ISSUES WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM:
People react in a variety of ways to packing their waste, but it's safe to say nobody actually likes to have more weight in their pack, especially this content. There's a temptation to leave a full bag on the trail and retrieve it on the way down. Some people just change their minds once the reality of the situation hits them and they ditch the bag. Others try to dig a cathole or just go on the rock. What makes or breaks this system is the level of compliance. Unless it's 100%, or very close to it, the effects are in plain site and smell.

So is the current system "working"? It depends on how much noncompliance you want to live with. It appears to be low enough to not have water quality issues. The large volume of snowmelt that flushes the system each year helps with that. You don't see big water quality issues in the High Sierra anyway from human waste, even in heavily used backpacking areas with a lot of catholes. If water quality issues start to occur, there will be a big push to reduce quotas, which is what some want all along. Toilets would be back on the table front and center because they provide proven environmental protection - but that requires new structures in the wilderness.

Sanitation is another big issue with carrying a bag of feces in a backpack. The outside of the bag can have "remnants" especially if it's used more that once. Repeated contamination can occur each time the bag is handled, and if you're eating trail mix or a sandwich, well you get the picture.

What do northbound thru-hikers do with their used bag? The next trash dumpster on the trail is about 100 miles away and several days of travel. Even someone doing a shorter hike may have to carry the bag for days. A few days of that can change the tune for camp sing-a-longs. A common solution is to empty the bag where a cathole can be dug and carry the out the empty bag. However, this introduces chemical gel into the wilderness.

The poor Rangers, having to go on endless WAG Bag "Search And Retrieve" missions. This doesn't look good on the job description for recruitment, or maybe they didn't know they were signing up for this. Probably not on their resume when they move on either. Is this how we want to spend scarce wilderness management dollars, or do Rangers have better things to do?

Then there are all those new people going into the "wilderness" for their first time on this popular trail. Who knows how many are being turned off by all of the above?

If you have read this far, THANK YOU for you time and interest in this subject. I hope a civil and respectful discussion on possible options to the wag bag system and how to get involved will now start. As stated at the beginning (if you can remember that far back), all ideas are welcome and participation in the discussion is encouraged.