Which statement correctly links colonial forest policy with livestock crisis?

Correct answer: Limited forest entry reduced fodder and increased risk of weak livestock

Forests were important sources of grass, leaves, and other fodder for pastoral animals. When colonial forest policies restricted entry or grazing, pastoralists could no longer use these resources as freely as before. They might have to reduce herd size, use poorer grazing areas, travel farther, or keep animals for less time in suitable places. Inadequate or poor-quality fodder can weaken livestock and reduce milk, wool, traction, reproduction, and household income. The crisis was therefore connected to both access to forests and animal health.

Option A is correct because limited forest access reduces available fodder and can increase the risk of weak livestock. Option B states the opposite effect. Option C ignores the direct dependence of many pastoral economies on forest grazing. Option D is impossible as a general description because forest rules did not permanently settle all animals in forests. The answer follows through the chain: restrictive policy, less fodder, weaker animals, and greater livelihood insecurity.