https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/04/10/public-officials-law-agencies-flooded-with-threats-over-reports-of-wolf-torture/

Sublette County Sheriff K.C. Lehr has received more than 7,000 emails about a Wyoming man who reportedly captured and tormented a wolf before killing it, he told Cowboy State Daily on Wednesday.

Some of those are threats.

Lehr said people in his office, as well as Sublette County and Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel, have been receiving threats — including death threats — stemming from Daniel, Wyoming, man Cody Roberts’ reported capture, torment and killing of a wild wolf in late February.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I mean, I get it, it’s a wolf and can pose a danger to livestock and or people. But if you are aiming to kill it, then just shoot it in the head for a clean kill, if you miss the clean kill get up and put it out of it’s misery.

    What demented kind of fuck gets pleasure doing this. The poor animal is just doing it’s thing and being what nature made it. It didn’t have a choice to be born a wolf instead of a Chihuahua.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        They’re not in danger of extinction.

        Not that it makes it right but their populations are stable enough that hunting doesn’t threaten them. Especially with protected reserves to serve as sanctuaries - like Yellowstone.

          • OftenWrong@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            This wouldn’t even be news if that piece of shit had just killed her cleanly like a normal functioning human that’s capable of even a drop of empathy. The fact that he hurt and tortured a wolf pup like this is what’s most revolting to me. I also hate that there are really no consequences for torturing wildlife apparently? That’s weird. There definitely should be. Civilized society should penalize any form of torture because nobody worth anything wants to do that.

        • Observer1199@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m going to need a source for such a bold claim. And details of where you are talking about (as wolves are extinct in my area)

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Details of where I’m talking about we’re already included in the context of the original comment and my reply mentioning Yellowstone. We’re talking the American West.

            Here’s proof - https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm

            Legal Status of a Recovered Population

            The biological requirements for removing the wolf from the endangered species list have been achieved: at least 300 wolves and three consecutive years of at least 30 breeding pairs across three recovery areas.

            • Observer1199@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Interesting article but it doesn’t provide any proof that wolves are not in danger of going extinct again. In fact it suggests the opposite where several states have had to list them again. From what I see, it was lobbying from those who stand to gain from not protecting them that got them delisted in a number of circumstances. I can’t prove that but the fact that in areas where they relaxed protections the numbers got low enough to list them again goes in the face of your argument.

              • Dashi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                At some point there is a line drawn in the sand that “xyz” means they are no longer in danger of going extinct. It may just be a text book definition but thats what the person is showing you. You can disagree and say “it suggests the opposite” or it doesn’t provide proof, but that take can be applied to anything.

                We can say humans are going to be going extinct because of the climate crisis. While a valid concern it may not meet the text book definition of going extinct so we are not on the list.

                Dis this man they can’t be added back later? No of course not. But at this point in time whoever makes up the rules think they meet the criteria for being labeled a recovering population.

              • huginn@feddit.it
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Yellowstone is a federal park that has federal rules protecting them.

                States can bitch and moan all they want but there is a massive reserve dedicated to keeping them alive and their population in that reserve is not at any risk of going extinct.

                By your logic (IE they could be killed off) - everything is always in danger of going extinct because not immortal and omnipotent creatures outside of the realm of human influence.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think there’s a term for that but I’m not sure what exactly it is.

          An animal’s population is counted as distinct between the wild groups and the groups in reserves and captivity. So I think it’s correct to say that they are endangered in the wild.