You're viewing a single thread.
I played golf for the first time recently, it's not as boring as it looks... basically a fun way to be outside with friends and do something challenging.
The course I played on maintained the local geography and incorporated it into its holes. That made for a gorgeous landscape, and, as an example, one hole required a shot over a forested ravine, both a tricky shot, and a nice way to keep the natural landscape, flora, and fauna as intact as possible.
I confirmed that they only use non-drinkable water for irrigation, and there were no vast spans of grass, only patches that used to be empty land beforehand. That only made the course more challenging.
All in all, what I'm trying to say is that this sport can be done in a way that's overall fine. Sure, replacing native flora with grass isn't good but it's ok if done in small patches and responsibly. Golf has become a symbol of classism but it's something anyone can enjoy if they have access to it, it isn't even particularly expensive. It isn't great but, done morally, isn't bad either.
And there is a risk in making it a symbol in that way: it makes for a wrong target and a waste of resources. Activists filling up holes makes a point but there's much more important stuff to do. If you're an environmentalist or an urbanist, cars and oil companies should be pretty much your only concern; golf courses can be dealt with later.
Golf courses actually see pretty frequent use; anybody who has played a public course on the weekend knows what it's like to be constantly waiting to take your shot because the group in front of you is still putting, and the group behind is waiting to take their tee shot.
A much bigger waste of resources and land are the sterile suburban yards that barely get used at all.
I do wonder how much fertilizer runoff, herbicide use, etc the average golf course is responsible for
only patches that used to be empty land beforehand
There's no such thing as empty land, it used to be a complex ecosystem