South
Dakota
governor
Kristi
Noem
is
thirsty
for
the
vice
presidential
nomination
and
she’s
ticking
off
all
the
boxes.
She
went
down
to
Texas
to
get
her
teeth
“fixed”
and
put
out
a
chintzy
informercial
about
it
managing
to
tick
off
every
professional
in
her
own
state.
And,
of
course,
she’s
put
out
her
book
extolling
her
MAGA
bona
fides.
It
was
all
going
to
plan
until…
Yes,
for
some
reason,
Noem
—
and
every
person
close
to
her
who
had
an
opportunity
to
look
at
her
book
before
it
saw
the
light
of
day
—
thought
her
hagiography
would
benefit
from
an
extended
anecdote
about
killing
a
puppy
for
inconveniencing
her
bird
hunt
with
its
youth
and
lack
of
training.
The
Guardian
obtained
excerpts
from
her
book.
By
taking
Cricket
on
a
pheasant
hunt
with
older
dogs,
Noem
says,
she
hoped
to
calm
the
young
dog
down
and
begin
to
teach
her
how
to
behave.
Unfortunately,
Cricket
ruined
the
hunt,
going
“out
of
her
mind
with
excitement,
chasing
all
those
birds
and
having
the
time
of
her
life”.Noem
describes
calling
Cricket,
then
using
an
electronic
collar
to
attempt
to
bring
her
under
control.
Nothing
worked.
Then,
on
the
way
home
after
the
hunt,
as
Noem
stopped
to
talk
to
a
local
family,
Cricket
escaped
Noem’s
truck
and
attacked
the
family’s
chickens,
“grabb[ing]
one
chicken
at
a
time,
crunching
it
to
death
with
one
bite,
then
dropping
it
to
attack
another”.****
“I
hated
that
dog,”
Noem
writes,
adding
that
Cricket
had
proved
herself
“untrainable”,
“dangerous
to
anyone
she
came
in
contact
with”
and
“less
than
worthless
…
as
a
hunting
dog”.“At
that
moment,”
Noem
says,
“I
realised
I
had
to
put
her
down.”
Most
people
would
invest
in
training,
or
seek
to
rehouse
the
dog,
or
at
the
very
least
not
talk
about
puppy
murder.
But
Kristi
Noem
wants
you
to
know
that
she
is
not
most
people.
If
I
were
to
venture
a
guess
at
what
she
was
thinking,
I’d
assume
she
had
mainlined
conservative
media’s
obsession
with
Joe
Biden’s
dog
Commander
and
his
history
of
biting
Secret
Service
agents
(Commander’s,
not
Joe’s…
as
far
as
we
know!)
and
thought
she’d
score
some
points
by
landing
on
the
side
of
murdering
aggressive
dogs.
She
miscalculated.
And
when
you’ve
lost
Catturd…
But
seriously,
animals
sometimes
don’t
survive
on
a
farm.
Indeed,
some
livestock
exist
to
be
killed.
But
South
Dakota
has
laws
distinguishing
between
livestock
and
dogs:
(8)
“Livestock,”
any
agricultural
or
commercial
animal
owned,
bred,
or
raised
for
profit,
but
not
including
dogs,
cats,
rabbits,
or
other
household
pets;
And
when
it
comes
to
household
animals,
the
law
makes
an
exception
for
licensed
veterinarians
to
euthanize
those
cute
critters.
Noem
doesn’t
frame
her
story
as
though
Cricket
took
a
trip
to
the
vet.
From
CBS:
“Given
that
Cricket
had
shown
aggressive
behavior
toward
people
by
biting
them,
I
decided
what
I
did,”
Noem
wrote.
“Whether
running
the
ranch
or
in
politics,
I
have
never
passed
on
my
responsibilities
to
anyone
else
to
handle.
Even
if
it’s
hard
and
painful.
I
followed
the
law
and
was
being
a
responsible
parent,
dog
owner,
and
neighbor.”
40-1-21.
Killing
or
injuring
animal
of
another
as
misdemeanor–Authorized
euthanasia
exceptedNo
person
may
intentionally
kill
any
animal
of
any
age
or
value,
the
property
of
another,
nor
intentionally
injure
or
mistreat
any
such
animal.
A
violation
of
this
section
is
a
Class
1
misdemeanor.
