In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this country, animals can be shot and killed by their owners so long as they obey all other laws in place.

This sounds harsh but it is true. This comes to light this week over the kerfuffle being made about South Dakota’s Republican Governor Kristi Noem and her admission that she shot and killed her 14-month-old dog because it was, in her opinion, threatening and untrainable.

I am not an attorney, but know that owned animals are chattel property under the law. That is, they are moveable property versus real property such as real estate that is immovable. As such, they are no different than your sofa, the example always used in these discussions.

If you don’t like your sofa, you can destroy it. It doesn’t matter how valuable it may be or how much your neighbor covets it, so long as you don’t violate any other laws, you can destroy it. You can’t burn it if there is a burn ban and you can’t throw it in a public waterway; those actions are against the law.

The short statement is you can shoot your dog, you just better be a damn good shot. If you have to, or want to, shoot it a number of times, you could be charged with animal cruelty even if the pooch dies. Similarly, you can’t toss it in the river in a weighted sack or bludgeon it to death with a tire iron. In the waterway instance, you could catch cruelty and illegal dumping charges.

There are a lot of well-meaning people who think this is wrong and that animals should be better protected. And frankly, there are some cracks forming in the law for animals. Some jurisdictions now recognize animals as “special property,” and this provides some additional protections. Others have tried to equate animals to people in proclamations that declare such but carry no legal authority.

In Gov. Noem’s case, there have been howls that she “murdered,” her pet. Nope, murder is defined as, “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.” One can’t murder chattel property; humans are different. Similarly, by definition, we can’t “adopt” a pet either. We can buy it or take ownership of it, but it is not adopted in, “a legal process to recognize the relationship between a parent and their non-biological child.”

Think for a moment if killing an animal was redefined as murder. What then would slaughter plants be doing? Where might this stop? Mice in traps? Insects under foot? You can see the law is clearly demarcated.

The next question is, was Gov. Noem right to kill her dog? I guess, most folks would say, probably not. Let’s leave the political blowback aside and just look at the situation as an isolated act.

Cricket was a juvenile wirehaired pointer, a hunting breed. Hunting breeds raised by nontrainers are known to be rambunctious and full of energy until they settle into a role at about 2 years old. Making terminal decisions about a dog like that is premature, and immature on the owner’s

part. Likely, Gov. Noem and her staff and family simply did not have the time to properly raise and train Cricket. That’s on them, not the pup. There are lots of proper things to do with an unwanted animal like that before the bullets fly.

And the governor’s claim that this is somehow to be accepted because she owns a ranch is proof, the bullet that killed Cricket also went through the governor’s own foot.

Powell is the retired public information officer for Washington State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. This column reflects his thoughts and no longer represents WSU. For questions or concerns about animals you’d like to read about, email charliepowell74@gmail.com.