Open discussion organized at Dachigam on whether sheep farm is a threat to Hangul has been a failure for lack of proper organization as most of the time was spent on listening to those who neither knew sheep husbandry nor wildlife; allowing only officials to speak. It was a wild joke. Louder your voice better you would be heard amidst mostly irrelevant questions from confused and misinformed youth. It was not followed by any joint statements or resolutions or agreement of any kind. Apparently organized by a neutral group of young environmentalists it appeared from the very beginning to be framed not as a serious discussion where scientific arguments could be made and heard but sloganeering. It didn’t address the key question how sheep farm is a threat to Hangul but ruminated on the question of how sheep or sheep grazing in upper reaches of Dachigam is a threat – an issue that is between nomadic communities and the State and not Wildlife and Sheep Husbandry Departments which can graze its animals outside park area in summers and in fact has been following govt regulations for the same. To the several queries raised, where is the evidence for deaths from sheep specific diseases backed up by ground studies by local scientists who have worked with Hangul pathology, there were no answers as there are none in fact. Most Experts of animal sciences felt so disgusted that they left half way seeing it mostly as a halagula of environmental activists and not serious deliberation by experts of environment. Environmental activists are not experts of either sheep husbandry of Hangul pathology to be able to meaningfully comment on the key issue of alleged disease transfer so they should have listened to the point of view of experts of animal sciences (most of whom were not officially invited in time as is the protocol).
To cap it all, the reporter confused the public by not giving a single word from advocates of coexistence of farm and Hangul. He has failed to note even one argument amongst a battery of unanswered arguments presented there for allowing farm to exist. A reporter should know difference between officials and experts. He has himself quoted opinions that it is indiscriminate grazing at upper reaches of Dachigam which may be questioned or banned but failed to note that farm as such is not a primary party in the debate. One wonders who constructs the discourse that sheep farm is a threat when a simple action for denotification of farm area (not grazing area in Dagwan as it is avoidable if warranted evidence provided) is not enough to address the legalistic concerns of wildlife authorities. A well fenced 1550 canals of land in which sheep don’t come in contact with hanguls (this deconstructs the argument of disease transfer) or disturb their habitat in any way but in turn decreases predation pressure on hanguls thus helping save hangul project should receive priority and more funds if we believe in hard science and not wild fancies and imaginary scarecrows. The experts were either not invited or could not attend the event (SKUAST and Sheep Husbandry Departmental Experts were not officially invited well in advance) and the few who attended were hardly listened to? 
Quoting a half baked unproven and misleading statement from a PhD scholar who couldn’t respond to queries in the noisy atmosphere as if last word on disease transfer problem has sealed off the debate shows that the reporter had drafted the report to manufacture a case which doesn’t and can’t stand scientific scrutiny.

Lastupdate on : Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 IST