I have no statutory or case law references to back this up, but my gut says "no". The key phrase is "...which normally involves the use of a firearm or other weapon." By definition, target shooting, etc. require the use of a firearm, whereas hiking doesn't intrinsically require such. (In other words, target shooting without a firearm is rather pointless, but hiking without a firearm is physically possible.) But take that with a grain of salt, as it's just my opinion.