Maybe we should all be calling, messaging and visiting the lawmakers in congress who are passing bills to protect animals and make punishment stronger. Like H.R.3112 , S.1538 , H.R.1477 , H.R.2253 , Violet’s Law (H.R.3246) , H.R.6513 , among others that seem to get those politicians “brownie points” with their constituents/bases and let them know they are about to be called out as fraudulent and misleading!
Use Ai (artificial intelligence) like Grok and chat gpt and Anthropic.
I run a dog rescue by myself (Wolfpack Rescue) in southern Indiana and am under the gun currently by local officials because it’s not a traditional “caged” rescue like the humane societies. My dogs ruin free on our farm in contained areas. If not for Ai I wouldn’t have made it this far !
Wayne, thank you for your transparency and for keeping the focus where it belongs: on the dogs.
Of the four questions you raise, #4 is the one that demands the most immediate public pressure. The return of seized animals to Ridglan before any court has assessed their disposition isn't just morally wrong; it's a procedural mess. If the state intends to charge burglary or theft, those dogs are evidence. The defense has a right to inspect them. You can't maintain a credible chain of custody by handing evidence back to a party that a Dane County judge has already acknowledged the DA failed to prosecute for criminal abuse. That's not how any of this is supposed to work.
For anyone reading this who wants to help: push hard on the idea of neutral custodianship. Wisconsin law (173.15) allows a political subdivision to contract with any person or organization for the care of animals in custody. The Dane County Humane Society is the obvious choice. It protects the evidentiary record, it protects the dogs, and it removes the absurdity of alleged crime victims serving as evidence lockers for their own alleged crimes.
The legal question and the moral question point in the same direction here. These dogs should not be at Ridglan while this case is pending. Period.
Ridglan is part of a pipeline, not the whole system. As long as that pipeline remains intact, shutting down simply shifts demand elsewhere.
What makes Ridglan so significant is not just what happens on its property, but what it represents — a steady, industrial supply of purpose-bred beagles feeding into laboratories across the country. These dogs are not accidental participants in research; they are bred into it, from birth, to meet demand. That demand is what ultimately drives the entire system.
So if we’re serious about change, the conversation has to expand from “what is happening at Ridglan?” to “who is creating the demand that makes Ridglan possible?”
Because without buyers, there is no breeder.
And that’s where the real leverage is.
The institutions that purchase and use these dogs — universities, contract research organizations, and pharmaceutical companies — are the economic engine behind this pipeline. They are the ones deciding that animal models, including dogs, are still acceptable tools despite the growing availability of alternatives.
That’s why going “upstream” matters. It’s not about ignoring Ridglan — it’s about recognizing that targeting supply without addressing demand is like trying to drain a river without touching the source.
Some of the entities that have been reported as part of this pipeline include organizations like Labcorp, Inotiv, and Elanco — along with academic institutions such as University of Wisconsin–Madison and Illinois Institute of Technology. Private labs like TRS Labs have also been identified as significant purchasers.
These are not fringe actors — they are mainstream, respected institutions. Which is precisely why focusing on them matters.
Pressure at this level changes behavior. It influences funding decisions, research design, and ultimately whether dogs are used at all. When institutions face sustained scrutiny — from the public, from donors, from regulators — they are far more likely to invest in alternatives, reduce animal use, or phase it out entirely.
If the pipeline remains untouched, another Ridglan will always emerge.
If the demand side is challenged, the pipeline itself begins to collapse.
That’s why going after both ends — supply and demand — isn’t just strategic.
Maybe we should all be calling, messaging and visiting the lawmakers in congress who are passing bills to protect animals and make punishment stronger. Like H.R.3112 , S.1538 , H.R.1477 , H.R.2253 , Violet’s Law (H.R.3246) , H.R.6513 , among others that seem to get those politicians “brownie points” with their constituents/bases and let them know they are about to be called out as fraudulent and misleading!
This is a really important direction — putting pressure on lawmakers absolutely matters.
