pay the fee. Since I never reserve, I do not have the pleasure of paying the fee thus get my WAG bag at taxpayers expense.


Next time up I am going to refuse it, just to see what their response is.

Saltydog,

I did not come to that conclusion lightly. This man came here not to solve a problem but to build a legacy...the man who got people to crap in a bag at two California iconic mountain locations.

The last time I hiked from Guitar Lake to Mt. Whitney and then to the Portal, I saw a dozen of those bags left behind.

What sealed the deal for that opinion was him calling Sierra Nevada at his place of employment to dress him down. There are a few adjectives I could have used to describe him but the one I did use was more than fair.

At least he knew enough to leave the mess to someone else to clean up.

Top
#36677 - 05/21/14 07:17 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: wbtravis
Now, now, Sierra Nevada, only those making reservations get to pay the fee.

In terms of revenue collected, I think they collect more than once when a reservation is cancelled and rebooked. Free walk-in permits are mostly cancellations, so they probably had a paid reservation even for "free" permits. The point is they collect adequate revenue to manage toilets for a five month season. And it makes one wonder where the money has gone since the toilets were torched?

Originally Posted By: wbtravis
What sealed the deal for that opinion was him calling Sierra Nevada at his place of employment to dress him down. There are a few adjectives I could have used to describe him but the one I did use was more than fair.

Maybe my post was not clear, but I don't feel that Mr. Oye called me at my office just "to dress me down." This is about his actions as a public official, not him personally. Sure he was rude and condescending on the phone, but let's face it, I'm a thorn in his side. It's nothing personal, he just doesn't want people digging up old facts and asking questions about his actions.

Top
#36856 - 05/29/14 12:21 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
On WPSMB, Yury wrote:
Originally Posted By: Yury
It seems to me that without support from powerful friends Garry Oye could not have done this.
Do you know by any chance who may be supporting Garry?


My reply:
Quote:
I don't think it is a matter of power and support. The National Forest budgets have been cut over and over again by the federal executive branch, and so they have been working with fewer and fewer staff over the years. The old toilet system was a mess and an annoying nuisance for the rangers to maintain.

Mr. Oye was the Whitney District ranger, and all he needed to do was get the support of the remaining small number of administrators and rangers running Inyo N.F. I am sure he made a great sounding case for the pack-out system. And at the time 10 years ago, the llama-based solar toilet system in RMNP was not a well-known operation. So, with a good-sounding solution and no better alternative, he ramrodded it through.

Too bad he ignored SEKI administrator and public comments, and the NEPA process, too, along the way.

Now that more information has been made available, we can all see that there are better methods of dealing with the situation. The biggest problem to moving ahead are a willingness of Inyo N.F. to adopt something better, and just as important, varied opinions by the hiker community.

If you were to open up a discussion among hikers, there are a wide range of responses. I've seen reports from people claiming they don't mind hiking the entire JMT or hiking an entire week and packing their poop for the entire trip. I have seen alarming responses where people say Inyo should only allow a tiny number of hikers on the Whitney Trail, (while in contrast, RMNP doesn't even have quotas where their toilet system is working). And then most hikers on Whitney today simply accept that they have to carry and use WAG bags, even though there is no enforceable order requiring it. So therefore, we have the situation that is in place today: Hundreds of people daily handling and carrying biohazard waste for hours and days in their packs next to their food and gear.

I am hoping this information will become more widely known, so maybe a change for the better will eventually come about.

Here's hoping Doug doesn't delete the post.

By the way: Past threads and discussion are here: Wilderness Poop


Edited by Steve C (05/29/14 10:08 AM)

Top
#36866 - 05/29/14 09:28 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1253
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
SN,

I understand the permits can be reserved multiple times. I also understand that $15 doesn't cover the cost of writing one, if writing a sales order is any guide. I have stated here that the price of the permit should reflect demand for this trip...that is a losing battle I do not choose to fight.

Dressing down may be the wrong words but I do believe it is improper for any government official to call a citizen at his place of employment to discuss something that is not work related. I'm sure Mr. Oye had other avenues to contact you. Obviously, he did not like your spoiling of his legacy.

Top
#36868 - 05/29/14 09:36 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Lance]
2Old4This Offline


Registered: 05/27/14
Posts: 51
Loc: Northern California
There is no chance he will be disciplined in any way so long as he restricts himself from skewering any sacred cows. Take the case up here of Lassen NP where the park superintendent was repeatedly informed of a dangerous situation on the peak trail and did nothing. A portion of the trail collapsed killing a child. The parents sued the NPS, and recieved a $3.5M ssettlement. During pre-trial a judge found that the superintendent had destroyed material evidence, including the remaining retaining wall and documents regarding its condition. Was the superintendent charged with any crimes or even disciplined? Of course not, she's doing a wonderful job.


Edited by 2Old4This (05/29/14 01:36 PM)

Top
#36870 - 05/29/14 09:48 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
2Old4This Offline


Registered: 05/27/14
Posts: 51
Loc: Northern California
New to these forums. Good to know that the guy who ruined Mt Shasta for the publuc is now working on eliminating people from Mt Whitney as well.

Top
#36871 - 05/29/14 09:59 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: 2Old4This]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
I don't think anyone should be looking for retribution. What's past is history.

The most important part here is to understand that there are better solutions to the human waste problem on the Main Mt Whitney Trail than thousands of people wrapping it up and carrying it in their packs.

I would really like to see more support for a positive solution.

Edit:   2Old4This, Garry Oye has left Inyo National Forest and is employed by the National Park Service. So his impact on Whitney is history.


Edited by Steve C (05/29/14 10:01 AM)

Top
#36886 - 05/29/14 05:42 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
Yury Offline


Registered: 06/11/11
Posts: 57
Loc: T.O.
Originally Posted By: Steve C
Garry Oye has left Inyo National Forest and is employed by the National Park Service. So his impact on Whitney is history.
Not that simple.
He may spoil a lot of other places and may prevent implementation of a better solution for Mt. Whitney.

