ii. All human activities are completely banned in the area under the national parks, whereas in wildlife sanctuaries, some human activities like timber extraction, forestry and cultivation are allowed, provided they do not have direct adverse impact on the wildlife. In wildlife sanctuaries, the killing and capturing of animals are prohibited except under the orders of authorities concerned.
iii. In most countries, only national or federal government can constitute national parks, but in India, state governments have the power to constitute national parks. In fact, national parks can only be constituted or abolished through state legislation, whereas wildlife sanctuaries are created through an order of a competent authority, who can be the chief conservator of forests or a minister of a state. Thus, it is evident that national parks have greater degree of permanency than a wildlife sanctuary.
iv. In wildlife sanctuaries, private ownership rights can continue as long as wildlife conservation is not adversely affected, but in the national parks there are no private ownership rights. However, in the Indian context, despite the differences, there are similarities too between national Parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
v. Both endeavour to provide protection, preservation and conservation of wildlife.
vi. Both can be formed out of reserved or protected forests.
vii. The Central government extends assistance to the state governments for maintenance of both national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.