Lewis Hamilton Says a Real Man Would Hunt With a Spear—Critics Say That Would Be Far Crueler

Formula One star Lewis Hamilton reportedly called former UFC champion Jon Jones a coward after seeing footage of Jones shooting a feral hog from a helicopter with an AR-15, arguing that a man should instead hunt with a spear or bow and give the animal a chance to fight back.

Gun-rights activist and YouTuber Colion Noir, who said he is genuinely a fan of Hamilton, strongly disagreed with that reasoning in a recent video, arguing that the method Hamilton described as more honorable could actually cause the animal considerably more suffering while doing little to address the larger problem of destructive feral hog populations.

The dispute began with Jones himself recounting the story. Jones said he had gone on a helicopter hog hunt years earlier with a group of Army Rangers, killed one pig, and had the meat donated to an underprivileged family, only to receive a long message from Hamilton afterward criticizing what he had done.

Jones Says Hamilton Called Him a Coward

According to Jones, Hamilton saw the helicopter footage and told him that killing an animal that way was cowardly.

“He wrote me a long message saying that I was a coward and that he thought that I was better than that,” Jones recalled.

Jones said Hamilton argued that the traditional way to kill an animal should involve a spear or bow and arrow, where the hunter supposedly gives the animal a chance to fight back.

Hamilton then unfollowed and blocked him, Jones said.

Jones sounded more disappointed than angry while telling the story, explaining that he had been a fan of Hamilton and even jokingly apologized to the racing driver while recounting the incident.

Noir, however, took issue with the moral argument behind Hamilton’s alleged message.

Noir Says the ‘Fair Fight’ Argument Falls Apart

Noir acknowledged that there is an intuitive appeal to the idea of giving an animal a more even contest, but argued that hunting has never really been about stripping humans of every technological advantage.

A spear is itself a tool, he noted, just as a bow and rifle are tools, meaning the disagreement is ultimately about where someone chooses to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable technology.

Noir used Hamilton’s racing career to make the point, observing that nobody expects a modern Formula One driver to abandon advanced machinery and compete in an antique car just because doing so would make the race more difficult.

His argument was deliberately humorous, but the underlying point was serious: humans have always relied on tools to improve their chances against animals, and there is nothing inherently more natural about a sharpened spear than a modern firearm simply because one technology is older.

There is also a welfare question that Hamilton’s reported criticism does not fully resolve. If the concern is minimizing suffering, making a hunt harder for the human hunter does not automatically make it more humane for the animal.

A Spear Could Mean a Longer Death

Noir argued that a competent rifle shot can kill a feral hog very quickly, while striking a large, fast-moving animal with a spear could begin a prolonged pursuit before the animal eventually dies.

He described a mature feral hog as an extremely powerful animal capable of seriously injuring a person at close range, which also makes the notion of deliberately allowing it to “fight back” far more dangerous than it may sound in theory.

“If the animal suffering is your concern, the AR-15 is the merciful option on that list, and the spear is the cruel one,” Noir said.

That is the strongest part of his criticism because it separates two different ideas that are often blended together: sporting difficulty for the hunter and humane treatment of the animal.

A method can be more challenging for the person doing the hunting while still being worse for the animal if it increases the chance of a slow or poorly placed wound.

Hamilton’s reported position appears to emphasize fairness and physical risk to the hunter, while Noir emphasizes speed and effectiveness.

Those are different ethical standards, and they can lead to opposite conclusions about the same hunt.

Noir Says This Was Pest Control, Not Sport Hunting

Noir then widened the argument beyond the single hog Jones killed.

He said the United States has millions of feral hogs spread across dozens of states and attributed billions of dollars in damage and control costs to the animals, which can destroy crops, damage fences, foul water sources, and affect native wildlife.

Noir also cited population-control estimates suggesting that a very large percentage of feral hogs must be removed each year simply to keep their numbers from growing.

In that context, he argued, aerial shooting is not designed to recreate a primitive hunt between one person and one animal.

It is intended as efficient population control.

Noir said federal rules allow states to authorize aerial shooting under certain conditions and argued that Texas treats permitted helicopter operations aimed at nuisance animals as depredation work rather than ordinary sport hunting.

His description matters because it changes the frame of the Jones video.

Someone watching a short clip might see a celebrity shooting an animal from an aircraft and judge the encounter according to the ethics of fair-chase hunting, while Noir says the more appropriate comparison is with organized pest-control work intended to remove animals quickly over large areas.

Hamilton’s Animal-Welfare Views Complicate the Dispute

Noir also questioned whether Hamilton would really have approved if Jones had used a spear or bow instead.

He pointed to Hamilton’s long-standing plant-based lifestyle and public concern for animal welfare, arguing that the racing driver’s deeper objection was probably not the helicopter or the AR-15 but the fact that the hog was killed at all.

If that is Hamilton’s actual position, Noir said, it is a perfectly legitimate belief to hold.

But it is different from saying Jones lacked courage because he used a firearm.

“The objection is the dead hog,” Noir argued, suggesting that changing the weapon would not produce an outcome Hamilton would support.

That distinction makes the disagreement more understandable. Someone morally opposed to killing animals may never be satisfied by arguments about which hunting method causes less suffering, because the underlying objection concerns the killing itself.

Noir’s criticism is that Hamilton reportedly framed that disagreement in terms of masculinity and courage instead.

Jones Says the Meat Went to a Family

Noir also emphasized what happened after Jones killed the hog.

Jones said the animal was donated to an underprivileged family in the community rather than simply discarded.

Noir used that point to push back against the idea that the hunt amounted to meaningless killing for entertainment, arguing that Jones removed one animal from a destructive population and then made use of the meat.

Whether someone approves of aerial hog control will still depend heavily on their views about hunting and animal welfare, but those details make the situation more complicated than a short clip of a rifle fired from a helicopter might initially suggest.

There is a legitimate debate to be had over how wildlife should be controlled, how much suffering different methods create, and whether aerial shooting should ever be treated as recreation.

Calling one method inherently brave and another cowardly, however, does not answer those questions.

Noir’s central argument is that if humane treatment is the standard, efficiency matters more than romantic ideas about fighting an animal on equal terms, particularly when the animal involved is part of a population being managed as a destructive nuisance.

Hamilton’s reported preference for a spear may sound more traditional, but Noir argues that tradition alone does not make a kill cleaner, kinder, or more useful in dealing with the underlying problem.