Correction to today’s posting.
The article does say that up through the 1950’s, cattle ranchers have killed thousands of wild mustangs in the Southwest and that prior to that, these horses had almost been annihilated by slaughter to control Indian mobility and to “preserve” grazing land for cattle. Another case in point why “doing good” is insufficient desire.
So I went ahead and deleted the word “undisturbed” from my prior posting to end the inaccuracy.
Of course, the above would seem to justify the need to “preserve” these animals, but was it really necessary to trap them, suck their blood for testing, sell some of them off, and separate the herd further by taken horses to “secret” reservations so they could remain free? I don’t think so. Once in a reservation, as Native Americans can attest, you loose your freedom. History shows that those who control the reservations take it upon themselves to also control the population of those reservations. History shows that once these horses multiply above a preset number considered to be “sustainable” for the reservation, they will be killed for sports or trapped and sold for slave labor. How can you then say this is done to preserve their Freedom?
What could have been an alternative? Let them be. They have been doing well on their own. And if there was fear that ranchers may start killing these horses again or that the selling of ranches to developers could affect them, why not simply make an agreement with the current owners of the lands where these horses roam, to not encroach upon certain designated areas? Why not simply add a stipulation to the land contracts that would restrict developers from touching those designated areas should the land be sold in the future?
It is possible to do things differently in a way that actually supports Freedom upon the Land and this is what we are doing when we choose the Father Way.
