Did South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem break the law by shooting her dog? What legal experts say

It may be the most controversial dog death since "Old Yeller" — the faithful stray dog turned rabid — that had to be put down in the 1957 Disney classic film.

Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s story about killing her dog Cricket ignited a heated debate among people of all political persuasions April 26 when The Guardian, a British news outlet, published an article excerpting Noem’s upcoming book, "No Going Back," scheduled for release May 7.

Noem, widely considered a contender to be former President Donald Trump’s running mate, described fatally shooting the 14-month-old wirehaired pointer and failed hunting dog, which she later said happened 20 years ago. She wrote that the dog had an "aggressive personality."

She isn’t the first political candidate to draw heat over treatment of a dog. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and current Utah senator, similarly felt dog lovers’ wrath during his 2012 presidential run over a story about him strapping his dog, Seamus, in a dog carrier to the roof of a car for a family road trip.

Although Noem’s story drew widespread backlash, experts told PolitiFact she likely would have faced no charges under South Dakota law, either now or when she said the shooting took place. 

Noem described a pheasant hunt with Cricket gone astray and an incident on the way home that sealed the pup’s fate. Noem wrote that she had stopped to speak with a family. The dog escaped from her truck and killed several of the family’s chickens, acting like a "trained assassin," she wrote, according to the Guardian’s account.

Noem wrote that the female dog tried to bite when Noem grabbed her. She also wrote that she "hated that dog," which she said was "untrainable" and "dangerous to anyone she came in contact with." It was then that Noem decided she "had to put her down." She took the dog to a gravel pit and shot her.

Noem also wrote that she then decided to shoot a "nasty and mean" male goat the same day at the same gravel pit.

Noem’s story drew fury from both liberals and conservatives. "My blood is boiling," wrote Catturd, a popular conservative X account. "The View" host Whoopi Goldberg and her colleagues found common ground on an April 29 episode. If you can’t train the dog, "give it back," Goldberg said, adding an expletive.

Noem answered her critics in an April 26 X post, sharing the Guardian article and writing, "We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm. Sadly, we just had to put down 3 horses a few weeks ago that had been in our family for 25 years."

Noem posted again April 28 on X,  calling it a 20-year-old story and writing, "South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did."

We contacted Noem for comment but received no reply.

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said in a statement to PolitiFact that his office has received numerous questions about Noem’s story, but the state’s seven-year statute of limitations has lapsed. He did not answer specific questions about how the law would have applied at the time of the shooting.

"There have been requests for the attorney general’s office to look further into the matter. In South Dakota, there is a seven-year statute of limitations on cases of this nature," Jackley said, referring to South Dakota Codified Law 23A-42-2. "Accordingly, the attorney general’s office has no jurisdiction on an incident that occurred a reported 20 years ago and well beyond the seven-year statute of limitations."

Ian Fury, Noem’s communications chief, was quoted in an April 29 Guardian article and referred to two statutes from South Dakota state law 40-34 that cover dog licenses and regulations:

• 40-34-1 says, "It shall be lawful for any person to kill any dog found chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing poultry or domestic animals except on the premises of the owners of said dog or dogs." The statute doesn’t specify how a dog can be killed.

• 40-34-2 says any person owning such a dog is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. However, Leighann Lassiter, the Humane Society of the United States’ policy director for animal cruelty, told us charges would be filed only if the chickens’ owner filed a complaint with law enforcement.

David Favre, a Michigan State University law professor and editor of the Animal Legal and Historical Web Center, said that 40-34-1 is a law from the 1930s and similar laws are found in many states. They are meant to let farmers protect animals of economic value.

He doesn’t think that particular statute applies in Noem’s case. But he added that he doesn’t believe the killing of a person’s own dog by gunshot is illegal in South Dakota. 

Regarding 40-34-1, "in South Dakota, a person would be allowed to kill a dog that comes onto their land and chases their cat," Favre said. "It is not meant to deal with a person killing their own dog, but I guess an argument might be made if the dog was in the act of doing a bad thing."

Justin Marceau, a University of Denver law professor and director of the school’s Animal Law Program and Animal Activist Legal Defense Project, also doesn’t think statute 40-34-1, which  the governor’s office cited, authorized Noem to kill the dog.

The law "seems to allow for an animal to be killed if the animal is actively ‘chasing’ or killing an animal considered livestock," Marceau said, describing Cricket’s chicken assault a "past act" at the time the dog was killed.

"The laws of South Dakota also permit, as do most states, the euthanizing of dangerous animals in certain circumstances," Marceau said. "But Gov. Noem has failed to note that determinations about whether to euthanize an animal are, by statute, assigned to peace officers and humane officers, not pet owners who determine that it would take extra work or money to properly train a young puppy."

Conley Wouters, a University of Illinois Chicago assistant law professor who practices animal law, took a different stance. He said he believes 40-34-1 "does seem to permit killing a dog who has injured or killed" another person’s livestock or poultry." Because the law was enacted in 1939, it was on the books when Noem killed Cricket, he added.

Wouters said such laws are common in Western states and states with a lot of farming and ranching; he cited laws in Idaho and Ohio that allow dogs to be killed for attacking livestock or people. The laws reflect the long-standing tension between farmers and dog owners, he said.

The laws "tend to favor livestock owners, with some of the laws setting a relatively low bar for when people are permitted to kill a dog." 

"Based on my understanding of the law, (what Noem did) was legal then and it would be legal today in South Dakota, and in many other states," Wouters said.

Anticruelty provisions govern the humane treatment of animals, and experts told us Noem likely didn’t violate those laws, either. 

Favre said no section of the state’s animal cruelty laws makes the killing by an owner illegal unless pain and suffering is involved. 

Under state law, it’s not clear that shooting your own dog would be considered cruel, Favre said. "Assuming the shot produced near instant death or unconsciousness, then the act would not be cruel," he said.

Lassiter, from the Humane Society of the United States, agreed that South Dakota’s law exempts the humane killing of an animal from its cruelty statute. A shooting that causes instant or near instant death could be considered exempt, at the discretion of local law enforcement, she said.

Many states allow an animal to be killed as long as there is no prolonged suffering and it doesn’t meet the state’s definition of torture, Lassiter said.

James Oppenheimer, the Sioux Falls Area Humane Society’s executive director, said two sections of South Dakota’s animal cruelty laws let people humanely kill animals. 

Code 40-1-17 (2) "permits the humane killing of an animal and exempts people from criminal code," Oppenheimer said. And 40-1-1 (6) defines humane killing 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."

Shooting an animal isn’t explicitly stated in the codes, Oppenheimer said. What Noem did is fairly common in South Dakota, although most people don’t publicize it, he said.

"In a rural setting, farmers and ranchers do euthanize their own animals. That being said, we do wish she had looked at other options," Oppenheimer said.

Oppenheimer said Cricket, at 14 months, was very young for a hunting dog and that hunting dogs "exposed to chickens will generally attack the chickens. That is a dog being a dog. If you reach in to get the dog out of there, you might get bitten." 

"Our overall take is that killing an animal with a single gunshot to the head is not illegal in South Dakota. However, this form of euthanasia is designed for large animals that get injured in the field so are difficult to transport," Oppenheimer said.

Wouters said he empathizes with the outrage about Noem’s admission, but said in the U.S., animals are "legally speaking, personal property."

"Most of us view our dog or cat as a family member, so it can be easy to forget that by and large, the law does not," Wouters said. "It sees them as simple property. So, just like you would be free to dispose of your toaster if you weren’t happy with it for some reason, you are often going to be free to destroy your dog."

Notwithstanding anticruelty provisions, he said, "the dog has the same legal status as the toaster."