Your question illustrates the problem you have in the story of not enough fleshing out and background. As far as I remember, correct me if I'm wrong, you never in any way refuted that Harry killed Sixskins' animals, not by showing the animals still alive, nor by having Harry deny that he killed them, and that in a timespan of several days (or even weeks?) that he was learning changing. The only conclusion for the reader then is that the animals are dead. Further confirmed by Sixskins' apparent uselessness to the King.
Your question (and its suggestion of the animals not being dead) also brings up the question: how did Harry lose the King the use of Sixskins? Is that another part of the story you didn't show, the killing of Sixskins? Because if he still has his animals (like you seem to be hinting at), he should be of use to the King. And even if he doesn't have his animals anymore, why would the loss of one measly limb (which btw Harry in your story is said to be able to heal as far as rumors go about him) make him lose his powers and make him useless to the King other than temporarily not having animals?