Gentrified?

I hate housecleaning. I mean, I really hate it. So I just don't do it. But that leads to very dirty floors. So recently, when my floor got too dirty (after 6 years), I tore it up and replaced it. But I did do the work myself, so there's that. I think the per day cost was pretty low.

Does that make me gentrified. Or you petrified? Or both? And does it matter?

I won't even bother talking about my new bike…… (the old one had a dirty chain. I hate cleaning bike chains…..)

people like to order new things. unbox them. look at all the new features, flashing lights and twirly things. Releases endorphins like taking drugs.

that's all right if you can afford it. I think most of us do it to some extent.

but it produces sort of an empty feeling. better to buy some quality thing and use it a lot.

None of this is that important though

Deflate-gate though, that's a real important issue we should be concerned about : )

Overall it's pretty cheap compared to a lot of people's interests – even if you are buying a lot of high end stuff. Have a look in America's garages across suburbia and there's Jetskis and parked boats and all sorts of other stuff that hardly gets used.

We're also an economy that needs to consume to thrive. Sad – but true – hopefully that's changing slowly. If it happens too fast too many people will lose their jobs.

I do appear to have an inordinate amount of gear, but a lot of that comes from buying it over 20 years. Admittedly I need to get better at moving things along to Goodwill.

i've been here nearly a decade. some have large incomes, some have small. some are early adopters, some never adopt. no one here has ever told me my gear was substandard or looked down on me. they have offered lighter or simpler or even DIY alternatives to lessen my backbourne burden.

honestly, this is the most helpful place for backpacking i have ever seen. real world knowledge is priceless and it's free!

Although I've only been on BPL a few years, I agree with Steven. MOST people on the site, regardless of their incomes, are happy to provide less expensive alternatives if the person seeking advice cites budgetary issues. And it's done quite gracefully.

The nature of a "gear-oriented" forum, however, leans to the newest and shiniest gear (usually expensive).

Sometimes, it's also a matter of being "penny wise but pound foolish" — buying a series of cheap sleeping bags that wear out after a season or two may cost more, in the long run, than buying an expensive, "lifetime" bag (especially if you can get it gently used on GearSwap!).

Given that a lot of us put a ton of thought into an expensive purchase, then use the equipment a HUGE amount, love it, inspect every stitch and repair it ourselves beyond all reason, I'm not sure how the OP defines this straw man. Who has a more "gentrified", "elitist" or "consumerist" attitude about things – people who spend a lot after careful (sometime agonizing) thought, then use the item for years making repairs and sometimes improvements by hand? Or is it the person who habitually buys cheap crap that falls apart, then buying a replacement instead of repairing it, then another. I personally feel like THAT attitude contains as much of a nugget of crass consumerism as buying something expensive. For what it is worth in an era where cheap, disposable, mass-produced shit fills every nook and cranny of our lives I feel spending a lot of money on a well thought out item, especially if it is from a cottage industry, can itself sometimes be a rejection of crass consumerism – that money is not the only metric of value. So it seems like people should be very careful when making such distinctions.

My personal vice is that I like using vintage fly reels. They are older than I am, usually, tend to be expensive for what they are, and entirely unnecessary. On the other hand when I use them I get a thrill knowing that they were here before I was born, than many people have used them, possibly in multiple countries and caught fish in those places, and that these items were lovingly used and cared for by many before me, and possibly many after me. Does the fact that I spent money on an item in this case whose basic functionality could be reproduced by a cheap, ugly, disposable item mean I am being a crass consumer? I think not – a fool possibly, but there is something very anti-consumerist about it. A tangential point, probably.

Yes, I like to know about both the newest, shiniest thing and the old cheap standbys. And it's all here.

How do I justify expenditures? (other than, ahem, considering what I can actually, responsibly afford) I figure I'd rather spend a night out backpacking than in a hotel. For a round number let's say a hotel is $100/night. So, in the same vein as the amortization logic, If i use $500 worth of new gear for a minimum five nights, that seems like money well spent, and after that it's all gravy.

Admins…please move to Chaff.

