I'm not saying it isn't bad. It is, but it seems to be handled by the law enforcement, pretty much wrapped up and not something I should be concerned about.

So, I actually read the article. The possibility of contaminating local populations of wild sheep is very bad, and the possibility didn't occur to me before reading simply because wild, uncontaminated populations of big herbivores are barely a thing in Europe, sadly. Other than that, it's just some illegal trafficking which is no worse than any other and, in fact, much better than most other illegal animal trafficking, I think. It sounds like no living animals actually suffered during the trafficking.

As for the creation of a new kind of sheep, no genetic engineering was taking place. It was a normal breeding (OK, assisted breeding, insemination, but for agricultural standards, it was absolutely normal). Getting the male to produce the sperm was done in an unusual manner. I admit I severely underestimated advancement of cloning in agriculture. The article sounds like he simply sent some biological material to the lab and got embryos back. Come to think of it, I heard about cloning horses and bulls for this precise purpose, so I shouldn't have been surprised. Anyway, that pretty much invalidates my initial idea that the cloning protocol might be useful. All the more so since the species is not actually endangered.

Regarding the captive hunting, while I might have some reservations about that, it actually sounds pretty much fine for the animals. I don't quite know how it works, but I imagine that it means the animals in some fenced, but rather large and mostly wild enclosure, where they can do mostly what they please, until someone comes along and shoots them (or not). In my book, while not ideal, that's pretty much OK, compared to commercial pig farming or taking baby calves away from their mothers to get more milk. Especially since the scale of captive hunting must be much, much smaller. If I wanted to be enraged about something bad happening to animals, I would try to pick a place where animals suffer most and in largest numbers, according to my moral compass. If your preferences are different, that's alright and it's great that you actually care about this this much. If you know enough context and find it worthwhile, all the better. Especially if you actually try and do something about it.

TLDR:

trafficking animals - bad, but obviously handled

endangering local populations - very bad, fortunately stopped in this particular case

cloning - surprisingly routine, it seems

breeding - the only problem is that they bred forbidden species, otherwise pretty standard

captive hunting - not a big issue in my opinion, but I understand why others might feel differently

EDIT:

I think I might as well respond to some of your criticism directed at me

after having it repeatedly pointed out that, in fact, none of this was used for preservation of the original endangered species, but some monstrous hybrid was created

I don't see that pointed out anywhere. But it would hardly matter, since I suggested that it might be valuable for future efforts, when I thought there might be some need for that. Also, why was the hybrid monstrous? Is a mule monstrous? It's just a guess, but I think your understanding of the word hybrid comes more from horror movies than biology. Also, no mutant was created anywhere, at least not more than is normal for such biological processes, such as your birth, and mine.

even sugar-coat it and outright dismiss both the shocking moral and ethical issues

It was not my intention to sugar-coat anything. But if someone does something bad and possible outcome of it might do some good, I say it would be wrong not to use it. And could you please elaborate on what in particular you find so shocking?