animal life can exist in a certain area. The surplus must go outside.
So sanctuaries are more than wild "zoos", they are overflowing
reservoirs, fed by their own springs, and feeding streams of life at
every outlet. They serve not only those interested in animal life, but
those legitimately interested in animal death, for business, sport or
food. I might mention many instances of successful sanctuaries,
permanent or temporary, absolute or modified--the Algonquin, Rocky
Mountains, Yoho, Glacier, Jasper and Laurentides in Canada; the
Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Cañon, Olympus and Superior in the United
States; with the sea-lions of California, the wonderful revival of
ibex in Spain and deer in Maine and New Brunswick, the great preserves
in Uganda, India and Ceylon, the selective work of Baron von Berlepsch
in Germany, the curious result of taboo protection up the Nelson
river, and the effects on seafowl in cases as far apart in time and
space as the guano islands under the Incas of Peru, Gardiner island in
the United States or the Bass rock off the coast of Scotland.

Yet I do not ignore the difficulties. First, there is the universal
difficulty of introducing or enforcing laws where there have been no
operative laws before. Next, there is the difficulty of arousing
public opinion on any subject, however worthy, which requires both
insight and foresight. Then, we must remember that protected species
increasing beyond their special means of subsistence have to seek
other kinds of food, sometimes with unfortunate results. And then
there are the several special difficulties connected with Labrador.
There are three British governments concerned--Newfoundland, the
Dominion and the province of Quebec. There are French and American
fishermen along the shore. The proper protection of some migratory
species will require co-operation with the United States, perhaps with
Mexico and South America for certain birds, and even with Denmark for