ENVIS BULLETIN - ENVIS Centre on Himalayan Ecology

administrators of the Kumaon range. For this study a total of 100 farmers, 25 researchers, 25administrators, 10 forest officers 20 bankers and 25 veterinary officers were interviewed by eithermailed questionnaire or by personal interview. The results were analyzed and presented as below.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONFarmers’ viewAll the farmers unanimously declared that goat rearing was a profitable enterprise. Accordingto them through goat they were earning a good amount of cash and it acted as a security. The surplusfamily labor was engaged for this purpose along with the kitchen waste. 76% of the farmers were ofthe opinion that the goat was not a threat to ecology. The rest of them who were thinking that it wasthreat to ecology, said that the regeneration of commercial plants were slow after the grazing of theplants by goats only during the initial phases of the plants. When asked, if the goat could be stall fed,the 78% of them answered in affirmative. However, as most of the farmers used to graze their goats inthe nearby forest without any supplementary feeding, they expressed that it would be costly anddifficult in stall-feeding of the goats. 100% of the farmers agreed that the human factor(management/conservation) was more responsible for the present status of the ecology than theanimals particularly the goats. The farmers were aware about the carrying capacity of their area andthey themselves controlled the numbers of their animals which adequately relects a lot about thewisdom of our poor farmers. They further demanded their participation in the on going developmentworks which were directly affecting their ecology like construction of roads, building, and irrigationstructure in their area.Researchers’ viewHundred percent of the researchers were of the opinion that goat farming was a profitableenterprise for the entire region. No researcher agreed that goat was threat to ecology; however, theywere worried about the increasing number of the species that too of the poor breed. They emphasizedthe need for the upgradation of the local breed by sutiable breeding technique. 28% of them believedthat goat keeping through stall feeding would be economical and they recommended the stall feedingat least for the ecologically fragile region of the country. 100% of the researchers were of the viewthat human factor was more responsible for the down gradation of the ecology and not the animals.Administrators’ viewA majority of the development administrators’ openion regarding the profitability was sameas that of the farmers and the researchers. However, 30% of them said that goat was threat to theecology and in support to their hypothesis they said that deforestation was only due to this speciesalthough it was their preconceived notion without any evidence but they were at the helms of affairrelated to the inclusion of goat in the rural development program of their area of influnce. 100% ofthem believed that the goat could be stall fed and 80% of them said that the stall fed goat farming waseconomical. One very interesting observation was that about 40% of them believed that human factorwas not that important for the ecological degradation.Forest officers’ viewHere also all of them agreed that the goat farming was a profitable enterprise. Surprisingly60% of them said that goat was a threat to the ecology and in their support they said that goat reducedthe good quality fodder from the forest and the regeneration of forest was affected by grazing done bythe goat. All of them advocated stall-feeding of the goat and 60% of them declared it as economical.When asked if the goat should be banned most of them answered in affirmative and said that at leastfrom the area like Kumaon hills it should not be allowed as free grazing animals. 60% of themaccepted the contribution of human factor in ecological damage.E N V IS B ulletin : H im alayan E cology 12(2), 2004 17