Update July 2012: I recently received the public documents from the 2004 Environmental Assessment. The comments were overwhelmingly against the Wag Bag Alternative 5. There were some duplicates, some totally off topic, one comment before the comment period, and a petition in support of new toilets with 85 signatures with addresses.
After sorting them, I tallied up 19 "Pro Wag Bag" comments. Inyo came up with 18 "Pro Wag Bag" comments so I'm being generous.
Inyo tallied up the comments in support of a particular Alternative, they did not count the many letter that were openly hostile to wag bags but didn't specify a particular Alternative. Secondly, Inyo grouped the petition with 85 signatures into one comment. Consequently, Inyo came up with 44 comments in favor of toilets (new ones or keeping the existing ones going).
Inyo: 44 for toilets. 18 for wag bags.
I went a step further and included the comments that came in opposing wag bags as a bad idea. Many of those didn't follow protocol and support a particular Alternative. I can't report these as pro-toilet, but many of those comments are very hostile about wag bags, no doubt about that. Secondly, I think people that sign a petition with addresses and phone numbers should be counted, so I include them as well.
My Count: 141 for toilets. 19 for wag bags.
Every environmental group who commented (4) supported wag bags and most of them also wanted lower quotas. One of those groups also recommended keeping the toilets at Outpost Camp. Some of the pro wag bag comments have a last name of an officer in one of those organizations, probably family. Further Googling would probably find more correlation but I'm only speculating. To summarize, the support for wag bags is mostly from environmental groups who also want to lower the quotas.
Lastly, the NPS Sequoia-Kings Canyon wrote a long letter that was politely skeptical of wag bags, "Our anecdotal information on the compliance with pack out your human waste programs in alpine environments is less than optimistic. Mount Rainier NP has attempted this with less than full success. In many areas of NPS in alpine environments, we continue to believe that toilets with occasional helicopter removal is the most protective of wilderness resources such as water sources, soils, vegetation as well as aesthetical wilderness values."
One more time for emphasis, the NPS SEKI wrote Inyo that toilets would best preserve wilderness values.