I am not really sure sometimes. I think it boils down to priorities. In many of the small towns I have been to, the locals have been able to somehow acquire a decent truck, quad, brand new rifles, a fishing boat and so on despite being unemployed for a decade or more. All of that got to be at least $50 000 – $80 000 or more used. But again, I have seen their houses, and they are absolute wrecks.

Many of the rock-climbers and backpackers I know suffer from chronic unemployment as well, and their gears are far from cheap. But again, they're basically eating ramen noodles, peanut butter and whey powder– not exactly the healthiest diet out there. Many of those types have been living that since the 1980s. It's called dirt-bagging.

If one wants the American dream with a strong middle class with good hours, decent salaries, affordable education, supporting a wife and two children and the whole nine-yard, then yes, I agree, some of those hobbies are now luxuries because those days are over.

But if we are assuming customer-base? I am not sure. There's an awful lot of people out there making subpar wages with high-quality gears. They don't own a lot of stuff and oftentimes their places look spartan.. In fact, visiting their apartments and houses kind of remind me of how houses are in Finland: empty, few things but focus on quality. They don't make a whole lot of money over there either.

At Backpackers (the forum) someone commented that I must be filthy rich because of some gear item I have (can't remember what…)
So I replied that I was fully employed, have no children, don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't chase women and that is how I had some spare cash.
Never heard from that guy again.

REI won't refund my worn old pants, backpackers having nice-ish backpacking gear…

What's next to complain about, Brett?

I have a $540 tent that I bought unused on craigslist for $100. BPL post reviews on the best gear and costco gear alike.

I know several climbers who buy their patagonia gear from the thrift store for $5 a garmet. BPL has a wide range of people with a common goal. If you're determined, a $300 jacket is the least of your problems. I'd say unlike the typical social scene, BPL has great respect/support for small cottage industries if they can offer a better product/price. No one here really cares about brand, they care about results.

Agreed. I think BPL works just fine. I’m happy there’s some focus on new content lately, and given the huge archive of articles and threads BPL has, it makes sense that new articles will need to focus on new gear, new trends, etc.

And more specific to gentrification: Didn’t BPL start “gentrified”? At least in the U.S., car camping, and likely to a further extent wilderness camping, has been an educated middle-to-upper class Caucasian hobby for a while now. Here’s a graphic from Outdoor Foundations 2012 Camping report:

http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/research.camping.2012.pdf

Sure, at their simplest, backpacking, car camping, or just hiking don’t need to be very expensive. But if the people who participate in the hobby are people who can afford to outfit themselves however they’d like, the marketplace, and associated media, reflects that demographic.

Low participation by non-white folks isn’t just economics, though, it’s also cultural. We never got my grandma to go camping because she said she’d spent enough time living on a dirt floor in Mexico, and she didn’t really care much about where you could still see the Oregon Trail wagon ruts, where they drove the last railroad spike, why damming the Hetch Hetchy was sad, etc.
http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/CompSurvey2008_2009RaceEthnicity.pdf

To the OP – I like BPL and I don't perceive any new shift towards more expensive gear related to the website whatsoever.

A lot of what gets posted here is from people like you and me, and that reflects the BPL community at large. There's not some hidden directive from BPL to make us like and want more expensive stuff, that's just called life.

Hand made gear has always been expensive, at least when people don't work for free, and use top quality materials. I like to support small companies. I don't see any value in paying corporations for chinese-made gear at big companies like EMS or REI, no matter how well the seams are sewn. I happen to like REI as a company, no judgement here, but at the same time, I would rather spend more to support small business. That's how the cookie crumbles.

But, more importantly, I am particularly worried that you are being overly judgemental and condescending to those who don't share your perspective.

There are two sides to every coin, and there is no more or less value in buying dri-ducks over a more expensive product. These decisions are personal, and you're not going to win any points by rubbing your nose in the dirt and wiping it on everyone else who likes the gear you're talking down to.

Some of us may be wealthy, some of us are not. Even the poorest of people can save up and treat themselves to something expensive and hand made because they WANT TO, and because if you backpack a lot, you may save money in other areas in order to spend more on gear. That's called budgeting.

You open your argument with this:

"I will never pay what zpacks and other manufacturers want not because his stuff might not be good but because it seems way out of whack with what the average person can afford."

You do realize that Joe at zpacks didn't just sit down and say "I want to make $500 plus dollar tents, right?" He saw a need for a lightweight, niche-product and the price is what it is because of economics, not because he wants to make an disgustingly high profit margin. I normally don't speak for people, but I feel pretty confident in saying that.

What good do you bring to the community with a statement like yours about zpacks? Joe is a really great contributor to this site, to UL gear technology in general, and lives the life he sells – he's all in.

I like supporting businesses like that. Niche businesses. They listen to feedback. They work hard. They support and create American jobs. They innovate, and their ideas often make it back into "mainstream" gear.

You may do whatever you like, paying for zpacks-level/priced gear or not, but to trash the idea of cottage manufacturing on price alone is not only ridiculous – its presumptive, its not helpful to anyone, its judgmental and its harmful to the community.

I'm sure nobody here would ever judge you or say anything negative about how "cheap" you are for buying driducks, right? Because that gear transcends price, right?? Same is true in the other direction for the expensive stuff. So please, save the condescending attitude for a private discussion and leave it out of the community.

I for one don't care to see you judging the choices of those here to support you and help you learn for no good reason at all. You're not going to "save" anyone with your point of view, and it just comes off as jealous and bitter.

edited for grammar

"Has been a educated middle-to-upper class Caucasian hobby for a while now."

Indeed. I've said for a while now that is more socio-economics than ethnicity or race.

Having the money AND time tends to be a luxury for more affluent and educated consumers.

People from a different socioeconomic background tend to work alternate shifts as day care is too prohibitive/not culturally acceptable and overtime is often worked on weekends as well to make up for lost income. Driving 4-6 hrs round trip on a weekend just to sleep outside somewhere on a hiking trail in the mountains is time not available, gas money spent and potential income lost. Even "cheap" car camping gear can add up when it is for a family of 4+.

And if someone did not grow up with the outdoors as part of their life, has to be a stroke of luck to get introduced to it at a later age…So the cycle tends to repeat. Obviously it is more than economics, but cultural, education and economics tend to all mix together in one big stew. Someone smarter than me could write a big PhD paper out of it. :)

Just one quick example.

I think those of us who have the time, money and resources to spend time outdoors are very fortunate.

Good points.

Also I'm ashamed that my quoted sentence contained both the word "education" and a grammatical error.

How boring to look for cheapest, best value gear and so on. I want the best. Priority is key.

And no, I'm not rich by any means.

And I don't buy many things in general. I like to own as little as possible, but always good stuff. Stuff that lasts, stuff that does the job really good. I often wait a long time so I can put money a side for that one really great item. Mmmmm… HMG Ultamid 4… That took a long time.

I always try to buy used, and I always try to sell things I don't use anymore. I'm not nostalgic about stuff. Don't really use it that much anymore? "Strike one, you're out!" I think I would make a good character in a grown up version of Toy Story. Stuff Story. Muhaha!

I think what you might be noticing is that since the editorial contributions have diminished, there are fewer threads in response to edited content about topics that are not gear related.

A welcome counter trend in my opinion was the whole thread trip planning for the Bob Marshall WIlderness Open.

I also find un-interesting the let us bash and flame Mr B… G….. or name some other other BPLer simply because the guy or gal had an opinion someone disagreed with.

Kudos to David Chenault and Roger Caffin and others for continuing to contribute useful and interesting content.

I think if someone has lived in a primitive situation too close to camping, then they have no desire to do it recreationally

If you've always lived in a house sleeping on a bed, then camping seems more fun

Paul, you hit the nail on the head when you said "I think those of us who have the time, money and resources to spend time outdoors are very fortunate."

I always find it interesting, the socio-economics of it all. There certainly are a noticeably smaller number of minorities than caucasians out on the trail whenever I'm out there. I always pay attention to this, as I'd love to see more diversity.

