78 



NATURE 



[September 19, 1912 



to be paid for which are merely nominal, but which 

 carry restrictions as to the number of head that may 

 be killed. I need not enter upon detailed criticism 

 as to the vagueness of this Act from the zoological 

 point of view, or as to the very large loopholes which 

 its provisions leave to civil and military sportsmen; 

 these have been excellently set forth by Mr. Stebbing, 

 who has full knowledge of the special conditions 

 which exist in India. What I desire to point out is 

 that it conceives of animals as game rather than as 

 animals, and that it does not even contemplate the 

 possibility of the protection of birds of prey and beasts 

 of prey, and still less of the enormous number of 

 species of animals that have no sporting or economic 

 value. 



Mr. Stebbing's article also gives a list of the very 

 large number of reserved areas in India which are 

 described as "Game Sanctuaries." His explanation of 

 them is as follows: — "With a view to affording a 

 certain protection to animals of this kind (the elephant, 

 rhinoceros, ruminants, &c.), and of giving a rest to 

 species which have been heavily thinned in a district 

 by indiscriminate shooting in the past, or by anthrax, 

 drought, &c., the idea of the Game Sanctuary was 

 introduced into India (and into other parts of the 

 world) and has been accepted in many parts of the 

 country. The sanctuary consists of a block of country, 

 either of forest or of grassland, &c., depending on 

 the nature of the animal to which sanctuary is re- 

 quired to be given; the area has rough boundaries 

 such as roads, fire lines, nullahs, &:c., assigned to it, 

 and no shooting of any kind is allowed in it, if it is a 

 sanctuary pure and simple ; or the shooting of car- 

 nivora may be permitted, or of these latter and of 

 everything else save certain specified animals." 



Mr. Stebbing goes on to say that sanctuaries may 

 be formed in two ways. The area may be automatic- 

 ally closed and reopened for certain definite periods 

 of years, or be closed until the head of game has 

 become satisfactory, the shooting on the area being 

 then regulated, and no further closing taking place, 

 save for exceptional circumstances. The number of 

 Such sanctuary blocks, both in British India and in 

 the Native States, will cause surprise <ind pleasure to 

 most readers, and it cannot be doubted but that the}' 

 will have a large effect on the preservation of wild 

 life. The point, however, that I wish to make is that 

 in the minds of those who have framed the Game 

 Act, and of those \vho have caused the making of the 

 sanctuaries — as indeed in the minds of their most 

 competent critics — the dominant idea has been the 

 husbanding of game animals, the securing for the 

 future of sport for sportsmen. I do not forget that 

 there is individual protection for certain animals ; no 

 elephant, except a rogue elephant, may be shot in 

 India, and there are excellent regulations regarding 

 birds with plumage of economic value. The fact 

 remains that India, a country which still contains a 

 considerable remnant of one of the richest faimas 

 of the world, and which also is probably more 

 efficiently under the autocratic control of a highly 

 educated body of permanent officials, central and 

 local, than any other country in the world, has no 

 provision for the protection of its fauna simply as 

 animals. 



The conditions in Africa are very different from 

 those in India. The land is portioned out amongst 

 many Powers. The settled population is much less 

 dense, and the hold of the white settler and the white 

 ruler is much less complete. The possibility of effec- 

 tive control of native himters and of European 

 travellers and sportsmen is much smaller, and as there 

 are fewer sources of revenue, the temptation to exploit 

 the game for the immediate development of the 



NO. 2238, VOL. 90] 



struggling colonies is much greater. Still, the lesson 

 of the extinction of the South African fauna is being 

 taken to heart. I have had the opportunity of going 

 through the regulations made for the shooting of wild 

 animals in Africa by this country, by our autonomic 

 colonies, by France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and 

 Belgium, and, with the limitation that they are directed 

 almost solely towards the protection of animals that 

 can be regarded as game, they afford great promise 

 for the future. But this limitation is still stamped 

 upon them, and even so enthusiastic a naturalist as 

 Major Stevenson-Hamilton, the warden of the Trans- 

 vaal Government Game Reserves, who has advocated 

 the substitution of the camera for the riffe, appears 

 to be of the opinion that the platform of the conven- 

 tion of 1900 is sufficient. It included the sparing of 

 females and immature animals, the establishment of 

 close seasons and game sanctuaries, the absolute pro- 

 tection of rare species, restrictions on the export for 

 trading purposes of skins, horns, and tusks, and the 

 prohibition of pits, snares, and game traps. Certainly 

 the rulers of Africa are seeing to the establishment of 

 game reserves. As for British Africa, there are two 

 in Somaliland, two in the Sudan, two in Uganda, 

 and two in British East Africa (with separate reserves 

 for eland, rhinoceros, and hippopotamus), two in 

 Nyasaland, three in the Transvaal, seven in Rhodesia, 

 several in Natal and in Cape Colony, and at least four 

 in Nigeria. These are now administered by com- 

 petent officials, who, in addition, are usually the 

 executive officers of the game laws outside the reserved 

 territory. Here again, however, the preservation of 

 game animals and of other animals of economic 

 value, and of a few named species, is the fundamental 

 idea. In 1909 I had the honour of being a member 

 of a deputation to the Secretary of State for the 

 Colonies, arranged by the Society for the Preservation 

 of the Wild Fauna of the Empire, one of the most 

 active and successful bodies engaged in arousing public 

 opinion on the subject. Among the questions on 

 which we were approaching Lord Crewe was that of 

 changes in the locality of reserves. Sometimes it had 

 happened that for the convenience of settlers or be- 

 cause of railway extension, or for some other reason, 

 proposalls were made to open or clear the whole or 

 part of a reserve. When I sug:,s:ested that the sub- 

 stitution of one piece of ground for another, even of 

 equivalent area, might be satisfactory from the point 

 of view of the preservation of large animals, but was 

 not satisfactory from the zoological point of view, that 

 in fact pieces of primeval land and primeval forest 

 contained many small animals of different kinds which 

 would be exterminated once and for all when the land 

 was brought under cultivation, the point was obviously 

 new not "only to the Colonial Secretary, who very 

 courteously noted it, but to my colleagues. 



This brings me to the general conclusion to which 

 I wish to direct your attention, and for which I hope 

 to engage your sympathy. We may safely leave the 

 preservation of game animals, or rare species if these 

 are well known and interesting, and of animals of 

 economic value, to the awakened responsibility and 

 the practical sense of the governing powers, stimulated 

 as these are by the enthusiasm of special societies. 

 Game laws, reserves where game may recuperate, 

 close seasons, occasional prohibition and the real 

 supervision of licence-holders are all doing their work 

 effectivelv. But there remains something^ else to do, 

 somethins: which I think should interest zoologists 

 particularly, and on which we should lead opinion. 

 There exist in all Ihe great continents large tracts 

 almost emptv of resident population, which still con- 

 tain veg-etation almost undisturbed by the ravages of 

 man, and which still harbour a multitude of small 



