Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BrockW" data-source="post: 418398" data-attributes="member: 5910">I wish. Some states have utilized LWCF funds to great benefit for public access, wildlife and habitat.  ND, unfortunately, is not one of those states.  Mostly parks, swimming pools, and other things that have nothing to do with habitat or wildlife. For those reasons I think it needs reform.People can see for themselves below.<a href="https://www.parkrec.nd.gov/business/sites/www/files/documents/Grant%20Pictures/LWCF%20List%20of%20Current%20Projects%20for%20the%20Website%20-%20Updated%202019.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.parkrec.nd.gov/business/sites/www/files/documents/Grant Pictures/LWCF List of Current Projects for the Website - Updated 2019.pdf</a>The OHF, has been a little bit more of a mix for ND. It’s funded some really good projects. but it’s been diluted by some pretty crappy ones, and in the early days the ag members made sure some good ones never got funded.  Even at the levels it’s been funded, which hasn’t always been to the full amount either, it can’t keep up with the likes of what the CRP program was.CRP was essentially directly funding well over a 100 million per year of habitat in North Dakota. Don’t get me wrong, It wasn’t a perfect program either.  But the OHF can’t keep up with that in funding or in application, with the way it’s currently being used.  Personally I would like to see the OHF be much more habitat focused, no more city green spaces or “sensory gardens”, just habitat, that’s it.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA