That got me to thinking. I agree that a lack of funds often keeps young people out of the shooting sports and that's a tragedy. Still, clubs must cover costs.chuckjordan wrote:BTW, some clubs fees (initial and yearly) are astronomical. raising membership dues is clearly a way to curtail early adult shooters (18-30) from joining.
I pay USD$600/year for unlimited access to a very good indoor range with sensible rules. I could pay far more at an indoor range with very advanced facilities. I could pay far less for membership in an outdoor club that's downright crude. Personally, I'd be happy to pay for membership at a crude/cheap outdoor club in addition to my current situation; unfortunately, all the clubs that meet that description are either too far from my home to be convenient or have multi-multi-years-long waiting lists to join.
So at what point does the cost of a club membership become divorced from the benefits derived? What's the definition of "astronomical"?
Two postscripts -
1. The poll questions are phrased in a U.S.-centric manner because that's where my experience lies. I'd love to hear about the situations faced by shooters in the rest of the world.
2. The more I think about this topic, the more I think it's important. Cheap and easy facilities can help a sport grow. For example, practical shooting is very popular in the U.S. yet requires next to nothing in facilities. The bang-bang-bang pistol sports can be practiced wherever there's an open gravel pit and a few cheap target holders. Pepper poppers, plate racks and plenty of expensive doo-dads can be added as time and finances allow but they aren't required to get started. On the flip side, for some disciplines there is a perceived need for expensive facilities. This creates an initial barrier to entry, real or imagined, that many clubs and individuals will not be motivated to overcome.