% 
360 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
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 con- 
ditions 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, 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 carnivora 
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 automatically 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 regu- 
lated, and no further closing taking place, save for exceptional cir- 
cumstances. ‘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 regu- 
lations 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 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. (To be continued.) 