Top
#36887 - 05/29/14 05:50 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Yury]
Yury Offline


Registered: 06/11/11
Posts: 57
Loc: T.O.
I understand that a WAG bag/Garry Oye thread was deleted on another forum.
Was it because of my question or something else?

Top
#36888 - 05/29/14 06:02 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Yury]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Yury
I understand that a WAG bag/Garry Oye thread was deleted on another forum.
Was it because of my question or something else?

You mean ANOTHER Wag bag thread was deleted on the Portal Store Forum, again. Nothing personal, Yury. Doug and his store are entirely dependent on a Special Use Permit from Inyo to operate. He censors free speech that embarrasses his landlords. These are perfectly civil, informative and popular threads he's deleting.

Is there ONE post from anyone contesting the facts of the matter, as presented in the video?

Top
#36889 - 05/29/14 06:44 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Just like the invisible threads used to sew the Emperors clothes.

Top
#36892 - 05/29/14 08:39 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
Marty Offline


Registered: 01/25/10
Posts: 90
Loc: CT


Quote:
...Garry Oye has left Inyo National Forest and is employed by the National Park Service. So his impact on Whitney is history.


He left Mount Whitney littered with wag bags...that's some legacy!

Top
#36908 - 05/30/14 10:15 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
As a business owner, I can fully appreciate the fine line that Doug, Sr., walks when it comes to message board content. It does not matter whether the personal attacks are fact-based or not: it serves no purpose to carry such vitriol on a board that is meant to be an extension of both the WPS and the recreational opportunities surrounding it. It is Doug's board and he has expressed his feelings about bringing rants, complaints, finger pointing, etc., to a venue that was not designed to host such topics.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#36909 - 05/30/14 10:56 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Bee
As a business owner, I can fully appreciate the fine line that Doug, Sr., walks when it comes to message board content. It does not matter whether the personal attacks are fact-based or not: it serves no purpose to carry such vitriol on a board that is meant to be an extension of both the WPS and the recreational opportunities surrounding it. It is Doug's board and he has expressed his feelings about bringing rants, complaints, finger pointing, etc., to a venue that was not designed to host such topics.

Did you read the thread before it was deleted? Or the deleted threads before that? I saw lots of factual information, nothing inappropriate.

This is about decisions and actions of our government that affect 20,000 people per year including pretty much everyone who reads these forums. It's pretty sad when people become too afraid to discuss what their government is doing and how those decisions are being made. It's neglect of our civic duty if you ask me.

Top
#36910 - 05/30/14 11:21 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Yes and yes to both of your questions.

My question to you: Did you read my post?

"a board that is meant to be an extension of both the WPS and the recreational opportunities surrounding it. It is Doug's board and he has expressed his feelings about bringing rants, complaints, finger pointing, etc., to a venue that was not designed to host such topics."

I am not questioning the validity of the posts, rather, it is their appropriateness on a tourist board.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#36912 - 05/30/14 11:50 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
I read your post and I understand your argument. I guess we just don't agree on the what's appropriate. If the information was inaccurate or unrelated to Whitney, I would agree with you. IMHO, if it's something that affects everyone reading the forum, and the discussion is meaningful and polite, then let the conversation proceed. If someone starts ranting or gets inappropriate, then the moderator should do their job and address the specific post with that person.

That's just me, he can delete whatever he feels like on his forum. I understand if he feels a need to protect his landlords, makes perfect sense for someone afraid of losing their livelihood.


Edited by SierraNevada (05/30/14 12:23 PM)

Top
#36918 - 05/30/14 06:09 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
I guess we just don't agree on the what's appropriate. If the information was inaccurate or unrelated to Whitney, I would agree with you. IMHO, if it's something that affects everyone reading the forum, and the discussion is meaningful and polite, then let the conversation proceed.


To put it simply: Doug does not want this topic on his message board. It is HIS board, and his rules. There does not have to be an explanation for his rules, as it is his "kingdom" and he is the king.

If people want to take their issue to the public, than they will have to seek out another forum.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#36919 - 05/30/14 06:50 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Bee
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
I guess we just don't agree on the what's appropriate. If the information was inaccurate or unrelated to Whitney, I would agree with you. IMHO, if it's something that affects everyone reading the forum, and the discussion is meaningful and polite, then let the conversation proceed.


To put it simply: Doug does not want this topic on his message board. It is HIS board, and his rules. There does not have to be an explanation for his rules, as it is his "kingdom" and he is the king.

If people want to take their issue to the public, than they will have to seek out another forum.

Bee, you left out my quote where I agree - he can delete all the threads he wants for whatever reason he feels like. He's the King of his forum and in complete control of his subjects (bad pun cry ). We agree on that.

Thank goodness for the Whitney Zone where people are able to discuss all things Whitney including the good ole American tradition of questioning our government. We pay the Forest Service to manage Whitney on our behalf, let's not be afraid to talk about how they go about it.

Edited to point out the bad pun, thinking Bee would appreciate it.


Edited by SierraNevada (05/30/14 07:21 PM)

Top
#36921 - 05/30/14 08:16 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
What I find disturbing, Bee, is the situation that occurs when a person hides their identity, specifically that they are an employee of the Gov't, but of an entity that sometimes is in conflict with the target of their attacks.

And that they have a side business that stands to profit from the "public stand" that they are taking, but don't reveal.

Now, I haven't named any names, so I guess this is kosher. But anyone who thinks they can post freely on this website has not felt the lash of management, who feels free to re-write your words or delete your posts....simply on the basis of disagreeing with you.

Top
#36922 - 05/30/14 10:03 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Ken]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Wow, Ken, this could be the deepest conspiracy theory ever.

