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.

---

---

Dr Meredith Hudes-Lowder
December 2, 2022

“Researchers have found that, as with humans, individual bonds within bands may be more important than group identity. These bonds are sometimes based on family ties, but often they are just based on individual preference. These preferences can and do change: friendships come and go, foals grow up and depart to live elsewhere, male-female relationships sometimes work out and sometimes don’t. As a result, the social lives of horses are nothing if not tumultuous. Indeed, long-term observation of these animals in the wild is like following a soap opera. There is a constant undercurrent of arguing, of jockeying for position and power, of battling over personal space, of loyalty and betrayal” (Williams, 2015, p.3).

The marketing of wild horse rescue groups is a multimillion-dollar industry. As of late, there have been a lot of rescues pushing the “keep family bands together” narrative to part you from your hard-earned money. Nature does not work this way…  ever.

There was a lot of interest in the Sand Wash Basin wild horses. I will preface this by stating that anyone who offers a home to a wild horse or rescued domestic horse is wonderful. I owned two rescued off-the-track Thoroughbreds myself. However, the concept of keeping mares with their sons and daughters, or stallions with mares in their former band, is absolute horse manure.

At the age of 1-2 years for colts, and 1.5-2.5 for fillies, the dams and stallions kick these horses out of their natal band. The stallions do not want their sons around to compete with them for mares, and mares are generally expecting their next foal or even have last year’s foal and a new foal on the way (Goodwin, 2010). Mares rarely tolerate their two-year-olds (and older) nursing, although there are exceptions, such as Echo, Cloud’s son. He stayed in his natal band long past the usual time. If the young horses remain, there is a risk that these young horses will eventually breed with their fathers, mothers, sisters, or brothers (Berger, 1986).

The horse that created one of many controversies was a horse named Snip, the son of the famous mustang Picasso. He had a small band of mares and two colts in 2020. Two of his many mares are Amber and Marina, and Marina is also Snip’s presumed daughter.  A wild horse rescue was/is hell-bent on getting the two colts (Sheridan &. Toma) reunited with their mother(s). They have Marina at the moment. This would reunite Marina with her son Sheridan who is now two years old. In spite of being in Snip’s band, we don’t know that Marina’s foal is actually Snip’s foal. We do know that Marina’s sire is likely Snip, which would mean he might have bred his daughter. Marina also could have snuck off and was bred by another stallion or bachelor nearby. Also, Snip may not be the father of Toma… do you all see where this is going?

There are no guarantees that the so-called ‘family bands’ are related. Also, Sheridan is an unmarked bay colt. There are many unmarked bay colts on the range, and the rescue stated the horse they wanted to bid $7,000 on was “believed to be” Marina’s colt. That’s a lot of money for a maybe… Marina would have kicked all two-year offspring and older out of the band; few parents want their 28-year-old child living in their basement. Finally, Snip is gelded. His interest in the mares may have shifted because he has lost the desire to breed.

Keeping family bands together is a lovely sentiment, and I won’t deny that some horses form very close bonds with one another, related genetically or otherwise. The concept of ‘wild horse families’ is a myth, not based in reality whatsoever. There is a very good statistical chance the horses in a band are unrelated except on the matrilineal lineage. The statistics are as high as 33% that the band stallion is NOT the sire, a Jerry Springer-sque situation common on the wild horse ranges. Parents routinely breed with their offspring, and genetic relationships are a jumble of guesses.

Owl, the dam of Michelangelo (Picasso’s grandson), had already kicked him out of the band. or he left of his own accord. Why would a rescue want to try to reverse what Mother Nature deems best and put those two back together? It goes completely against Nature. My guess is over-anthropomorphizing. Complete families are something we, as humans, believe to be stable and desirable. These are horses where mares change bands routinely, stallions take over bands weekly, mares are not faithful, and incest is prevalent.

There is no denying that rescued horses need good homes. Why do rescues who rely on donations insist on tricking the public into thinking paying enormous sums for specific horses is a wise choice? If wild-horse rescues truly believed in the welfare of the horses, they would not spend thousands on famous horses. They would put that money towards the upkeep of ordinary horses who need homes. Sadly, having well-known horses or their progeny drives their price up considerably, but what about future care? Once the excitement of having one of Picasso’s, Cloud’s, or another well-known mustang’s offspring wears off, who will pay for food, and vet care, not to mention the labour that goes along with all of this?

We need to stop exploiting, anthropomorphizing, and romanticising wild horses and simply provide decent homes for all. They are all beautiful, and they all deserve fair treatment, especially the ordinary ones.

References

Berger, J. (1986). Wild horses of the Great Basin: Social competition and population size. University of Chicago Press.

Bowling, A. T., & Touchberry, R. W. (1990). Parentage of Great Basin Feral Horses. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 54(3), 424–429. https://doi.org/10.2307/3809652

Goodwin, D. (2010). The importance of ethology in understanding the behaviour of the horse. Equine Veterinary Journal, 31(S28), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05150.x

Williams, Wendy. (2015). The Secret Lives of Horses. Scientific American. 313. 76-79. 10.1038/scientificamerican1015-76.