Yes, it is always "you people" that seem to disagree with Rick the all knowing.  Please don't drown when it rains next time with your nose up so far.   

The point of your article was that because other agencies and non-profits spend money on wild life (otherwise why reference a study that says just that over and over again), that equates to somehow require "those people" to be represented on the Alaska Board of Game.  It does not.

As a side note, use of general funds those two years constituted 1/10 of 1% of F&G's operations, assuming that all expenses that were noted were all general funds, which we know they were not, but it isn't broken out fully.  An insignificant amount that certainly doesn't equate to 1 of 7 board of game seats if that is again your rational.