That wasn't exactly why, according to the article. This was, apparently, the shittiest attempt at damage control I've ever seen.

But South Dakota Democratic Senate Minority Leader Reynold Nesiba considered the disclosure more calculated than stupid. He said the story has circulated for years among lawmakers that Noem killed a dog in a “fit of anger” and that there were witnesses. He speculated that it was coming out now because Noem is being vetted as a candidate for vice president.

“She knew that this was a political vulnerability, and she needed to put it out there, before it came up in some other venue,” he said. “Why else would she write about it?”

She also writes about shooting a goat the family owned because it was mean to her kids.

She has basically no chance of being Trump's VP now, but this is the level of quality he's looking for in a candidate.

What’s worse, is the story itself. She took the dog on a pheasant hunt for the day, cheering it on while it chased the pheasants and went for the kills. On the way home, she stopped at a friend’s house where the dog attacked their chickens. She then led the dog to a gravel pit and shot it in the head.

It thought it was being a good dog, doing exactly what she was training it to do. She addressed her mistake with murder.

Empathy is not a conservative trait.

The dog thing was horrible, But she also shot and killed a goat because it smelled.
Why did the goat smell?
Because she didn't get it castrated.
She pretends to be a farmer with stories about killing dogs that can't hunt and goats that smell weird, But an actual farmer would have had the goat castrated if they weren't planning on breeding it and they absolutely would have just retrained the dog.

It's like someone watched Ol' Yeller and completely missed the point that he got rabbies and that he was shot because he wasn't trained.

I really hope this ends her career.

I don't think it will. Conservatives are completely fine with killing dogs and cats at whim. The only reason they are backing off a bit here is because it was a puppy and they are having trouble making that look good. They will get over it quickly, though, as they don't actually have anything against killing puppies.

This is all about appearing to take the high-road. In the future, when this is brought up, they will say she was a "strong leader" for doing what needed to be done. Defending her will be seen as a "bold stance" against the "woke PETA mob".

It's not hard to understand at all. There's a couple things at work here: first, humans are terrible at connecting emotionally to long term consequences. That's why a disaster that kills 100 people will always elicit a stronger reaction than a policy that will kill millions.

Another thing happening is how humans subconsciously justify things to themselves. An adult could have "deserved" whatever happened, but there's no way a puppy did.

I think it's dogs tickling the same parts of our brains as kids, which would go towards explaining the similar reactions.

That's how it is. Like it or not, people care a hell of a lot more when a dog dies in a movie than when a person dies.

Inability to be empathetic and kind to animals is a psychopathic trait. People who don't want to and wouldn't hurt humans, wouldn't hurt animals either. But those who want to hurt humans will usually resort to hurting animals because they can get away with it more easily. (especial treatment for small mammals and pets as they are the emotionally closest to us)

The point isnt human vs dog, its direct vs indirect action. People are a lot more disgusted by murderers than the person that put out the hit.