And for those trying to defend this by saying some dogs are dangerous and can't be helped, and killing it can be the best out of all the bad options, you are completely missing what makes this story distrubing.
Steps a non-psychopath takes before resorting to killing their dog:
1. Hire professional trainer. If they conclude the dog is untrainable and dangerous, and there is no more that can be done, go to step 2. If money is low and/or time is short, can go straight to step 2.
2. See if someone else wants to give it a try in a new home, fully disclose the issues. Post on craigslist and/or pet adoption websites. If no one is found, go to step 3.
3. Contact a shelter and see if they are willing to try to find it a home after explaining the story. If no, go to step 4.
4. Ask a vet to euthanize the animal in a safe and humane way after explaining the story. Usually the non-psychopath will feel very sad at this point, they gave it their best, but in the end little Cricket just wasn't meant for this world. They will often make the burial of the dog a family event as well.
As far as we can tell, the governer didn't even make it to step one and seemingly felt nothing for the dog (other than a lot of hate, in her own words). On top of that, somehow thought that telling this story in her book was a good idea?!?
There are different cultural attitudes towards dogs: Western, Islamic, Indian. Some Koreans still make soup out of them. Similarly, there are different attitudes towards dogs in rural areas than in suburban homes.
From the AP story, it's a fair assumption KN has trained other dogs to hunt. If not, if someone else did it for her, then yes, she should have sent this one to whomever trained the others as she was willing to spend the money on them, then why not this one. I don't think that was the case though. She has probably trained others and this one may have been viewed as being mentally ill and would never be able to perform the job it was meant for. Again, let's not project our
spare no expense, member of the family attitude upon others. Some just see a dog.
Some cultures would place the life of a dog more on par with that of the chickens, others would place them more on par with that of a human. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who knows? To some, the dog is to perform a job, be it hunting or security. Some cultures wouldn't think of petting a dog or having it in the home. But then others treat them as family members and would spare no expense in maintaining their health and well-being.
To me, the amount of time and money a person wants to spend on a pet, any pet is their concern. Just don't release it and make it society's concern when you've grown bored, it's become an inconvenience, or is too expensive to maintain. I've seen this with horse owners in the western US where feeding a horse can be much more expensive due to the lack of rain. They are in over their heads on the costs. Now what?