“I Hated That Dog” – The Story of Kristi Noem and the Shooting of Cricket

It is a story that reads like something from a dark Southern novel – yet it comes from the pen of a politician who presents herself as an “unshakable patriot” and, until recently, was considered a strong contender for Donald Trump’s vice-presidential pick. In her book No Going Back, published in 2024, Kristi Noem recounts with startling coldness how she shot her 14-month-old hunting dog Cricket. The incident, originally intended as an anecdote about “tough decisions on the farm,” quickly escalated into a political scandal of international proportions. According to Noem’s account, Cricket lost control during a pheasant hunt, killed several chickens, chased another animal, and bit her. For the then-governor of South Dakota, that was apparently reason enough to lead the dog to a nearby gravel pit and shoot it – and later to write: “I hated that dog.” Not only the act itself, but also the laconic language with which she describes it, left many readers stunned. Even more disturbing: In the same passage, Noem says that immediately afterward, she also killed a goat that had supposedly been bothering her children. The goat survived the first shot, so she reloaded and shot again. Location of the execution: the same gravel pit.

The reactions to this episode were fierce. Human rights advocates, animal welfare organizations, and even conservative allies expressed outrage. On social media, hashtags like #CricketDeservedBetter and #NoemTheExecutioner began trending. Stephen Colbert dedicated an entire late-night segment to the case, slyly noting that you could say many things about Trump’s potential VP pick – but being a dog lover wasn’t one of them. Seth Meyers and John Oliver also featured the story in their shows. The political fallout was significant: Noem’s standing in Trump’s inner circle was weakened, and her ambitions for the vice presidency were at least temporarily derailed. Noem herself defended her actions – unconvincingly – by referencing rural realities. On X (formerly Twitter), she wrote: “I can understand why some people are upset about a 20-year-old story about Cricket. We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm.” But those very sentences caused many to question whether remorse was truly at play – or whether this was instead a calculated provocation by a politician who prefers projecting toughness over compassion. Her attempt to turn the episode into political capital by portraying herself as a pragmatic farm woman struck many as a chilling miscalculation.

What weighed most heavily, however, was that Noem had chosen to make the story public – not as an admission of remorse, but as an example of leadership. What was meant as image management became a moral unmasking. In a political landscape where image is everything, this moment reminded people that some stories are better left untold – or at least told with a different tone. The killing of a young, possibly misdirected dog – and the demonstrative emotional coldness with which it was described – left behind an image of Kristi Noem that will be hard to repair. One that evokes neither sympathy nor respect, but above all raises a question: Who shoots an animal – and then proudly calls it “leadership”? Noem’s case is a cautionary tale about political self-exposure. Her story about Cricket was meant to symbolize strength – it became a symbol of coldness, loss of control, and a political instinct that no longer distinguishes between farm life and public office. The gravel pit in South Dakota is no longer just a place – it is a symbol of what remains when humanity is lost in the pursuit of power.