Picasso’s Blood

The great “family bands” saga continues. I received a fair number of comments suggesting I don’t know anything about wild horses or that I don’t know anything about rescues. Neither is true, but that’s not the impetus behind this post. The sanctuary in question blocked me within an hour of the original post. So much for transparency or any attempt at civil discourse. I decided to change the horses’ names back to their real ones on the original post, though the rescue shall remain nameless.

I received some interesting remarks and posts regarding “The Myth of the Wild Horse Families” on other pages where it appeared. Here is my take on this based on an actual rescue and the bidding that went on for the assumed relatives of Picasso from Sand Wash Basin. This is my opinion, but I believe their aspirations have become a bit clouded. Additionally, they are allowing the horses to live free with minimal interference as they did on the range. This is incredibly dangerous for everyone involved in their care. Any rescued horse needs to be familiar with a halter, and lead rope, behave for the farrier, and administration of medication or general care. You don’t have to ride them, but they are no longer wild. Again, a wonderful idea to let them be free, but their judgement is rather questionable and harmful for everyone involved, including the horses (or they send a bill to the general public for a squeeze chute when an emergency arises…).

It’s disingenuous to presume any of us know the true motives of a given wild horse rescue. We can only base these assumptions on their social media posts and observable decision-making. However, obliterating your entire operating expenses for the next two years on one horse is indefensible. That fiscally irresponsible decision is even worse when these rescues are dependent almost entirely upon the public’s goodwill. In effect, they decided for every one of us that it is a good idea to spend $21,000 on various horses under the premise they are a “family” and, therefore, deemed more valuable. Then they hand us the bill for their reckless improvidence. Based solely upon this scenario, I firmly believe they are insincere in their efforts because they’re acting without judgement, solely on emotions, and basing their decisions on mythical ideology. They want to save mustangs, but primarily the most beloved and their entire extended family under the presupposition the public will gladly pay for this marvellous opportunity.

Two direct quotes from the sanctuary are presented below. I am never, ever suggesting that these horses do not need homes. They do, and I feel that must be stated unequivocally. I also understand well-known horses bring attention to a rescue or sanctuary. It is a sad state when the public appears to favour the support of primarily popular mustangs, but that can be overcome. We can try for equality over popularity and to recognize the intrinsic value of all rescued wild horses. Mustangs are resilient; they form new bonds, and old bonds may fall in disfavour. There are plenty of rescues that do wonderful work; I am involved with several. I am asking the sanctuary, and similar ones, why the focus is based on hypothetical genetic relationships? In a world where we don’t know the true relationships especially given Picasso’s death and that his body was never found. We will truly never know if any horses are related to him or even each other, so why spend the time and enormous sums of money on that assumption? It all comes back to money.

Banking on sentimentality and the popularity of a particular wild horse is not a guarantee any rescue/sanctuary will continue to receive donations. I honestly don’t object to a rescue that adopts a family of wild horses or a known bonded pair. My issue is the postulation they assume the public will be willing to pay for any exorbitantly priced animals and their upkeep for the remainder of the animal’s life. It’s a lot to ask.