If the Government Won’t Rescue the Ridglan Dogs, We Will

Three thousand laboratory dogs face torture and death. A shocking legal filing shows the need for citizens to act.

The government left Julie to die at Ridglan Farms. She was just a 1-year-old puppy at a research facility where inspectors documented horrific abuses. Something at the facility caused Julie to go blind. But despite their findings, government officials did nothing to help Julie or the other dogs. Desperate to escape, Julie would spin endlessly in her 2’ x 4’ metal cage, leaving her paws red and raw.

If her blindness were discovered, she would almost certainly be killed as a “defective” dog. But I led a team of ordinary people (including a teacher, a roofer, and a music therapist) to rescue her, and bring her to a loving family instead.

Now the government plans to leave thousands more beagles to die at Ridglan in conditions that have been condemned by a Wisconsin judge as criminal abuse. The reason, quite simply, is corruption. A local prosecutor conceded, in a legal filing, that his refusal to act was based in part on improper influence by the industry. As a result, despite overwhelming evidence of cruelty, Ridglan will continue operating for at least 6 months, sending thousands more dogs to their deaths.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way for us to save the dogs is for citizens to head to Wisconsin and just start rescuing them ourselves.

I’ll be organizing legal briefings on Saturdays for anyone who can join (or support) the effort to rescue the Ridglan dogs. RSVP for the next meeting and see our plan here.

Paul, a roofer, joined us in rescuing Julie.

The Thirty-Year Cover-up

Thousands of dogs have been sent to gruesome deaths at Ridglan Farms. The list of abuses documented at the facility over the years resembles a horror movie: beagles having their vocal cords ripped out; puppies injected with rabies; and even a sickly newborn thrown alive for disposal into a freezer bag.

But what is even more shocking is that the government has known about abuses like these for at least 30 years—but refused to do anything to help. In 1995, the government’s internal watchdog, the Inspector General (IG), condemned the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for covering up violations of law. The IG noted that the USDA, which has the legal right (and responsibility) to inspect all animal research and breeding facilities, “generally accommodated facility operators who… refused [USDA] inspectors access to their facilities.” Instead of penalizing violations, moreover, the USDA bizarrely asserted that it “cannot assess monetary penalties for violations unless the violator agrees to pay them.” Follow-up reports by the IG in 2005 and 2014 showed that things were not getting better, with penalties for violations of animal cruelty laws described as “basically meaningless.” Animal abusers were treated, not as law-breakers, but as the government’s partners in crime.

Ridglan was one of the facilities where this “meaningless” enforcement led to horrifying results. When we infiltrated the facility, we saw hundreds of animals traumatized by filthy conditions and a lifetime in a cage. Though the government ignored the abuse when we reported it, we had a stroke of good fortune when prosecutors charged us with felonies for rescuing Julie and two other dogs. We thought the attention from our prosecution would expose the cover-up and force the government to justify its support for animal abuse.

Rows of caged dogs at Ridglan.

That is exactly what happened. Due to public outrage, the government went from prosecuting us to prosecuting Ridglan in the span of less than a year. It all culminated in an October 2025 agreement between Ridglan and a special prosecutor, i.e., a “stipulation,” to shut down its breeding operation in exchange for the dismissal of all criminal charges.

A Corrupt Stipulation

What the government did not say, however, is that the cover-up continues. The 3000 dogs remaining at Ridglan will still be subjected to torture until July 2026. Worse yet, there is nothing to prevent Ridglan from simply rebranding its operation under another corporate entity and continuing the abuse. When we pointed this out to the special prosecutor, La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, he ignored our concern and claimed (incorrectly) that there was nothing more he could do to help the dogs.

Indeed, the special prosecutor’s only legal filing in the case, which explains his refusal to charge Ridglan or rescue the dogs, is such poor work—filled with errors and misspellings—that I laughed out loud when I read it for the first time. Perhaps its most shocking revelation, however, is that Gruenke, the prosecutor tasked with investigating Ridglan, never actually did any real investigative work.

“Consideration was given for the need for additional investigation,” Gruenke writes. But this “became unnecessary when Ridglan attorneys agreed to provide any records requested.” Judge Rhonda Lanford expressly instructed him to “investigat[e]… Ridglan Farms.” But Gruenke refused to do the job he was ordered to do. He decided, like the USDA, to treat an animal abuser as his partner in crime instead.

Prosecutor Tim Gruenke claimed there was “no credible evidence” that would justify rescuing the dogs but failed to say that he did no investigation.

Glaring Conflicts of Interest

But it gets worse. Gruenke repeatedly ignored our request for him to speak to witnesses and representatives of the victims about the facts of the case, as he is required by the Wisconsin Constitution. But he had plenty of time to speak to, not just Ridglan’s representatives, but someone else: “Gruenke spoke to farmers and other business owners in La Crosse County, and many of them helped add context to the case,” his filing states.

This is a violation of bar rules and Wisconsin law. The La Crosse County “farmers and business owners” had no information about the Ridglan case, which was unfolding in a completely different jurisdiction, Dane County. Moreover, the farming industry, of which Ridglan is a part, has an adversarial interest to the victims and advocates who brought the prosecution. (Among other things, that industry tried to put me in prison for exposing the misconduct at Ridglan in my prior criminal case.)

Gruenke should have avoided all contact with these adversarial interests, under the rules of legal ethics, and withdrawn from the case if he could not avoid such contacts. Indeed, improperly acting on behalf of a special interest, rather than the public or victims, is a crime. That is why two separate judges recused themselves in my recent Utah rescue trial: they had too many contacts with the farming industry to maintain neutrality. But Gruenke did the opposite: he sought improper contacts then failed to disclose these conflicts of interest until filing his final report.¹

The Quintessential Right to Rescue

There is a silver lining. As a result of the pressure we’ve placed on the government, multiple state agencies have been forced to acknowledge the truth: animals at Ridglan are being criminally abused. The Department of Agriculture recently found at least 308 additional felony counts of animal abuse beyond the allegations we presented in court in 2024. The Veterinary Examining Board suspended the company vet’s license for allowing illegal surgeries without anesthesia. Even Gruenke concedes that Ridglan was engaged in felony cruelty for mutilating defenseless pups.

Circumstances such as these are what the right to rescue was designed for. When the government refuses to act, the people must. Indeed, the animal rights movement’s experience over the last 30 years shows that the government will never act against powerful industries unless the people do.

The question that remains, then, is what the people will do. In 2017, six people made our choice. We walked into Ridglan Farms, even as alarms went off and security trucks came roaring up the driveway, and we took Julie out of her cage. When I watched this little blind puppy jumping in joy in the weeks after the rescue, I knew what we did was right.

In 2026, we need more people to make the same choice. The vivisection industry could not be more vulnerable, with bipartisan outrage rising, including a powerful condemnation of animal testing by RFK Jr. on December 20. The legal defense of rescue could not be stronger, given the overwhelming evidence of abuse and government inaction. And, most importantly, the need for rescue could not be more urgent.

Right now, there is a dog trapped in a cage and days from a horrific death. We cannot say precisely what her fate will be: poisoned, injected with a deadly pathogen, or perhaps simply thrown away into a landfill. But we know that, if enough ordinary people step up to join the rescue effort, we can get her and every other dog out of Ridglan into a loving home.

I hope you’ll join us. Thousands of lives are at stake. But together, we can save them all.

1. Imagine the California prosecutors who put animal rescuer Zoe Rosenberg in jail sitting down with her friends and allies while ignoring the industry witnesses who complained about her conduct. The industry would be rightly outraged by this bias.