ORIGINAL: Hunter_59
I completely understand the difference between the two, but I've seen on the big game forum the many posters that get lamblasted for using a 270 for elk. The 270 has probably killed more elk than any other firearm. You change weapons and shoot a grizzly with a broadhead and no one says a thing about it! I know the bear will die with a well placed shot but if not for the PH, maybe not quick enough to save the shooter! There are definately people on here that can and have killed dangerous game with a bow and the only problem I have is the presence of a PH to back them up. If there is a need for a backup, doesn't it smell of being a little "under-gunned"? Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm shakin' in my boots at the sight of a big buck or a huge bull elk coming in. It just looks a little silly on tv when, after the arrow is released, it takes sometimes several shots to bring down the attacking beast!
You're missing the boat on this one. The back-up rifle is there whether it be a rifle hunt (.223 or .460 Wby) or a bowhunt and it isn't there as part of the hunt. It has nothing to do with how lethal or effective the weapon is perceived to be. In Africa it's there as part of the law in many cases. As Tembry has pointed out, being without it is similar to driving without a seatbelt. The seatbelt doesn't change the way you drive just like the back-up rifle doesn't change the way you bowhunt. It just mitigates some of the possible outcomes of getting behind the wheel.
I personally don't hunt brown bears with a backup because it's one more person to be heard, seen and smelled and I'm more afraid of the nervous guy behind me with a rifle than I am about the bear in front of my arrow. It's a risky endeavor; you weigh the risks and decide whether to endeavor. If I had a wife and kids waiting for me at home I might play it differently...