Quantcast
View Post
sc94597 said:
KLAMarine said:

Yes and according to http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h986.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census , the population in 1790 was a little under four million. Today it's over 300 million and population density has only climbed despite the growth of the US's surface area which stopped after Hawaii joined our Union in 1959.

With that in mind, you state "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then" and I must ask for raw numbers. 100% of 1790's US population is a little under four million, obviously. 1% of today's population is very close to 1790's 100% and 2% of today's exceeds 1790's total population.


That's a lot of white space.

15.7 million Americans hunted in 2013, in a country that is 4.7 times larger (by area) than in 1790. Furthermore, the number who hunted more than once per year is likely much smaller than the number who would've in 1790, because hunting was for many -- required to survive back then. 

To remain on topic, though, consider that the number of people who would love to live in the woods away from the greater society is very infinitessimal, and so would be their environmental impact. 

Notice that almost the whole west is red. The only reason the U.S government doesn't claim the east is because the people there had already homesteaded it. 

Still seeing more white than red. That's a lot of room for the infinitessimally small number of people who want to escape taxes and the conveniences brought about by paved roads and such.