Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Torching Whitney Toilets

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!

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.


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.
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

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.

I'm going to repost my last few links and information for those that might otherwise miss it due to this nonsense.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.



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