Professional Perspectives: Wisconsin Court Orders Criminal Investigation of Beagle Breeder Ridglan Farms

By Conley Wouters | August 21st, 2025

Introduction and Background

In January 2025, Judge Rhonda Lanford of the Wisconsin Circuit Court appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of animal cruelty against Ridglan Farms, one of two large breeders of research beagles operating in the United States. According to a 23-page opinion accompanying Judge Lanford’s order, Ridglan’s Blue Ridge, Wisconsin facility houses approximately 3,200 beagles. Most Ridglan-bred dogs are sold to other research facilities, though some are used in on-site testing.

In 2017, animal rights activists conducted an undercover investigation at Ridglan. Video footage showed dogs with open wounds; many exhibited abnormal behaviors like “manic barking and spinning.” In its opinion, the court cited the testimony of professor and animal behaviorist Mark Bekoff, who, upon reviewing the footage, concluded that “the dogs were traumatized and suffering unnecessarily and excessively.” Beyond the activists’ discoveries, Ridglan has a long history of animal welfare citations from state and federal agencies.

After unsuccessfully petitioning the Dane County District Attorney to investigate the facility, advocacy groups Dane4Dogs and Alliance for Animals, along with animal activist Wayne Hsiung, petitioned the court to intervene. At an October 2024 hearing, the court was presented with video footage of the facility, testimony of former Ridglan employees, and expert testimony from Professor Bekoff and multiple veterinarians.

Judge Lanford’s opinion was notable for two reasons. First, it situated Ridglan’s alleged abuse within the context of Wisconsin animal welfare laws, which were intended by the legislature to address weaknesses in the federal Animal Welfare Act. Given the dearth of criminal cases in animal research, this framing was striking. Second, the court relied on the petitioners’ extensive evidence of a long history of severe animal abuse.

Crude Surgeries Performed Without Painkillers

The court first turned to the general animal cruelty law, Wis. Stat. § 951.02. The law prohibits “cruel treatment” of an animal, including the infliction of unnecessary suffering or unjustifiable injury. Two allegedly common practices fell under this section: the removal and mutilation of dogs’ “cherry-eye” tissue and vocal cord surgery to render the dogs incapable of barking.

Although these procedures caused excessive pain and bleeding, they were allegedly performed without anesthesia or analgesics by staff who were not veterinarians,  contrary to state law. The court determined that the suffering resulting from the surgeries may amount to a felony violation of Wisconsin’s cruel treatment law. While federal law was not at issue in the proceedings, Ridglan’s recent animal use reports contain no reference to procedures performed without analgesics. Thus, if the former employee allegations are true, the facility may have violated reporting requirements under the Animal Welfare Act. 

Dangerous enclosures and unsanitary conditions

Housing and confinement conditions accounted for four other potential violations of state animal welfare provisions requiring proper shelter, cages that protect the animals from injury, and adequate sanitation and ventilation.

According to a former employee, the dogs were “never taken out of the cages.” Given chronic understaffing, the court estimated that each dog might receive two minutes of human contact per week at most. Hundreds of dogs were in solitary confinement, and dogs in shared cages fought one another. One dog was allegedly killed and cannibalized by others in his cage. Additionally, the wire flooring in the cages allegedly caused serious injuries to dogs’ paws, which frequently went untreated.

Finally, the court found probable cause that the company failed to implement adequate ventilation and sanitation measures. The finding followed testimony and regulatory inspection reports depicting broken drainage systems, cages filled with feces, and excessive ammonia levels from pervasive animal waste.

For its part, Ridglan has denied these allegations. And after the breeder began losing clients, it sued Dane4Dogs and a former employee-whistleblower for tortious interference of contract.

Potential implications and impact

As noted above, Judge Lanford’s finding of probable cause that the breeder “committed multiple criminal violations” of animal cruelty laws is unusual in the context of animal research, where state-based criminal prosecutions remain extremely uncommon. Dr. Edward Taub remains the only American researcher convicted under state animal cruelty laws, and his conviction was ultimately reversed.  

The Ridglan Farms case also arrives during rapid developments in the animal research space and growing concern over lab animal welfare. The National Institutes of Health recently launched an initiative to accelerate the replacement of animal models in federally funded research, part of the Trump administration’s broader push to disincentivize animal testing. Ridglan’s alleged animal cruelty also follows the Department of Justice’s highly publicized release of 4,000 research beagles who were abused and neglected at a breeding facility owned by Envigo RMS. Envigo shut down after it was fined $35 million, the largest penalty ever assessed for violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act.  

Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, Judge Lanford’s opinion highlights evidence of decades of egregious cruelty and immense animal suffering at Ridglan Farms. That alone might catalyze a renewed push for change from those who are working to protect—and eventually replace—animals used in research.

Conley Wouters is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, where he teaches Animal Law and other courses. His current scholarship focuses on rodeo cruelty litigation and legal protections for private security canines. He maintains an active animal law pro bono practice. 

The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Johns Hopkins University or Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.