So “has died” is such a diversion. He was killed.
Although it's a euphemism (an appalling one really), it at least conveys the context, which is that wildlife professionals did it, and say it was for reasons of humaneness.
Edit: switched to the less euphemistic wording suggested by notduncansmith below
Unless they are literally starving, they are usually very timid and shy. Humans are especially terrifying to wildlife. We walk very tall, make a bunch of strange noises, we have tools, lights, automobiles, and otherwise signal that we are the apex predator.
> The National Park service confirmed that P-22 was responsible for killing a chihuahua that was being walked in the Hollywood hills last month.
No queationing humaneness aspect of putting to sleep, however was the decision connected to the attack? From what I've read:
- P-22 was tracked and captured 5 days ago after confirming attacking a chihuahua in the Hollywood last month. - 5 days later P-22 was put to sleep
Would P-22 be put to sleep if there was no recent attack on chihuahua?
Does the obvious connection mean that the reason for putting to sleep was not "humaneness", but risk of attack on pets?