So if I understand your hypothesis correctly:

1. There's a tycoon out there conspiring to get rich building new toilets on Mt Whitney. Seems like a bad business plan.

2. There's a government employee hiding their identity in order to attack another government entity. Seems complicated.

3. You're angry about being moderated for previous behavior on this forum.

Top
#36923 - 05/30/14 10:32 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Always appreciate a good pun.

_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#36924 - 05/30/14 10:36 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
If English is your second language, your first must be amazing. You're the Grammar Goddess in my book.

Top
#36925 - 05/30/14 10:36 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Ken]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
The web, forums, etc., foster a strange cloak and dagger environment when it comes to opinions, stands et al.

_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#36926 - 05/30/14 11:08 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Ken, I respect your knowledge, wilderness ethics, and openness to innovative ideas. We tend to agreed up to about 95% on most things. Perhaps we can discuss the 5% more effectively.

Top
#36928 - 05/31/14 01:24 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Originally Posted By: Bee
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
I guess we just don't agree on the what's appropriate. If the information was inaccurate or unrelated to Whitney, I would agree with you. IMHO, if it's something that affects everyone reading the forum, and the discussion is meaningful and polite, then let the conversation proceed.


To put it simply: Doug does not want this topic on his message board. It is HIS board, and his rules. There does not have to be an explanation for his rules, as it is his "kingdom" and he is the king.

If people want to take their issue to the public, than they will have to seek out another forum.

Actually Bee, Doug Sr has stated his reasons in a thread still on his board. He objected to two things. The first was the use of personal attacks as a substitute for discussion of policy. Anyone who has viewed the video at the beginning of this thread knows that it did not discuss any civic action to replace the solar toilets or address any action in that direction. This has been typical of the discussions on this issue presented on the Whitney boards. The second objection was to anonymous posting on contentious topics. Neither of those reasons have anything to do the topic itself.

The only thing keeping the solar toilet issue off of the WPS board is the inability of the participants to avoid a couple of disreputable tactics. The substitution of personal characterization for policy advocacy is neither meaningful nor polite, but it seems to appeal to those more interested in entertainment value than an open honest discussion of policy. Doug's open statement on his site of the reasons for censorship is an action that Steve C could take a lesson from.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Top
#36929 - 05/31/14 07:04 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: dbd]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Wag Bag threads have been allowed and then suddenly deleted on that site over and over again. They're usually the most viewed of any topic. There's one common theme, when the truth starts to come out about how the toilets were removed it gets axed. It's that simple.

Rather than call for censorship, why don't you point it out when something is too personal for you. Address that specific post. There's no reason to nuke entire threads full of information.

Top
#36932 - 05/31/14 08:06 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Wag Bag threads ... They're usually the most viewed of any topic.

Car wrecks are the most viewed events along our freeways, but that is not a justification for causing them. When you run a site, you can decide how to deal with topics where people build car wrecks to see how many will look.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Top
#36933 - 05/31/14 08:21 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
Fishmonger Offline


Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 1033
Loc: Madison, WI
Originally Posted By: Bee
Always appreciate a good pun.

I cannot tell jokes, myself, due to the fact that I was not raised in an English speaking environment, so humour did not quite gel.


My first language is German, so I must be totally doomed when it comes to humor laugh

Top
#36934 - 05/31/14 08:35 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: dbd]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: dbd
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Wag Bag threads ... They're usually the most viewed of any topic.

Car wrecks are the most viewed events along our freeways, but that is not a justification for causing them. When you run a site, you can decide how to deal with topics where people build car wrecks to see how many will look.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Seems that you wanted that video to include a solution for building new solar toilets. Sounds good. The presentation by RMNP in that video is a good start.

I wrote to Inyo about a year ago proposing a phased approach with a new toilet at Outpost Camp using stock to remove waste. The reply was a bunch of technical excuses about how toilets didn't work in the past, therefore they can't possibly work in the future. That reply brings it back full circle to the past. It all starts by understanding how we got to where we are. I think it's now clear what happened and hopefully we're finally getting past that.

What's your proposal for getting new solar toilets on Whitney?

Top
#36956 - 05/31/14 09:54 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Yury]
JAGCHiker Offline


Registered: 11/13/11
Posts: 45
Loc: GC
Here is an exerpt from Garry Oye's Bio: (He is now the Chief of Wilderness Stewardship for NPS.)
"In his current position as Chief of Wilderness Stewardship, he oversees management of 44 million acres of Wilderness and 26 million acres of proposed Wilderness. He also has been active in providing International assistance to Protected Area managers around the globe."

Mt.Whitney is just a small part of his domain now.....(Maybe we should buy stock in WAG BAGs)

Top
#36958 - 06/01/14 12:34 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: JAGCHiker]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
If people are wondering, Doug deleted the thread on his board as a direct result of my post that I quoted earlier in this thread. Post#36586

Doug called it "attacking a Federal employee by name". Someone else called it "spewing verbal garbage". I have also seen accusations of "character assassination", "disreputable tactics", and libel.

The one item where I can understand the complaints is identifying the former Whitney District Ranger by name. However, even there, public officials are held to a higher level. Anyone interested can look up defamation and public figures (Let me google that for you). The main issue here, though, is that everything we have written and everything in the video in the first post of this thread is true, as stated by the former Whitney District Ranger himself.

I would like to ask people who have complained, PLEASE give the specifics where anything written by myself or others is false or incorrect.
---

More importantly though, naming names is not the point. The goal here is to let people know the how, what and why, and maybe stir more sentiment toward asking Inyo National Forest to move ahead with a less hazardous and unpleasant method of dealing with the problem.

