I never said 90% of the species need expensive government programs. I never said 90% of the funds, or even 50% should be dedicated to the 90%. But just because a species doesn't have any direct economic value, doesn't mean it isn't valuable.
Come on dude, you ought to know that better than anyone with all of your fish studies. Is a minnow or a mullet a valuable species? No, but it feeds redfish and specks. Are dragonflies a valuable species? No, but they feed fish fry.
Go find some proof that "most P-R funds and license revenues are diverted toward programs which do not directly benefit those paying the taxes and fees" and then come back and talk to me. I haven't seen one
SHRED of evidence posted here that supports that statement. One of the largest P-R funded projects in the history of the Act was the Wild Turkey Restoration. Pretty sure that benefited hunters.
Check out this report from Washington State on P-R projects in 2005. I don't see a single one that was done solely to benefit nongame.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_r...5pr_grants.pdf