of nature. Immediate steps should be taken to link our own bird
sanctuaries with the splendid American chain of them which runs round
the Gulf of Mexico and up the Atlantic coast to within easy reach of
the boundary line. Corresponding international chains up the
Mississippi and along the Pacific would be of immense benefit to all
species, and more particularly to those unfortunate ones which are
forced to migrate down along the shore and back by the middle of the
continent, thus running the deadly gauntlet both by land and sea.

Inland sanctuaries are more difficult to choose and manage. A deer
sanctuary might answer near James bay. Fur sanctuaries must also be in
some fairly accessible places, on the seaward sides of the various
heights-of-land, and not too far in. The evergreen stretches of the
Eastmain river have several favourable spots. What is needed most is
an immediate examination by a trained zoologist. The existing
information should be brought together and carefully digested for him
in advance. There are the Dominion, Provincial and Newfoundland
official reports; the Hudson Bay Company, the Moravian missionaries;
Dr. Robert Bell, Mr. A.P. Low, Mr. D.I.V. Eaton, Dr. Grenfell, Dr.
Hare, Mr. Napoléon Comeau, not to mention previous writers, like
Packard, McLean and Cartwright--a whole host of original authorities.
But their work has never been thoroughly co-ordinated from a
zoological point of view. A form of sanctuary suggested for the
fur-bearing Yukon is well worth considering. It consists in opening
and closing the country by alternate sections, like crops and fallow
land in farming. The Indians have followed this method for
generations, dividing the family hunting grounds into three parts,
hunting each in rotation, and always leaving enough to breed back the
numbers. But the pressure of the grab-all policy from outside may
become irresistible.