Comment by 9x39

I don't entirely agree with the writer on the cost of shooting and fishing hobbies being prohibitive per se. There are entry costs, but less than say, video gaming which is more popular among youg people. My personal theory is that the people who are into these hobbies are REALLY into these hobbies, to the point of cost-no-object spending which can encourage some tremendously expensive products and services. What I have no way of testing is whether we're more into fewer, heavily invested hobbies than a wider spread of shallower ones.

Anecdotally, I can shoot trap with an inexpensive shotgun ($300 or so) and fish for salmon with a similar rod and reel. I'm spending far more in ongoing costs in trips on fuel, food, and a thousand little comforts with my buddies than the initial investment. At the same time, I routinely see $5000+ (and sometimes twice that) in fine trap guns at the range, rifles that cost that alone with an equally expensive optic, and see how much money is in the guided hunt/fish business. There are whales that distort the top end of the market, but the low end has objectively never been of higher quality for the same dollars.

At the same time, I was thinking: what if the spenders in these markets just have more money?

Here's a quick report that suggests the 35-65 group where the money is is popular : https://asafishing.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2024_ASA_E...

Rec shooting says something similar, with the 100k+ income bracket the largest: https://fishwildlife.org/mscgp/application/files/2316/8691/8...

Casually, and without a good source of historical data, what if we just have the money to play? To what degree this article becomes merely about inflation than gentrification is debatable, imo.