Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, a large and sparsely populated frontier state with frontier values, is being criticized for confessing to having once killed a dog. The dog, Cricket, a 14-month-old wirehaired pointer, was a female with an aggressive personality. The behavior that prompted Noem to euthanize the dog was an attack the dog made on her neighbor’s chickens. When Noem went to restrain the dog, the dog bit her. Noem determined that the dog was untrainable. So, she put the animal down.
For this action, Noem is being branded a “murderer.” One cannot of course murder a dog; but resort to that word, besides resulting from ignorance of the law, also conveys the outrage felt by those with more cosmopolitan sensibilities, as well as the partisan nature of the present moment. We would be in denial if we claimed that a lot of reaction was driven by politics.
To the extent that the same people who condemn Noem for her action would condemn a Democrat who did this (and I assure you that there are Democrats who have), part of the explanation for the reaction is the cultural divide between town and country. In rural areas, the relationship of people to dogs can be complex. While many rural residents care for their dogs on an emotional level and consider them valuable companion and working animals, there are circumstances that prompt euthanizing them. A bullet is one of the most humane way to accomplish that end.
It’s not unheard of for rural residents to resort to such measures when they perceive a dog as a threat to their livelihood, property, or safety. Factors such as inadequate fencing, the roaming habits of dogs, or the presence of packs of feral dogs can exacerbate conflicts between dogs and livestock in rural areas. There are dogs that are diseased, injured, or old and a choice is made to humanely end their suffering. In many communities, dogs may be used for specific functions such as hunting or herding livestock. In cases where a dog fails to perform its intended function or exhibits behavior detrimental to its role, individuals may euthanize the dog. Cricket ticked several of these boxes.
Noem’s critics should consider the circumstances. They should also remind themselves that, while euthanasia rates for dogs in shelters have been declining due to increased efforts to promote adoption, spaying and neutering, and responsible pet ownership, hundreds of thousands of dogs are euthanized in shelters each year due to factors like behavior problems, health issues, lack of resources to care for them, and overcrowding. That doesn’t make what Noem did right (I am not saying what she did was wrong, either), but it highlights the complex and culturally variable relationship between humans and dogs, as well raises questions about the selective outrage.
The relationship between humans and nonhuman animals generally is complex. Most of us feed on the flesh of animals. According to the CDC, approximately 95 percent of American report consuming meat, poultry, or fish. This requires killing them. Most Americans would never eat dogs, however, putting on our anthropology hats, in cultures around the world, particularly in parts of Africa, Asia, and some regions of South America, we recognize that dogs are consumed as food. Immigrants from these parts of the world continue the practice here. The practice is rooted in various cultural, economic, historical, and social factors. It is the unique relationship between people and dogs cultivated in urban and suburban American communities that contributes the shock value of this case—which is not to say that many rural folks disagree with what Noem did.
My point in making these observations is to note that the outrage on social media is driven in part by class and regional-based ethnocentrisms—ironic coming from people who on the daily push the ethic of cultural pluralism—as well as political opposition to the populist character of rugged individualism. The point is punctuated by Michael Daly’s Daily Beast op-ed “R.I.P. Cricket. Now It’s Time to Talk About Kristi Noem’s Goat.”
I’m not denying that some of those who criticize Noem are not genuinely horrified by the story, especially given that the corporate media puts the inadequacies of the dog for its intended purpose as the central motive guiding her actions. But the story is more complex that the media is telling it, and it might behoove people to understand Noem’s actions in the context of culture and consider whether their own reaction is motived by political bias.
freedom and reason 