We now have rangers whose duty is to collect abandoned wag bags, hikers who have to handle and carry waste for hours and days next to their food and supplies, and the unsightly problem of the abandoned wag bags. A much better solution has been demonstrated and is currently working well in an area with higher elevations than the old toilet locations on the Mt Whitney Trail, and with higher daily visitor numbers. Wag bags are a "third world" solution for Mt Whitney, and should be used ONLY when there is no alternative.

Top
#36967 - 06/01/14 09:26 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1253
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
I remember when a public official who shall remain nameless, said he did not want people under his aegis handling human waste because they were not trained to do so...at least that is what he said in a a response to my letter. It appears he does not have a problem with volunteers and seasonal employees he does not supervise handling human waste as a result of actions.

Top
#36972 - 06/01/14 09:49 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
Originally Posted By: Steve C

I would like to ask people who have complained, PLEASE give the specifics where anything written by myself or others is false or incorrect.

The wilderness act directly and specifically makes illegal what you want to do. If the USFS moves forward with what you want, it will be sued silly.

There has been a remarkable change in federal managers. Where in the past, there was a "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach to violating the Wilderness Act when convenient, that is no longer the case, and there are zealous defenders of that Act, both in the gov't and outside.

So, before anything else, one would have to ask the question "is a permanent structure CURRENTLY legally build-able in wilderness". Federal managers have gotten legal opinions, and they are told "no". Cite your legal opinions if you think different.

Top
#36979 - 06/01/14 01:07 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Ken]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Ken is correct that building new toilets is more difficult once the old ones were torched. However, there are clauses in the Wilderness Act to allow minimum structures necessary to provide for public access etc. The debate just has to start over from scratch now, but the outcome could go either way. Another option would be to add language in the next Wilderness Bill to remove this area from Wilderness designation, say up to Trail Crest, as many have proposed.

Ken, please backup your claim, "Federal managers have gotten legal opinions, and they are told "no". What legal opinions are you referring to and do they really apply to toilets on Mt. Whitney?

Top
#36980 - 06/01/14 01:56 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
"The debate just has to start over from scratch now, but the outcome could go either way. Another option would be to add language in the next Wilderness Bill to remove this area from Wilderness designation, say up to Trail Crest, as many have proposed."

Undoing an act of legislation?? It would seem that Sysiphus would have better luck getting his boulder up the hill. Anyone who hikes in areas designated 'National Forest' only dreams of his/her favourite areas being protected by a Wilderness designation. The plunder and pillage of unprotected areas would certianly rank high in the minds of those who would oppose reversing the protected areas back to unprotected.

At the risk of turning the discussion into a polemic, I pose the query:

How strong IS the public outcry to replace the toilets? I ask this because most folks I quiz on the topic simply shrug their shoulders and say "its only a one-time inconvenience, anyway" (most people are not 100+ trips up the trail)
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#36981 - 06/01/14 01:59 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Ken]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
Originally Posted By: Ken
Originally Posted By: Steve C

I would like to ask people who have complained, PLEASE give the specifics where anything written by myself or others is false or incorrect.

The wilderness act directly and specifically makes illegal what you want to do. If the USFS moves forward with what you want, it will be sued silly.

There has been a remarkable change in federal managers. Where in the past, there was a "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach to violating the Wilderness Act when convenient, that is no longer the case, and there are zealous defenders of that Act, both in the gov't and outside.

So, before anything else, one would have to ask the question "is a permanent structure CURRENTLY legally build-able in wilderness". Federal managers have gotten legal opinions, and they are told "no". Cite your legal opinions if you think different.

Interesting that you worry about lawsuits, Ken. I recall your email to me about SierraNevada bringing on a lawsuit over the bypassing of the NEPA regulations.

Unfortunately the unnamed district ranger used the same "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach by bypassing the NEPA process and ignoring the SEKI and public's input. In fact, I have a copy of your own letter written 1/24/04, opposing replacing "the Whitney trail toilets with a pack-it-out system". I'll be happy to post it here.

Your letter brings up the same health and sanitation issues that we are trying to raise now.

Top
#36982 - 06/01/14 02:11 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
Originally Posted By: Bee
How strong IS the public outcry to replace the toilets? I ask this because most folks I quiz on the topic simply shrug their shoulders and say "its only a one-time inconvenience, anyway" (most people are not 100+ trips up the trail)

I would like to see a few of those folks speak up here.

It is my opinion that people accept the disgusting solution because they see no alternative. I would suspect that people who do the "once-and-done" hike will remember for their entire lives the disgusting experience of rolling-their-own and carrying it in their pack.

It does not need to be that way. There are viable solutions.

Top
#36985 - 06/01/14 02:33 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Originally Posted By: Steve C

I would like to see a few of those folks speak up here.


Well, uh, the point is that they were not bothered enough about it to waste their time posting that they were not bothered enough about it.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#36987 - 06/01/14 03:36 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Bee, I wouldn't speculate why people do or don't post their feelings about this topic, but it would be an unscientific survey even if they did. I can tell you my teenage daughter was disgusted by the idea of going in the bag and also by having to step over bags on the trail. She held it and will never do that trail again.

If you go by the public comments on the Environmental Assessment, the public overwhelmingly supported new toilets, but the numbers depend on how you count the public comments. There was a petition that had 85 signatures in support of new toilets, but that only counted as 1 public comment by Inyo. But even by their count, it was something like 3:1 in support of new toilets. If you count those signatures as comments, then it's something like 7:1. Either way, it's a landslide.

As for support of the packout system, it was mostly 3 or 4 hiking groups and their members writing separate letters. I think the total was around 18. Some of those letters expressed a desire to reduce the quotas and they saw toilet removal as a step in that direction.

This stuff is all in the public record, you can get copies of the comments from Inyo if you go through the protocols.

Top
#36990 - 06/01/14 04:50 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Steve C

[to Ken] Your letter brings up the same health and sanitation issues that we are trying to raise now.

