Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls
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 |
Come on man, comparing a mullet and minnow to a whooping crane is ridiculous. Mullet and minnows are baitfish and are extremely important. You know better than that.
Tell me what kind of environmental downfalls we will have if we whooping cranes go extinct.
I'm all for whooping cranes if they can make it, but if not it's not a huge deal. I'm for spending money on habitat that supports multiple species of birds, mammals, and fish. Yall have gone out pretty far on a limb trying to justify the existence of a dang crane. I'm all for private funding of this, but back to the reason the thread was started, it's just ridiculous that this is news worthy with the way the country is going right now.