This
section
may
not
be
construed
to
prevent
euthanasia
by
a
licensed
veterinarian
with
proper
authority
from
the
animal’s
owner
nor
may
it
prevent
acts
of
euthanasia
authorized
by
this
chapter.
This
section
may
not
be
construed
to
prohibit
euthanasia
conducted
by
the
municipality
or
under
a
municipality’s
animal
control
activities.
This
section
may
not
be
construed
to
prohibit
activities
conducted
under
chapter
40-34.
Maybe
Noem
did
take
the
dog
to
a
vet
and
she’s
just
fronting
that
she
personally
Old
Yeller’d
poor
Cricket.
Either
way,
its
a
political
miscue
for
the
ages.
But
the
law
might
be
the
least
of
her
worries.
Does
anybody
have
eyes
on
John
Wick
right
now?
UPDATE:
So
some
folks
have
flagged
the
clause
“the
property
of
another”
as
meaning
that
the
law
wouldn’t
apply
to
an
animal’s
legal
owner.
Personally,
I’d
read
that
as
expansive
and
thought
it
was
in
there
to
cover
harming
someone
else’s
animal
too
—
which
I
thought
the
law
might
need
since
theoretically
harming
someone
else’s
animal
would
trigger
a
bunch
of
laws
beyond
cruelty
since
it’s
pretty
much
straight
up
theft.
But
I’m
wrong
about
this
reading.
Professor,
Matthew
Liebman,
the
Chair
of
the
Justice
for
Animals
Program
at
the
University
of
San
Francisco
School
of
Law
clarified
that
limiting
animal
cruelty
laws
only
to
non-owners
“is
a
somewhat
common
aspect
of
archaic
anticruelty
laws.”
Instead,
he
directed
me
to
different
provisions
of
South
Dakota
law,
specifically
40-1-2.3
and
40-1-2.4,
prohibiting
mistreatment
and
cruelty
regardless
of
ownership.
“Cruelty
and
mistreatment
are
statutorily
defined
(40-1-1)
in
ways
that
arguably
cover
executing
a
dog,
he
explained.
(4)
“Cruelty,”
to
intentionally,
willfully,
and
maliciously
inflict
gross
physical
abuse
on
an
animal
that
causes
prolonged
pain,
that
causes
serious
physical
injury,
or
that
results
in
the
death
of
the
animal;
.
.
.
(9)
“Mistreat,”
to
cause
or
permit
the
continuation
of
unjustifiable
physical
pain
or
suffering
of
an
animal.
Looking
at
this
language,
her
book
(if
we
believe
her
own
account)
admits
that
she
acted
intentionally
and
willfully.
Making
the
question
whether
or
not
shooting
a
puppy
would
constitute
“gross
physical
abuse”
and
cause
“unjustifiable
physical
pain.”
Here
the
professor
notes
two
relevant
exemptions:
“(2)
any
humane
killing
of
an
animal”
and
“(5)
any
reasonable
action
taken
by
a
person
for
the
destruction
or
control
of
an
animal
known
to
be
dangerous,
a
threat,
or
injurious
to
life,
limb,
or
property.”
Shooting
a
dog
shouldn’t
constitute
a
“humane
killing”
—
and
frankly
the
whole
section
of
the
earlier
statute
requiring
licensed
vets
to
euthanize
animals
suggests
legislators
envisioned
something
more
clinical
when
considering
a
pet’s
demise.
“Humane
killing,”
Professor
Liebman
notes,
is
defined
as
“to
cause
the
death
of
an
animal
in
a
manner
to
limit
the
pain
or
suffering
of
the
animal
as
much
as
reasonably
possible
under
the
circumstances.”
And
the
dog
had
killed
chickens
so
there’s
an
argument
for
euthanizing
the
dog
somehow
though
perhaps
the
law
doesn’t
extend
to
make
popping
Cricket
like
Tommy
DeVito
thinking
he
was
on
his
way
to
get
made.
Is
the
account
in
the
book
“reasonable”
under
the
statute?
“To
me,
it’s
a
resounding
‘no,’
but
I’m
not
a
South
Dakota
juror,”
Liebman
said.
So
there
you
have
it.
My
simple
bit
on
Kristi
“Poodle
Pumper”
Noem
went
way
deeper
than
expected!
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.