Ken, in addition to your medical concerns for spreading Hepatitis B through handling WAG bags, your comment letter on the EA (public record) also expresses frustration with the environmental review process. You called it "bait and switch" referring to the abrupt change in the proposed action just as it went out for public comment. You were correct IMHO, it does seem like "bait and switch".

Edit typo: Ken's letter said Hepatitis "B" not "A" - hey I'm not a doctor.


Edited by SierraNevada (06/01/14 04:57 PM)

Top
#36992 - 06/01/14 05:38 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Harvey Lankford Offline


Registered: 11/10/09
Posts: 1023
Loc: Richmond, Virginia
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada

Edit typo: Ken's letter said Hepatitis "B" not "A" - hey I'm not a doctor.


A is fecal-oral transmission. Like that description? It is accurate.

That reminds me I need to get my repeat A vaccination for travel to a third world country

B is body fluid/blood similar to HIV

Top
#36993 - 06/01/14 08:04 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
Originally Posted By: Steve C
Originally Posted By: Ken
Originally Posted By: Steve C

I would like to ask people who have complained, PLEASE give the specifics where anything written by myself or others is false or incorrect.

The wilderness act directly and specifically makes illegal what you want to do. If the USFS moves forward with what you want, it will be sued silly.

There has been a remarkable change in federal managers. Where in the past, there was a "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach to violating the Wilderness Act when convenient, that is no longer the case, and there are zealous defenders of that Act, both in the gov't and outside.

So, before anything else, one would have to ask the question "is a permanent structure CURRENTLY legally build-able in wilderness". Federal managers have gotten legal opinions, and they are told "no". Cite your legal opinions if you think different.

Interesting that you worry about lawsuits, Ken. I recall your email to me about SierraNevada bringing on a lawsuit over the bypassing of the NEPA regulations.

Unfortunately the unnamed district ranger used the same "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach by bypassing the NEPA process and ignoring the SEKI and public's input. In fact, I have a copy of your own letter written 1/24/04, opposing replacing "the Whitney trail toilets with a pack-it-out system". I'll be happy to post it here.

Your letter brings up the same health and sanitation issues that we are trying to raise now.


Yeah, main difference between us, Steve, is I know when I've lost, and don't make war on those who beat me to try to damage them and their families.

You're repeated crazy concept of what public comment is about just befuddles me. You have this pathologic repetitive thinking that public comment is some sort of vote. It is not, it has never been, and it will never be.

I am not worried about lawsuits, so DO NOT put words in my mouth, mister. However, the USFS is. They have staff attorneys...just like your company. And just as your company does not publish those opinions, neither does the USFS. Don't be a dunce about it. But if you had good relationships with the managers, they would TELL YOU about things. Having lost a couple of multi-million dollar lawsuits for violations of the Wilderness Act in the last decade, the USFS is very leery of the consequences of violations.

I have not seen the water reports for the stream flowing down the east side of Whitney, but I know what they show. Must be ESP.

Top
#36995 - 06/01/14 09:15 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Originally Posted By: Steve C

...
Interesting that you worry about lawsuits, Ken.
...


Law suits are not a worry. They are a certainty. There is no path from where we are now to a future with solar toilets on the Whitney trail that does not include law suits. The only future without law suits is the continuation of the current situation. No federal agency seems willing and able to make change happen.

That means that we must find or create an entity that is clever enough to force the change and has enough resources to prevail. We can't do that without gathering as many different groups as possible to a common table.

Originally Posted By: Steve C

Unfortunately the unnamed district ranger used the same "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach by bypassing the NEPA process and ignoring the SEKI and public's input. In fact, I have a copy of your own letter written 1/24/04, opposing replacing "the Whitney trail toilets with a pack-it-out system". I'll be happy to post it here.

Your letter brings up the same health and sanitation issues that we are trying to raise now.

I think Ken has been consistently in favor of solar toilets as have I. Why do -you- seem to have forgotten that? The reason that I am taking part in this thread (and I suspect Ken's is as well) is that I am concerned with how we can get you guys to stop pissing on that common table. I have not asked Doug Sr lately but I suspect that he would be perfectly happy with a world that had solar toilets on Whitney. I think he's just too smart to get caught letting you and Sierra Nevada piss on the table on his watch. And if you actually want there to be solar toilets on the Whitney trail you should thank him.

It's 2014 and you guys are still pointing fingers into the past. We all get it, we all got years ago. Can we clean up the table and move on? It's time to bring as many folks to the table with us as we can.

Dale B. Dalrymple



Edited by dbd (06/01/14 09:54 PM)
Edit Reason: spelling correction

Top
#37003 - 06/02/14 04:49 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: dbd]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Dale, I think you should check with people before speaking on their behalf. I don't recall any posts supporting your presumption of what Ken and Doug think. It would be great if they got on board with new toilets, but that's not what they've been writing.

I agree that a lawsuit is likely if new toilets were proposed, but there would be no monetary penalty involved, just the cost of litigation. That's the price of change these days and the outcome is rarely as clear cut as some would presume. The history of the issue and the alternatives available, as seen in that video, will be important issues, I would think.

The following is quoted from a US Forest Service Guideline, "Minimum Requirements Decision Guide" regarding exceptions to the Wilderness Act:

Management of Recreation
2323.13
-
Improvements and Nonconforming Facilities and Activities
Provide facilities and improvements only for protection of the wilderness resource. Document and justify conditions for providing facilities and improvements in the forest plan. Install facilities as a last resort only after trying education, other indirect management techniques, or reasonable limitations on use.
2323.13a

Campsites
3. Human Waste Management. As a last resort to protect the wilderness resource pit or vault toilet structures may be used.

Edited to fix layout of pasted quote


Edited by SierraNevada (06/02/14 04:51 AM)

Top
#37007 - 06/02/14 09:35 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: dbd]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
DBD, it is revealing and refreshing that you support something other than the wag bag pack-out system.

