ORV - Where is Jimmy Carter - Part news Part rumor

WAVY TV 10 reports that negotiations broke off yesterday without a settlement. The OB Sentinel has a more complete reportN No telling where this will lead. The Sentinel reports that the SELC and its partners agreed then renigged on buffer areas around habitat protection areas.

Negotiations by the attorneys representing all the parties went into the evening on Wednesday, when they reached agreement on parameters for a resolution to present to their respective clients. They had agreed on buffers for nesting birds that would create opportunities for recreational access. Those buffers may have caused closures depending on the movement of the birds, but the opportunity for access would still be available.
However, on Thursday when the two sides met to finalize the details of the agreement, it became clear the Plaintiffs were not willing to agree to the terms proposed by the attorneys. The National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife expanded the size of buffers they were willing to accept to a size that would effectively eliminate opportunities for access and eliminated five of the six areas of concern from consideration.

This does ot bode well given the message Judge Boyle sent last Friday about his willingness to grant the preliminary injunction. Further it is a clear indication about the real objective of the Plaintiffs. They goal is to limit (or eliminate access) as opposed limiting access sufficiently to protect the endangered birds. Read the post from yesterday about the science in this area.
If you want a sense of where the judge might go, read the transcript from the hearing last Friday in the previous post. Monty at OBR has some insight on the process and correctly analyzes the ability of Dare County to affect federal government policy.

For a really well written piece with a very different slant check out KWCoast on how we have changed and how he views the effects of that change. Skip writes beautifully and he makes some points that while I don't like the implication about access, I have a hard time refuting. The case for limits, presented very well.
Ciao

Ciao