You can not approach dangerous game with a bow after it has been wounded, even if it's mortally wounded and might already be dead. That is a sure way to end up dead yourself. It might have died in 30 seconds or it might have died later. No one knows. An arrow into the heart of an animal is an ethical way to dispatch it. If you don't agree, you probably disagree with hunting altogether. They only leave the elephant as a precaution. I don't know about you guys but I'm not walking up on a wounded elephant with a bow. If you think anything is wrong with that situation you might as well be against bowhunting period.
You're right. All of this is an excellent argument against hunting dangerous game with a bow.
A rifle isn't exactly a laser beam of instant death by the way. Many animals who are hit with bullets do not expire instantly. Some of them are also dangerous game that have attacked and killed hunters after being shot even more than once. A bow that can shoot a heavy enough arrow at an fast enough speed is capable of humanely harvesting an elephant (as long as shot placement is correct).
I believe bowhunting is just as humane as hunting with firearms. If the hunter is taking a risk, it is a calculated/educated risk and that is a decision for the hunter to make, not you.
It amazes me to see people on a hunting forum who are only ok with harvesting one or two types of animals with one particular type of weapon. Anything else in their mind isn't acceptable. These are the same hunters that get our hunting rights thrown out the window when it comes time to vote. First it's banning bowhunting, then it's banning crossbows, then it's only one type of rifle...and pretty soon you've voted your way out of the sport entirely.
I think some people should just be honest and admit that their real issue is that they don't believe in hunting elephants at all. If this article was about a hunter who shot a rabid coyote with a bow instead of an elephant, I highly doubt there would be an argument.
Go back and read all three statements in context. If you do that you will see the following:
In the first quote the author says that it is too dangerous to administer a coup de grace with a bow. Let's assume that's true.
To my mind that's an excellent reason not to hunt DANGEROUS GAME with a bow, not an excuse for leaving a fallen animal to die slowly. If you drop the animal, you should be able to finish it off. If you can't, then you shouldn't be hunting it with that weapon in the first place. I highlighted the words DANGEROUS GAME in the hope that it would emphasize the point, but apparently to no avail.
No, a rifle does not always drop game instantly, but it's a far better tool to finish off fallen game than a bow.
All the rest is unsupported projection on your part. I've never said that there is only one good way to hunt or
anything that can be responsibly extrapolated to support that I want to get our hunting rights thrown out or that I have anything against
responsible bowhunting, elephant hunting in general or any of the other nonsense you've conjured up out of nothing. Your entire third paragraph is way out of line.
And yes, if this were about a coyote, I wouldn't have a problem with it. A coyote is a reasonable target with a bow. An elephant is not.