I don't know... I've seen several gardens consisting primarily of non-natives (mostly fruit trees) that have quite an abundance of wildlife -- including my own yard. One sort of has to fight off the wildlife to preserve their crop down here.
IFAS has an interesting article on the topic of natives vs exotics. A couple of interesting points that they make are:
0) The belief that natives utilize less input (eg, water, fertilzer) than exotics is not supported by recent research
1) The belief that native trees are more pest resistant is also not correct, since exotic pests are regularly introduced
The only valid / strong argument for using native trees, according to the IFAS article, is that it serves as an educational tool to teach folks about the natural plants of the area.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/eh157Forcing / pushing everyone to plant native for purely pedagogical purposes seems a bit overboard to me.
In California, where it takes the native trees (eg, oaks) hundreds of years to get big, protecting the native trees is much more important.
Actually Jeff, that list of approved trees is more than 50% native trees. Which support much more wildlife than fruit trees do.
Im not trying to be critical of anybody, but before you cut down a beautiful tree just because it doesnt produce fruit for you, I recommend you stop and think.
And if you have the space I always recommend planting something native, especially is a marginal area like along a lake shore or a long a shade strip of yard.