I'll never forget this one day I was hanging out on the stoop with some new neighbors in Bushwick when I moved here about 5 years ago. We were talking and getting to know eachother and they asked me where I was always going with my backpack and odd looking gear, they kind of laughed when I told them I was always going backpacking in the mountains.

The response was basically "why would you ever do that?" The more detailed comments involved bugs, dirt, lack of bathrooms, lack of a "clean bed," and the general disbelief that I would actually spend money to do this while also overpaying for an NYC apartment. The fact that it involved "work" and intentionally doing something difficult left a look of shock and disbelief on their faces. It was kind of funny, but an important moment for cultural understanding.

There are entire socio-economic groups that have never even been exposed to the idea of outdoor recreation as a positive thing, and who cant understand why anyone would want to be in the woods. That hurts. I intend to help change this even just on a small, local level. The summer camp I went to while growing up hosted inner city kids for free for half the summer, and it was perhaps the most valuable part of my summer camp experience. I wish I could extend this experience to inner city young adults too.

"A welcome counter trend in my opinion was the whole thread trip planning for the Bob Marshall WIlderness Open.

I also find un-interesting the let us bash and flame Mr B… G….. or name some other other BPLer simply because the guy or gal had an opinion someone disagreed with.

Kudos to David Chenault and Roger Caffin and others for continuing to contribute useful and interesting content."

A big +1 to the above and Jim H.'s post as well.

I don't understand why anyone takes a subject like this serious. Who cares how other people spend their money.

FWIW, my previous post was a bit exaggerated to make a point. Just trying to lighten the thread a little.

I'm not sure it's the expense of backpacking that keeps the working class away as much as cultural values and tastes.

The average blue collar worker tends to like fishing, hunting, and stock car racing. They think putting on a backpack and slogging off into the wilderness is the kind of thing that silly yuppies do. Yet they may have a $15,000 bass boat sitting outside, or a couple of Mossburg shotguns that are worth more than my entire gear closet.

When it comes to recreational activities, I think it has more to do with what you're exposed to when you're young.

I find gasoline and wear and tear on the vehicle to be my biggest backpacking expense. Gear seems cheap in comparison.

I have only lived in the US for 3.5 years and when looking at houses
too purchase I was so surprised by the amount of stuff average folk had in their garages and basements.

The people we purchased from had the garage full to brim with all sorts of canoes, boats, bikes and buggies, they had to park their cars outside.

SHORT VERSION OF BELOW: Naah..outdoor recreation is still expensive no matter which group it is… In other words, it has been gentrified for a long time.

LONG VERSION:

I am not sure where these 15k bass boats are coming from. :)

I suspect stock car racing may be more regional…

With the decline of the skilled trades in this country, and the good paying "blue collar" (muddy terms these days) job that go with them http://onforb.es/1hBbKly , working class really means service jobs for the most part in 2015 vs say 1985.

And those jobs do not pay well.

In any case, seems like hunting and fishing still attracts people with disposable income:

https://www.sportsdestinations.com/management/economics/nsga-study-8221

"Hunting
with Firearms, Skateboarding, and Fresh Water Fishing… with median
household incomes between $55,000 and $57,000."

https://www.nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf

". Though the states in this study were not randomly selected, a majority of states’
hunters have higher‐than‐average incomes.  Stereotypes portraying the average hunter as low‐income may be off the mark. "

Lower than the 75k+ 40% of REI-type outdoor recreation participants have, but nothing to sneeze at either. Note that median household income, when the nsga-study was done, was 51k a year.

The trend of hunting being for more affluent folks has been happening for a ~decade now, too:

"Nationally, the number of hunters with below-median incomes has declined 16 percent in 15 years;"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.larson.html

9 years later, I suspect the numbers are more dramatic.

Finally, a parallel conversation from the hunting and fishing folks. :)

http://www.fieldandstream.com/answers/fishing/more-freshwater/other/it-me-or-has-hunting-and-fishing-become-rich-mans-sport-i-dont