I’m following this closely, but I’m not clear on where I can actually take action in a coordinated and effective way.
Is there a place where I can:
• sign a petition tied specifically to this case
• find verified contact info for the relevant lawmakers or jurisdiction
• send a message or email that is actually helpful
• stay updated on what actions matter most as things move forward
Right now I’m reading and supporting, but I don’t know the best way to turn that into meaningful action.
If something like this already exists, could it be shared or pinned here? Even a simple link or guidance would really help.
Use Ai (artificial intelligence) like Grok and chat gpt and Anthropic.
I run a dog rescue by myself (Wolfpack Rescue) in southern Indiana and am under the gun currently by local officials because it’s not a traditional “caged” rescue like the humane societies. My dogs ruin free on our farm in contained areas. If not for Ai I wouldn’t have made it this far !
dogs seized in legal limbo in Wisconsin fall under WI SS 173.12 and law enforcement should be encouraged to have their abusers release these dogs under that statute https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/173/12
Wayne, thank you for your transparency and for keeping the focus where it belongs: on the dogs.
Of the four questions you raise, #4 is the one that demands the most immediate public pressure. The return of seized animals to Ridglan before any court has assessed their disposition isn't just morally wrong; it's a procedural mess. If the state intends to charge burglary or theft, those dogs are evidence. The defense has a right to inspect them. You can't maintain a credible chain of custody by handing evidence back to a party that a Dane County judge has already acknowledged the DA failed to prosecute for criminal abuse. That's not how any of this is supposed to work.
For anyone reading this who wants to help: push hard on the idea of neutral custodianship. Wisconsin law (173.15) allows a political subdivision to contract with any person or organization for the care of animals in custody. The Dane County Humane Society is the obvious choice. It protects the evidentiary record, it protects the dogs, and it removes the absurdity of alleged crime victims serving as evidence lockers for their own alleged crimes.
The legal question and the moral question point in the same direction here. These dogs should not be at Ridglan while this case is pending. Period.
Great job Wayne. Two Cents:
Ridglan is part of a pipeline, not the whole system. As long as that pipeline remains intact, shutting down simply shifts demand elsewhere.
What makes Ridglan so significant is not just what happens on its property, but what it represents — a steady, industrial supply of purpose-bred beagles feeding into laboratories across the country. These dogs are not accidental participants in research; they are bred into it, from birth, to meet demand. That demand is what ultimately drives the entire system.
So if we’re serious about change, the conversation has to expand from “what is happening at Ridglan?” to “who is creating the demand that makes Ridglan possible?”
Because without buyers, there is no breeder.
And that’s where the real leverage is.
The institutions that purchase and use these dogs — universities, contract research organizations, and pharmaceutical companies — are the economic engine behind this pipeline. They are the ones deciding that animal models, including dogs, are still acceptable tools despite the growing availability of alternatives.
That’s why going “upstream” matters. It’s not about ignoring Ridglan — it’s about recognizing that targeting supply without addressing demand is like trying to drain a river without touching the source.
Some of the entities that have been reported as part of this pipeline include organizations like Labcorp, Inotiv, and Elanco — along with academic institutions such as University of Wisconsin–Madison and Illinois Institute of Technology. Private labs like TRS Labs have also been identified as significant purchasers.
These are not fringe actors — they are mainstream, respected institutions. Which is precisely why focusing on them matters.
Pressure at this level changes behavior. It influences funding decisions, research design, and ultimately whether dogs are used at all. When institutions face sustained scrutiny — from the public, from donors, from regulators — they are far more likely to invest in alternatives, reduce animal use, or phase it out entirely.
If the pipeline remains untouched, another Ridglan will always emerge.
If the demand side is challenged, the pipeline itself begins to collapse.
That’s why going after both ends — supply and demand — isn’t just strategic.
It’s necessary.
Wow, you are really crushing it on this !
Sound morals, sound thinking, sound legal arguments.
You will win - and we will all love it!
And the animals will be grateful in their own ways... (It should never have been done to them in first place!)