As for your crude description of this process, I do not understand how bringing to light completely new and revealing information on how the current situation came about can be described as you have.

Yes, the situation occurred ten years ago. The conference presentations were made four years ago. The video presentations were made public (Link to Exit Strategies conference) recently, and they were just noticed a month or two back. I think your description could use some moderation.

I am sorry if you feel that revealing an historic event is pointing fingers and worse. Seems more like a case of shooting the messenger here.

Now can we PLEASE move forward? If you support something, saying so is a start. Thanks!

Top
#37015 - 06/02/14 12:52 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Originally Posted By: Steve C
DBD, it is revealing and refreshing that you support something other than the wag bag pack-out system.

Steve, if you think that my support is in anyway new or surprising you suffer a tremendous misunderstanding of the solar toilet threads. There are decent people who wish to support the solar toilet issue but can't because of the sleazy way you insist on presenting the issue.
Quote:

As for your crude description of this process, I do not understand how bringing to light completely new and revealing information on how the current situation came about can be described as you have.
...
I think your description could use some moderation.

I selected my description carefully because it expresses the repugnance that decent people have for your -method- of presentation. My description may falls short of the bad feeling you are creating in would be supporters. I hope that that will make you reconsider your methods. Decent people don't abandon their manners and morals because you are excited about an issue even if it does get more web hits.

Quote:
...
Seems more like a case of shooting the messenger here.

Exactly. It isn't about the message. We shooters agree with you on the issue. But the messenger who insists on pissing on the table should always be shot before the message is read. I'd like to think that that is what Lazarus Long would do. (Long is the character credited with: "Beware of strong drink, it can make you shoot at the tax collector and miss")
Quote:

Now can we PLEASE move forward? ...

The only thing holding us back is your history of making messes on the table and the repugnance decent people feel about your behavior (not the information, not the issue). If you want to move ahead, what are you going to do to bring back the supporters you and SierraNevada have so actively acted to alienate?

Dale B. Dalrymple

Top
#37016 - 06/02/14 01:49 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: dbd]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
dbd: Oh good grief! Would you PLEASE write a clear and concise paragraph or two as an example showing how you would present the wag bag/toilet history along with a point to move forward.

Top
#37020 - 06/02/14 04:07 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
What "table" are you talking about, Dale? All I see is a bunch of empty chairs and a pile of ashes. There's nobody at a table.

Moving past all the "shoot the messenger" nonsense, I found 3 cases of Wilderness Boundary Adjustments that illustrate how the trail could be removed from Wilderness without lawsuits. Congress creates wilderness, they can change it as they see fit. The key is to swap equal or greater acreage to ensure no net loss of wilderness. Small areas have been carved out by a short Legislative Act for common sense reasons due to management difficulties, not unlike the Whitney Trail up to Trail Crest. I'm just going to list them with links for now to keep this short. It may be better to start a whole new thread because I can see this generating a lot of discussion for those with time to digest it.

1. Mt Naomi Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act ***** Senate Bill***** ******House Bill***** *****Forest Service Testimony in Support

2. Mt. Nebo Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act (House Bill)

3. Cumberland Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act (Long Bill - See Section 145)

Article about Passage of Cumberland Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act

Top
#37044 - 06/03/14 06:15 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Bee
Undoing an act of legislation?? It would seem that Sysiphus would have better luck getting his boulder up the hill.

That's what I thought too, but I was surprised to learn it's been done before when an area is too difficult to manage as wilderness. If they tried to drop quotas dramatically, this idea might actually be "on the table" but of course very controversial. Recall that Congress recently stepped in on behalf of the commercial packers, so these things do actually happen.


Edited by SierraNevada (06/03/14 06:46 AM)

Top
#37059 - 06/03/14 10:07 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: dbd]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
Dale, you have done a good job of representing my thinking.

Clearly, the other side is not interested in moving forward, but only in kicking someone that doesn't know they are being kicked.

My view is that they are effectively ensuring that nothing different is done, ever, other than perhaps reducing the quotas.

10 years. There must be a statue of limitation on that. But of course, that is nothing compared with repeated satisfaction with kicking someone in the face.

BOP!

Top
#37065 - 06/03/14 12:33 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Originally Posted By: Steve C
dbd: Oh good grief! Would you PLEASE write a clear and concise paragraph or two as an example showing how you would present the wag bag/toilet history along with a point to move forward.

No Steve, I will not engage in a rehash of history, because I believe you will only use that as a platform for mud slinging. The only positive things that can be done here would be for you and SierraNevada to stop your mudslinging and for everyone who cares about getting solar toilets to continue to weed through the false messages until they stop.

Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
What "table" are you talking about, Dale? All I see is a bunch of empty chairs and a pile of ashes. There's nobody at a table.

I 'm talking about the table where stakeholders in the solar toilet issue must be able to come to communicate in mutual respect, despite their disagreements, if we are to ever get the solar toilets built. Whether you see the problem as, "pissed on" or "burned down" makes little difference. You are right, no one is there. No one will be as long as the message is delivered the way it is now.
Quote:

Moving past all the "shoot the messenger" nonsense, ...

I can see why you would like to avoid the "messenger" metaphor. It makes your behavior look bad. There is no problem with the actual message about solar toilets. All the conflict is about the false messages that our false would be messengers insist on adding. Personal attacks, anonymous accusations and persistent misrepresentation are not part of the solar toilet message. They are immoral, un-American and lies. They all act as showstoppers to any attempt to bring stakeholders to that commom table. Please stop them.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Top
#37068 - 06/03/14 01:07 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: dbd]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
Ken, dbd: Is there no end to your rants? I have asked repeatedly for positive, forward-looking ideas, yet all we get is more of the same. Any more will be deleted.


