In 1914, the Humanitarian League published “Killing for Sport“, a collection of essays that set the bar for intellectual discourse against blood sports. Edited by the formidable Henry S. Salt, this volume was a masterclass in dismantling pro-hunting sophisms. Salt, it seems, could write novels about his opponents’ every sneeze.
Fast-forward to December 2023, and one can’t help but chuckle at how little has changed in the pro-hunt camp. It’s as if they’ve been stuck in a time warp, doggedly refusing to evolve their arguments—or perhaps forgetting to have any at all.
Salt vs Stammers: A Century-Old Mismatch
In one of his pamphlets, Salt quipped that hunters “would rather follow the hounds than follow an argument”. Little did he know how prophetic these words would prove.
Enter the Hon. George Bowyer, the Membership and Campaigns Director of the British Hound Sports Association and Chief Executive Officer of Vote-OK. In a recent YouTube interview with Alex Sayer of Strictly Shooting UK, Bowyer was asked to address the “top three misconceptions” about hunting. One might expect a man of his position to have a ready arsenal of rebuttals, especially when speaking to a sympathetic interviewer. Instead, what followed was a masterclass in stammering evasion that would have had Salt in stitches.
Bowyer’s response? A vague mumble about there being “so many misconceptions”. It’s almost as if, in the century since Salt’s time, the pro-hunt lobby has been so busy following hounds that they’ve forgotten how to form coherent sentences, let alone arguments – even when pitching to their own side!
The Persistent Comedy of Pro-Hunting ‘Logic’
This isn’t just about Bowyer’s individual fumble. It’s a hilarious testament to the pro-hunt lobby’s enduring allergy to engaging with even the gentlest questioning. While Salt could pen detailed rebuttals to every pro-hunting argument imaginable, today’s advocates seem to struggle with the very concept of articulating their own position.
Adding to the comedy, we must consider Bowyer’s 1998 musical masterpiece, “Guardians of the Land”. In this lyrical gem, backed by the Countryside Alliance, Bowyer croons about those pesky outsiders who “just don’t understand” the countryside. Oh, the irony! It seems Bowyer himself doesn’t understand how to answer a simple question about his beloved pastime – even when asked by a friendly voice.
Consider these profound lyrics:
“Oh what a pity, oh what a shame,
Someone is trying to ban country sports again.
Why must they interfere with the running of the land,
When the countryside is something they just don’t understand?”
One can’t help but wonder: who really doesn’t understand here? The general public Bowyer claims to enlighten, or the “guardians” who can’t seem to explain their own position when given a golden opportunity?
A Century of Stagnation: The Joke That Keeps on Giving
The comedy of errors continues when we consider the wealth of new information available today about animal cognition and ecosystem dynamics. While their opponents have been studying and evolving their arguments, the pro-hunt lobby seems to have been perfecting the art of looking bewildered when asked simple questions.
To maintain such a steadfast commitment to intellectual stagnation for over a century takes a special kind of dedication. Or perhaps they’re just really, really lost without their hounds to follow.
Looking Forward (Or Not, If You’re Pro-Hunt)
As we witness this ongoing farce, one can’t help but wonder about the future of blood sports. In an era where environmental concerns are paramount and ethical treatment of animals is increasingly valued, the pro-hunt lobby’s strategy seems to be “when in doubt, look confused”.
The striking similarity between Salt’s observations and Bowyer’s performance suggests that the pro-hunting lobby has been perfecting its “deer in the headlights” look for over a hundred years. It’s a testament to their consistency, if nothing else.
Without a significant improvement in their ability to string coherent arguments together—or at least master the art of answering simple questions—it seems the only thing the pro-hunt lobby will be chasing is their own irrelevance.
While the world has moved on, the pro-hunt lobby remains steadfastly committed to its century-old tradition of eloquent silence and confused mumbling. Salt, one imagines, would be amused to see that his opponents are still more adept at following hounds than following logical threads. The hunt, it seems, continues—just not for any actual arguments.
