"Neither Cricket nor the goat had to be killed. The reader is left with the impression that Noem killed the animals because she wanted to. Regardless of whether the killings were legal, shooting the animals was a choice and there were other good options that Noem apparently did not try to pursue."
I am a dog lover to the point where we don’t own one (for the first time in decades), because we are not able to devote the time to properly train and raise a dog. When our rescue Rotty, Molly, passed, we took a break and got a Cockatiel instead. Shooting a dog not in self defense is a choice, and a bad one. May it haunt Noem into political retirement.
Where to begin? As noted Steve, who is dumber? Kristi for doing it, or the publisher/all the others who allowed it to be written?
And, i couldn't help but grab this line: "The dogs were just doing what dogs do." Makes me wonder if that will be the defense used by trump's lawyers when defending/explaining his actions regarding Daniels and McDougal affairs. Seems about right.
The victims (chickens, plural) must accommodate the troublemaker (dog, singular). The alternative would be to deal with the troublemaker so the victims could continue to live their lives without disruption.
Sidebar: I am NOT saying kill the troublemaker. Restrict its movement, a new home, remanded to a permanent kennel, tranquilizing drugs, cut his "misters" off...heck, a lobotomy!...whatever.
Are we not seeing this scenario playing out at Columbia University? The student population is around 36K, per Wikipedia. How many protesters are there? How many are students v paid activists? Instead of dealing with the handful of troublemakers, Columbia asks the other 36K (minus a handful) to accommodate.
The difference, as I see it, is that dealing with troublemakers is difficult and requires backbone. Asking victims to accommodate is generally the easier, less confrontational, path.
You're wrong because you're applying rules that apply to humans to animals. It is not comparable.
Dogs bred to hunt birds will hunt birds. It was her responsibility to prevent their interactions, 'cause she's the human - and the best way to do so is to have a chicken run, keeping the chickens in a safe space on her farmland. If she decided that it was too much hassle to build such a structure (fencing) then she should have either put in the effort to train the puppy, or rehomed it.
"Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family..."
Owner of chickens must accommodate owner of crazy dog by building a protected area for the chickens because crazy dog is uncontrollable and dog owner doesn't have the energy or spine to do anything about it.
It is the human's responsibility to train and/or control their animals. My understanding is it was in regards to her own animals: if instead she was visiting someone else's farm and let her dog roam loose - that's her fault, not the dog's. This is basic legal precedent.
The dog was 14 months old: that's not a "crazy" dog, it's an untrained puppy, doing what its breed was bred to do - hunt birds.
Mr. MAGA here. Sorry, you're wrong. Violent Animals should be put down, and "killed" if your genteel self prefers it that way. A violent animal will be violent until it meets its match. No, it is not kind to kill a violent animal. My story would be similar to yours in that I tried to move my violent animal along to someone else. I adopted her from the pound and they told me she had issues. She was house broke but we must work for a living and her anxiety issues dealing with separation issues would cause her to lose her mind. After damaging our doors I provided a 6 X 6 X 6 kennel with a top and a heated dog house for her to stay in when we were not home. I luckily came home early one day finding she had used her teeth to tear the chain link fencing loose and was trying to squeeze through the opening created. This led to the #9 wire being installed at the bottom of the kennel. The last draw was when I started my Harley and she lunged and bit me. My head told me a bullet to the head or an injection from the vet would have been the best result for this animal. But no, being sensible like you I found a farmer with children who would play with her and she would always have someone around. I found out later that the children were throwing a ball and she always liked that game and would be off leash. It ended badly when a Harley passed the farm and she bolted for it. She not only killed herself but also severely injured the motorcycle rider and did a lot of damage to his motorcycle. This is the type of animal you wish to save. Christie Noem had better judgment than I did in the case of a violent animal. I hope someday you might have the opportunity to learn the lesson I did. Not only did my FEELINGS cause a dog to get killed, it caused injury to an innocent out enjoying a ride and destroyed his property, but it also traumatized a farmer's children who probably were not aware of the problems this animal had. The farmer was told that this ordinarily sweet-appearing animal was a Jekyll and Hyde animal which it would have been more merciful to have put down, however, this would have been accomplished. The result was the same with more injuries as the result. Cry your feelings upon someone else. Kristie did the right thing. The community she's from understand what you don't and I did not at the time.
Oh and by the way, I’d vote for my brother Jay’s dog over Noem, because his dog has more sense than many people.
My dog George is a pacifist. But I never hold that against him. And he is quite sensible.
