Kristi Noem first acknowledged that readers were upset by the story of killing her dog, Cricket, in her memoir, then defended the decision as necessary to protect her children and livestock. The account became public through advance coverage on April 26, 2024; Noem responded on social media two days later and stood by it in subsequent interviews.
What Noem wrote about Cricket
In an advance-copy report on April 26, 2024, The Guardian described the account in Noem’s memoir, No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward. According to the book as reported, Cricket was a female wirehaired pointer about 14 months old. Noem wrote that she took the dog pheasant hunting to train her, but Cricket disrupted the hunt, escaped from the truck during a stop, killed chickens belonging to a local family and tried to bite Noem when she grabbed her. Noem said she took Cricket to a gravel pit and shot her.
These details are Noem’s memoir account as reported by the outlet; they should not be mistaken for an independent investigation of every event. Noem presented the episode as an example of making difficult, messy decisions, writing: “I guess if I were a better politician I wouldn’t tell the story here.”
How Noem initially answered the backlash
On April 28, Noem addressed the reaction on social media. She said she understood why people were upset about a “20 year old story,” described Cricket as one of the ranch’s working dogs, and said the book included honest stories about challenges and painful decisions. She also said difficult decisions happen on farms and mentioned that she had recently put down three horses. That horse anecdote was part of her broader defense, not evidence about what happened to Cricket. CBS News, reporting with the Associated Press, covered her response.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
How her defense developed in later interviews
In later media appearances, Noem emphasized that she believed she was protecting her children and livestock from a dangerous animal. On Face the Nation on May 5, 2024, she said, “I’m not retracting anything,” and asked viewers to put themselves in her position as a mother. CBS News reported on the interview.
In a Fox News interview reported by The Guardian, Noem called Cricket extremely dangerous, said reports had left out facts and again cast the story as evidence of her willingness to make difficult decisions. Her position therefore moved from acknowledging the upset to explaining and defending the choice, without withdrawing the memoir account.
Who criticized the story
Criticism came from across political camps as well as from dog experts. The Associated Press reported that Joan Payton, a member of the German Wirehaired Pointer Club of America, criticized both the killing and Noem’s decision to publish the story. The club described the breed as high-energy and criticized Noem’s training approach. These comments represent the views reported by the AP, not a consensus among all owners or experts. The AP’s report also covered political reaction.
What the memoir said about the goat
The same passage, as reported by The Guardian, also described Noem shooting a family goat. Noem characterized the goat as mean and said it chased her children. She included both animal stories in the memoir’s broader account of making difficult decisions; the goat episode is distinct from the Cricket controversy.
Rank #3
What was established about the legal question
A May 2024 PolitiFact explainer reported that South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said his office lacked jurisdiction because the incident was reported to have happened about 20 years earlier, beyond the state’s seven-year statute of limitations. Jackley’s statement, as quoted by PolitiFact, said the office had no jurisdiction over an incident that old.
The explainer also described disagreement among legal experts over whether a livestock-protection provision applied to the circumstances Noem described. That reporting does not establish a definitive legal verdict that the killing was either lawful or unlawful. It concerns the legal analysis available in May 2024, not a claim about the present status of South Dakota law. PolitiFact’s explainer details the limitation period and competing interpretations.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
