News

CASPER, Wyoming – Cody Roberts, the Wyoming man accused of torturing a wolf, has accepted a plea deal with state prosecutors, resolving a case that drew national attention from animal rights activists and sparked debate over wildlife management. Roberts pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unlawful killing of wildlife, a reduced charge from the original felony count of animal cruelty, according to court documents filed on February 25, 2026.

The case stemmed from an incident in December 2023, when Roberts allegedly shot a wolf multiple times, taped its mouth shut, and posted images and videos of the animal on social media. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department launched an investigation, leading to Roberts’ arrest and initial charges. The graphic nature of the alleged abuse quickly ignited outrage online and prompted calls for a harsh punishment. The plea deal avoids a potentially lengthy trial and a felony conviction, but still carries potential penalties including fines, jail time, and the loss of hunting privileges.

Details of the Plea Agreement

According to court records, Roberts admitted to intentionally killing the wolf but denied torturing it. The plea agreement stipulates a sentence of six months of jail time, suspended, and two years of supervised probation. He is also required to pay $1,500 in restitution to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and is prohibited from hunting for five years. Roberts will also be required to complete 20 hours of community service. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 15, 2026, in Sublette County District Court.

The original charges against Roberts carried a potential sentence of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The reduction to a misdemeanor charge has been met with criticism from animal welfare groups, who argue that the plea deal does not adequately reflect the severity of the alleged crime. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department stated they respect the decision of the Sublette County Attorney’s Office, but remain committed to enforcing wildlife laws.

Background of the Case and Public Reaction

The incident occurred near Big Piney, Wyoming. Images and videos shared online showed a wolf with its mouth taped shut and visible injuries. Roberts initially claimed he shot the wolf in self-defense, alleging it was attacking his dogs. Still, investigators found evidence contradicting this claim. The case quickly gained traction on social media, with the hashtag #JusticeForTheWolf trending nationally. Animal rights organizations organized protests and online petitions demanding a harsh sentence for Roberts.

The California-Texas rivalry, while seemingly unrelated, highlights the differing views on wildlife management and animal rights that exist across the United States. [1] California generally adopts more progressive animal welfare policies, while Texas often prioritizes ranching and hunting interests. This case, occurring in Wyoming, underscores the complexities of balancing wildlife conservation with individual rights and recreational activities.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has been actively involved in wolf management since the species was reintroduced to the state in 1995. Wolves are currently classified as a predator species in Wyoming, allowing landowners to take wolves under certain circumstances. The department’s website provides detailed information on wolf hunting and trapping regulations. [2]

The plea deal brings a degree of closure to a case that has deeply divided public opinion. While animal rights advocates express disappointment with the outcome, prosecutors maintain that the agreement ensures accountability and protects Wyoming’s wildlife resources. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of responsible wildlife management and the ethical treatment of animals.

Looking ahead, the case may prompt further discussion about Wyoming’s wolf management policies and the penalties for animal cruelty. The Sublette County Attorney’s Office has not released a statement explaining the rationale behind the plea agreement, but This proves likely that evidentiary challenges played a role in the decision. The sentencing hearing next month will provide an opportunity for the court to hear from both sides and impose a final judgment.

What are your thoughts on the outcome of this case? Share your opinions in the comments below. Don’t forget to share this article with your network to continue the conversation.