482 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION D. 
I may take the proposed new Game Act of our Indian Empire, which has recently 
been explained, and to a certain extent criticised, in the ‘Proceedings of the 
Zoological Society of London,’ by Mr. E. P. Stebbing, an enlightened sportsman- 
naturalist, as an example of the efforts that are being made in this direction, 
and of their limitations. 
The Act is to apply to all India, but much initiative is left to Local Govern- 
ments as to the definition of the important words ‘ game’ and ‘large animal.’ 
The Act, however, declares what the words are to mean in the absence of such 
local definitions, and it is a fair assumption that local interpretations will not 
depart widely from the lead given by the central Authority. Game is to include 
the following in their wild state: pigeons, sandgrouse, peafowl, jungle-fowl, 
pheasants, partridges, quail, spurfowl, florican and their congeners; geese, ducks 
and their congeners; woodcock and snipe. So much for Birds. Mammals 
include hares and ‘ large animals’ defined as ‘all kinds of rhinoceros, buffalo, 
bison, oxen; all kinds of sheep, goats, antelopes and their congeners; all kinds 
of gazelle and deer.’ 
The Act does not affect the pursuit, capture, or killing of game by non-com- 
missioned oflicers or soldiers on whose behalf regulations have been made, or of 
any animal for which a reward may be claimed from Government, of any large 
animal in self-defence, or of any large animal by a cultivator or his servants whose 
crops it is injuring. Nor does it affect anything done under licence for possessing 
arms and ammunition to protect crops, or for destroying dangerous animals, under 
the Indian Arms Act. Then follow prohibitory provisions all of which refer to the 
killing or to the sale or possession of game or fish, and provisions as to licences 
for sportsmen, the sums 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 numbers 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 required to be given; the area has rough boundaries such as roads, 
five 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 carnivora may be per- 
mitted, 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 automatically closed and reopened for certain definite periods of 
years, or be closed until the head of game has become satisfactory, the shoot- 
ing 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 and pleasure to most readers, ° 
and it cannot be doubted but that they 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 who 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 faunas of the world, and which also is probably 