Top
#37082 - 06/03/14 08:03 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
I'm going to repost my last few links and information for those that might otherwise miss it due to this nonsense.

Top
#37083 - 06/03/14 08:07 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
The following is quoted from a US Forest Service Guideline, "Minimum Requirements Decision Guide" regarding exceptions to the Wilderness Act:

Management of Recreation
2323.13
Improvements and Nonconforming Facilities and Activities
Provide facilities and improvements only for protection of the wilderness resource. Document and justify conditions for providing facilities and improvements in the forest plan. Install facilities as a last resort only after trying education, other indirect management techniques, or reasonable limitations on use.

2323.13a
Campsites
Human Waste Management. As a last resort to protect the wilderness resource pit or vault toilet structures may be used.

Top
#37085 - 06/03/14 08:17 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
The following links are to examples of Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Acts where Congress took small chunks of land out of Wilderness due to management difficulties. They added a the same size or larger area somewhere else to the wilderness so there was no net loss of wilderness area. This approach could be used to allow Inyo some flexibility in handling the human waste management problems on Whitney. It would also head off lawsuits from people wanting to lower trail quotas. The Whitney trail could be reclassified as a roadless area and be no different than it is now. If there was no sign, could you tell where the wilderness boundary is now? I think not.

1. Mt Naomi Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act

2. Mt. Nebo Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act (House Bill)

3. Cumberland Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act (Long Bill - See Section 145)

Top
#37086 - 06/03/14 08:20 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
There. It took a lot of work to find this and repost all the links. Can we get the discussion back to facts, ideas, and information or non-repeating opinions. Thank you.

Top
#37088 - 06/03/14 09:55 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Guys, thanks for stopping the mud slinging. Would you please copy the links into a new thread with a title about the contents of the links? They don't seem on topic to "Torching Whitney Toilets" and it will make it easier for people to search and find the positive posts in the future.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Top
#37089 - 06/03/14 10:36 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada

What's your proposal for getting new solar toilets on Whitney?

I also feel sorry for Garry Oye for putting his actions up on public display as an example of leadership. That was the theme of his speech - stepping up and taking things on. But do we really want wilderness managers out there "messing with people" bypassing the environmental process, tone deaf to the public and destroying government property without even telling their boss? Go out there and accomplish your mission by any means. Is that leadership? Sorry, but it's American to stand up to that.

It's also American to get a second chance. And if he wants to "come to the table" and work toward a better solution, that would be great, and Steve would probably be happy to delete that video. WAG Bags are part of the solution, as long as they are truly voluntary and people have another option. It doesn't fit human nature to take away all options, force a WAG bag onto everybody and pretend it's voluntary.


Edited by SierraNevada (06/03/14 11:17 PM)

Top
#37090 - 06/03/14 10:54 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California


1. Who brought the proposal to change the Act?

(was it people who would benefit from it like packers?)

2. What was the procedure -- could it be laid out in a step by step process?

3. How long did the process take?




_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#37091 - 06/03/14 11:03 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Bee, I edited my post while you were writing yours. It looks like I responded to your post, but look at the timing - 3 minutes after your post. We are on the same page.

Please do a little research about this Wilderness Boundary Adjustment thing. It's new to me and I don't have any answers for you. I see it more as a threat to inject some common sense than an actual solution.

Top
#37092 - 06/03/14 11:16 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
I'll delete my first paragraph to help calm things down, but it will destroy the time stamp on my first edit, which was at 10:57.

Top
#37093 - 06/03/14 11:18 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
I see it more as a threat to inject some common sense than an actual solution.



I am not sure what you mean by this statement.

_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#37094 - 06/03/14 11:28 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
Thanks for asking. What I mean is that I see this coming down to a push to lower quotas some day because the human waste management is failing. They will argue that toilets didn't work and there's nothing left to try.

So if it comes to that, there will be push back, just as there was for the commercial packers. People will be reminded of how Congress stepped into that one. I'm speculating that the idea of a Wilderness Boundary Adjustment will be "on the table." That threat may be enough to inject some common sense into the situation.

That's what I meant by that, thanks for asking.

Top
#37095 - 06/03/14 11:51 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
A tipping point. (when the consequences are so steep that the population as a whole rises up for change)

Not to get too far off topic, but I am finding that the population as a whole is becomming far more complacent as time goes by.

Over in Yosemite, they slapped quotas on the cables, and very early on, there was grumbling, but it subsided very quickly. People came to understand that the restrictions were put in for their own good (said partially tongue in cheek)

My faith in the Mass Movement has faded over the recent years, so I am not even sure that slapping quotas on Whitney would cause folks to push for change.

I see the problem as the 'just passin through' situation; folks are willing to put put up with almost anything, once
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#37096 - 06/04/14 12:14 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
The Half Dome quota dropped from what, 400 to 300 per day (sorry but it's too late to look that up). At any rate, it wasn't a big enough drop to get people fired up. If they removed the toilets at Nevada Falls and Little Yosemite Valley and forced WAG Bags onto hikers, I suspect you'd see some serious push back.

Bee, as you hike up the Whitney trail, is there any indication whatsoever where the wilderness boundary is? Bob Rockwell wrote about this eloquently in his comment letter to Inyo pleading for new toilets. He was the first person I know of to poise the idea of a boundary adjustment to allow flexibility to solve the problem.

Edit: But I agree with you, Bee, that people are getting way too complacent. There are tons of examples of National Forest land getting pillaged - that's why we have wilderness laws, but I'm not the least bit worried it would happen on the Whitney Trail. The wilderness portion of the trail is actually worse than the trail below the boundary. The bags on the trail are almost all in the wilderness portion.


Edited by SierraNevada (06/04/14 07:24 AM)

Top
#37105 - 06/04/14 08:55 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1253
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
SN,

At the time of Bob's letter there was plenty discussion of cherry stemming the MMWT at the WPSMB...if that is the readjustment you were talking about.

