Aug 10, 2010
Speaking of confrontational tactics, I would not be surprised if this is the same organization responsible for the No Trespassing signs posted in the Near Trapps...
They are vanishingly different, if they are different at all.
As I pointed out on rc.com, thus far all of the "MPNA"'s postings carry the hallmarks of Kent. One of those hallmarks, Mr. Wesely, is indeed selectively avoiding or evading direct simple questions (see my post on rc.com). Despite his initial denials, he has now revealed that he is a core member of the group, which apparently numbers 7 people.
Rui, this is the same Kent + neighbors whose attempt to blackmail the climbing community into protesting the Gardiner zoning laws that diminished imaginary inflated real estate values of his and others' land, carried the threat that he would "close the Nears" if we didn't fall in line and do what he asked. He expected climbers to follow his beliefs and desires, but underestimated the individual opinions of climbers - who are also property owners with previous experiences around zoning laws, conservationists who don't want to see a subdivision below the Nears, represent a wide political spectrum in terms of taxation beliefs, and indeed think independently. As a result, 50 feet of the Nears are now indeed marked "no trespassing". For more backstory you can search either Gunks or rc.com under "clos* the Nears" ...
One may indeed ask why Kent (pardon me, the "MPNA") thinks climbers would so readily shoot ourselves in the foot, access-wise, and boycott the very organization that chooses to provide climbing access to us. It's a similarly strange, almost evangelical, tactic and expectation as we saw in the previous iteration; as is the choice to selectively target the climbing community to carry out their wishes.
As admins, we have no set definition of "jerk", but pointing out that the expectation of climbers to act against their own interests might be called lunacy seems fairly straight-up to me, however biased I might be.
I have to say that I have been and continue to be quite taken aback at the lack of dealing in good honest faith, by presenting the "MPNA" as anything but a mask of Kent (the "Caped Crusader" on rc.com) and as any kind of legitimate or broad organization, and at the previous iteration that was essentially blackmail for access to 50' of the Nears. I don't automatically assume that large moneyed organizations are ideal participants, but neither do I assume that their smaller neighbors are innocent Davids up against a terrible Goliath. Kent's and the "MPNA"'s behavior speaks for itself.