Which conclusion? All I was saying was that Rob was going on about upholding the area ethics, but it sounded like he was willing to bend or break laws and/or property owner rules to do so. And that it is a semi-regular activity.

Second, not talking to the people at the lot that he suspected the gear belonged to made it seem he was really more interested in scoring free gear than educating them on their ethical shortcomings.

How I arrived at my first, maybe incorrect, conclusion:
- It sounded like Rob planned to park at the overlook to go in and scavenge the gear around 10:30PM.
- I think the overlook parking has a 30 minute time limit.
- I think the preserve is closed at dark.
- I think it could take him more than 30 minutes to strip the route (he mentioned nuts he did get out later took some work - he gave up on one after 20 minutes effort)

To my second point, Rob mentioned that he'd "deserve a good ass whipping" if he saw them and hid in the boulders until they left to get the gear. Right after that he talks about coming back to scavenge and said he saw a group and wondered if it was their gear. Why not ask? He'd prefer to spend the effort in the dark cleaning up for them only to hand it back to them the next day when they ask a ranger about it?

The whole rant just didn't seem to line up to me.

Maybe I'm just missing something everyone else gets, or am misunderstanding something. It wouldn't be a first.