It's been a long time since those conversations.

Top
#37111 - 06/04/14 09:51 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: dbd]
Steve Chamberlin Offline


Registered: 06/17/11
Posts: 55
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: dbd
Would you please copy the links into a new thread with a title about the contents of the links? They don't seem on topic to "Torching Whitney Toilets" and it will make it easier for people to search and find the positive posts in the future.


Two cents from a new visitor to the forums: I definitely agree an "Installing Solar Toilets at Whitney" thread would promote a more forward-looking and positive discussion. The current thread is as much (or more) about why the old toilets were removed, and assigning blame. While that's helpful and important context, it doesn't do anything to improve the current situation, but turns a lot of people off with its angry words.

As a possible near-term improvement, what about having a deposit of a few dollars on the WAG bags, refunded when you return them at the trailhead? It (mostly) worked to eliminate litter of bottles and cans in many parts of the US. If I could earn $10 or $20 by packing out a few WAG bags I found along the trail on my way back down to Whitney Portal, I'd probably do it.

Top
#37113 - 06/04/14 10:31 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve Chamberlin]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Originally Posted By: Steve Chamberlin
Originally Posted By: dbd
Would you please copy the links into a new thread with a title about the contents of the links? They don't seem on topic to "Torching Whitney Toilets" and it will make it easier for people to search and find the positive posts in the future.


Two cents from a new visitor to the forums: I definitely agree an "Installing Solar Toilets at Whitney" thread would promote a more forward-looking and positive discussion. The current thread is as much (or more) about why the old toilets were removed, and assigning blame. While that's helpful and important context, it doesn't do anything to improve the current situation, but turns a lot of people off with its angry words.
...


I don't suggest that the "history" in the current thread be removed or renamed, just that a new thread be started. SierraNevada is talented enough to cut and paste his info with little effort if he is willing to put a positive face on the solar toilet issue. We'll find out now.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Top
#37114 - 06/04/14 10:52 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Bee]
dbd Offline


Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 212
Loc: San Diego
Originally Posted By: Bee

I Do appreciate the factual information that you unearth, SN, as the discussion really could not go anyhere without a starting point. (documents of past change) I for one poo-poo'd the idea of ammending a Wilderness Act. It is good to be proven wrong with FACT.

There are really two ideas mixed together here. A modification to the definition of the John Muir Wilderness that said: "Remove the entire Lone Pine Creek drainage from the wilderness area." would raise a hurricane of opposition. "Removal of portions of the trail for administrative convenience in protecting environmental values" might only raise a small tornado. There's more to it than that but I'll save that until a thread with a positive title and content appears.

Quote:

PS STEVE WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE THREAD OVER, AS I AM NOT VERSED IN THE PROCESS AND MAY TANK THE LINKS


We don't need to "change the thread over". The early content fits with the Subject line. Leave it for people who want to dwell in the past. We just need to start a new thread with the positive content pasted into it. SierraNevada knows what his intent is for his url's. He should pick an appropriate title.

A new thread will reveal which posters are interested in moving on to try to get solar toilets and which aren't.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Top
#37115 - 06/04/14 11:36 AM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Steve C]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
Originally Posted By: Steve C
Ken, dbd: Is there no end to your rants? I have asked repeatedly for positive, forward-looking ideas, yet all we get is more of the same. Any more will be deleted.



Once again, I agree with dbd. A thread devoted to forward looking, practical, legal options might actually be interesting.

However, if all that is desired is to libel the USFS and former USFS employees, with no forward-looking ideas, that go out of the way to state clearly that anything posted against the libel will be censored or deleted, is nothing I have any particular interest in, except to oppose as a matter of justice.

Lets see, I have proposed a forward-looking idea, and the reason why. I wonder whether that will be censored.

Top
#37123 - 06/04/14 05:07 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: Ken]
2Old4This Offline


Registered: 05/27/14
Posts: 51
Loc: Northern California
Ken, you might want to look up the definition of libel before throwing the term around.

I'm new here, and don't know the board history on this subject. Nor, does it interest me what so and so said about who in April 2010 when they posted on another thread. Second, since I plan to hike up Whitney for the first, and likely last time, in another week this issue has no direct affect on me. However, looking at the info presented on the subject, the irreverent and smug attitude of Gary Oye in dismissing not only the comments and concerns of the people he is supposed to serve but also ignoring the NPS own study in his pursuit of what he seemed to view as a righteous goal is reprehensible. I actually work for a different government department, and unfortunately have seen a couple of employees in our department with similar attitudes towards the public. It is this type of behavior that makes a mockery of all government employees and gives us all a black eye. I applaud members of the public who openly oppose this type of behavior, not in forums only but in the real world. Maybe instead of slinging verbal darts at each other, you should direct your energies towards reversing this ridiculous decision by one misguided individual, flying in the face of reason and scientific evidence.

I should add that there is plenty of, imo misguided, heat being generated on both sides in this thread.


Edited by 2Old4This (06/04/14 05:12 PM)

Top
#37124 - 06/04/14 05:45 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: 2Old4This]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
I'm all in with a new thread based on solutions. I'll repost links, it won't take that long.

For a title, how about,

"Thinking Outside the Bag"

I'll PM Steve to see if I should start this. I'm very over-exposed on this issue.

Top
#37299 - 06/09/14 09:55 PM Re: Torching Whitney Toilets [Re: SierraNevada]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
A new thread has started:

    Whitney Waste Solutions: WAG bags, toilets, or ???

All ideas, crazy or not, are welcome. Here are the guidelines:
1. The thread is for brainstorming.
2. There are no bad ideas.
3. Opinions are fine, but be respectful.
4. Try to build off other ideas.
5. Be clear, concise, and constructive.

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >