But as saltydog pointed out with Forest Service and National Park instructions above, human waste (aka feces) that is NOT collected in a container falls outside of the waste and sewage that must be removed.
Wasson did not collect feces in a requisite receptacle...yet somehow a handful of judges all decided that he violated §261.11(d) because he did not remove the feces. They didn't seem to think that the feces "fell outside of the waste and sewage that must be removed" did they? I'm agreeing with them lol.
When it is deposited directly into a cathole and buried, where it can then decompose naturally, it is not the same thing as the waste you are talking about, or what the Wasson case was about.
Does poop not also decompose when not buried in a cathole? I know you're not saying that you could leave your poop sitting on the main trail without violating §261.11(d), but that's what you're saying if your argument is that feces is not "waste" for purposes of the regulation if it is decomposing.
Paper decomposes too, so go ahead and bury it because it's no longer "garbage." You're not saying that, are you?
Poop decomposes in wag bags ("Our toilet kit is the ONLY solution that traps, encapsulates, deodorizes and breaks down waste with a NASA-developed gelling agent") so poop would no longer be "waste" once you squeeze it out into the bag, right?
If you disagree that poop deposited directly into a cathole and buried is waste that violates §261.11(d), then there is no point in debating any more. We just plain disagree.
Poop deposited directly into a cathole and buried is waste that violates §261.11(d) only in forest areas where the burying of poop is not authorized. Otherwise, the poop must be carried out under the default, national Forest Service policy. There are plenty of areas that have "Forest Service and National Park instructions" authorizing cat holes, but Whitney Zone isn't one of them. You'd agree with that right?
You're all over the place analytically, and your decomposition argument, the "cat holes are authorized in some areas, so they must be authorized in all areas," and the "they're talking about RVs" arguments aren't persuading me, so yeah, I agree there's no point in debating further.