The state of illinois issued lay off notices to hundreds of employees because the sweetened beverage tax was delayed

[Final-Fan]

sc94597 said:

Final-Fan said:

Considering that your claim had been "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then", I think it is pretty disingenuous to claim the number 15.7m is the relevant one.  (That appears to me to be the figure for hunting alone; fishing is more than 44 million as indicated by both the graph and the text of the article.) 

Considering I said proportionally I stand by it. More people out of the total population likely fished in their daily lives in 1790 than 2017, because the 1790 population was almost 99% agrarian and rural. 

If I was talking about absolute numbers, that would be a different matter. 

That doesn't address nor explain the fact that you clearly used the wrong number, but I'll move on. 

In that case, since the only realistic comparion in terms of environmental impact (the context in which these figures were used) compares the number of people to the area of land on which they lived in each time period, and not percentage of total population engaged in that activity then and now, how do you explain your misinterpretation?