Glad you agree that toilets are indeed technically viable, Dale. I consider that progress, considering where this topic was in 2011. Arguing that single point was what drew me into this heated topic back then.
What I posted in 2011 in response to the concerns of ranger George about InyoNF's ability to implement RMNP's solar toilets:
Rocky Mountain NP has a different knowledge and experience base than the Inyo NF. RMNP supports 73 backcountry campsites with privies. (Two of the four solar seats support Boulderfield camp site, the other two are along trails.) They also have 200 permanent and 272 seasonal employees and 1699 volunteers (102,240 hours). That's a different base of support. That doesn't make solar toilets impossible for Inyo, but it means that it will take a lot of careful creative thought to deal with the hurdles of definition, authorization, funding, acquisition, staffing, construction and operation. The process of dealing concretely with these hurdles seems negative compared to wishful thinking, but it is necessary to deal with them all to accomplish something. The process would also make it easier to identify and evaluate useful alternatives.
There was no 'technical viability' issue in November 2011. That hasn't changed. And the whole statement still stands. Did you think it would be more colorful to misrepresent what my position has been since 2011?
Yes, we all know there are many other challenges to overcome to see a change to the status quo. It's easy to pee in the punchbowl, but if you have a plan to propose, please lay it out for us.
Well, the first sentence seems issue free. The next phrase is colorful, but there is no punchbowl here. And what to propose? I did describe on this site what I thought it would take to motivate and enable Inyo NF to build solar toilets. Did you think it would be more colorful to forget that, too? Not to worry. It was considered too expensive and politically improbable even then. And what plans did you detail here?
Dale B. Dalrymple