"Neither Cricket nor the goat had to be killed. The reader is left with the impression that Noem killed the animals because she wanted to. Regardless of whether the killings were legal, shooting the animals was a choice and there were other good options that Noem apparently did not try to pursue."
Good riddance. To Noem, not Cricket (R.I.P.).
I am a dog lover to the point where we don’t own one (for the first time in decades), because we are not able to devote the time to properly train and raise a dog. When our rescue Rotty, Molly, passed, we took a break and got a Cockatiel instead. Shooting a dog not in self defense is a choice, and a bad one. May it haunt Noem into political retirement.
Where to begin? As noted Steve, who is dumber? Kristi for doing it, or the publisher/all the others who allowed it to be written?
And, i couldn't help but grab this line: "The dogs were just doing what dogs do." Makes me wonder if that will be the defense used by trump's lawyers when defending/explaining his actions regarding Daniels and McDougal affairs. Seems about right.
The other thing that could be done that wasn't: keep the chickens in a closed area where the dog cannot access them.
Interesting.
The victims (chickens, plural) must accommodate the troublemaker (dog, singular). The alternative would be to deal with the troublemaker so the victims could continue to live their lives without disruption.
Sidebar: I am NOT saying kill the troublemaker. Restrict its movement, a new home, remanded to a permanent kennel, tranquilizing drugs, cut his "misters" off...heck, a lobotomy!...whatever.
Are we not seeing this scenario playing out at Columbia University? The student population is around 36K, per Wikipedia. How many protesters are there? How many are students v paid activists? Instead of dealing with the handful of troublemakers, Columbia asks the other 36K (minus a handful) to accommodate.
The difference, as I see it, is that dealing with troublemakers is difficult and requires backbone. Asking victims to accommodate is generally the easier, less confrontational, path.
Am I wrong?
You're wrong because you're applying rules that apply to humans to animals. It is not comparable.
Dogs bred to hunt birds will hunt birds. It was her responsibility to prevent their interactions, 'cause she's the human - and the best way to do so is to have a chicken run, keeping the chickens in a safe space on her farmland. If she decided that it was too much hassle to build such a structure (fencing) then she should have either put in the effort to train the puppy, or rehomed it.
"Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family..."
Owner of chickens must accommodate owner of crazy dog by building a protected area for the chickens because crazy dog is uncontrollable and dog owner doesn't have the energy or spine to do anything about it.
It is the human's responsibility to train and/or control their animals. My understanding is it was in regards to her own animals: if instead she was visiting someone else's farm and let her dog roam loose - that's her fault, not the dog's. This is basic legal precedent.
The dog was 14 months old: that's not a "crazy" dog, it's an untrained puppy, doing what its breed was bred to do - hunt birds.
"...that's her fault, not the dog's..."
Exactly; we're in agreement.
Mr. MAGA here. Sorry, you're wrong. Violent Animals should be put down, and "killed" if your genteel self prefers it that way. A violent animal will be violent until it meets its match. No, it is not kind to kill a violent animal. My story would be similar to yours in that I tried to move my violent animal along to someone else. I adopted her from the pound and they told me she had issues. She was house broke but we must work for a living and her anxiety issues dealing with separation issues would cause her to lose her mind. After damaging our doors I provided a 6 X 6 X 6 kennel with a top and a heated dog house for her to stay in when we were not home. I luckily came home early one day finding she had used her teeth to tear the chain link fencing loose and was trying to squeeze through the opening created. This led to the #9 wire being installed at the bottom of the kennel. The last draw was when I started my Harley and she lunged and bit me. My head told me a bullet to the head or an injection from the vet would have been the best result for this animal. But no, being sensible like you I found a farmer with children who would play with her and she would always have someone around. I found out later that the children were throwing a ball and she always liked that game and would be off leash. It ended badly when a Harley passed the farm and she bolted for it. She not only killed herself but also severely injured the motorcycle rider and did a lot of damage to his motorcycle. This is the type of animal you wish to save. Christie Noem had better judgment than I did in the case of a violent animal. I hope someday you might have the opportunity to learn the lesson I did. Not only did my FEELINGS cause a dog to get killed, it caused injury to an innocent out enjoying a ride and destroyed his property, but it also traumatized a farmer's children who probably were not aware of the problems this animal had. The farmer was told that this ordinarily sweet-appearing animal was a Jekyll and Hyde animal which it would have been more merciful to have put down, however, this would have been accomplished. The result was the same with more injuries as the result. Cry your feelings upon someone else. Kristie did the right thing. The community she's from understand what you don't and I did not at the time.
I’m going to point out that this scenario is very different than the one Noem described.
Also, the civility warning from the other thread applies.