Judge: Let special prosecutor decide if Ridglan Farms committed crimes

Dane County dog facility will be investigated for possible violations of animal cruelty laws

by

A Dane County judge has ordered the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the possible filing of criminal charges against a controversial dog breeding and research facility in the town of Blue Mounds.

​​”The Court finds probable cause exists that Ridglan Farms, Inc., has committed multiple criminal violations of Wis. Stat. § 951, and the Court also finds the Dane County District Attorney has refused to issue a complaint related to these allegations,” concluded Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Lanford, in a 23-page filing this morning. “The Court will exercise its authority…to ensure the important societal interests protected by Wis. Stat. § 951 are properly served.”

Lanford’s decision and order sided with a trio of petitioners who asked the court to invoke a state law that allows judges to appoint a special prosecutor in cases where a district attorney “refuses or is unavailable to issue a complaint” if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. She said the petitioners — the local animal rights groups Dane4Dogs Ltd. and Alliance for Animals, and individual petitioner Wayne Hsiung, a San Francisco-based activist — had met this burden of proof.

“Petitioners have shown that there is probable cause to believe that Ridglan has committed crimes under Wisconsin’s animal cruelty laws, and the district attorney has failed to issue a complaint or commence an investigation into Ridglan’s conduct,” the ruling states. “Based on the entirety of the record, the Court grants Petitioners’ Petition to appoint a special prosecutor.”

Ridglan Farms did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hsiung and two others were charged with felony burglary and felony theft, and faced up to 16 years in prison for entering Ridglan Farms in April 2017, taking video evidence of the conditions, and removing three beagles, all later placed in homes. But in March 2024, 10 days before their trial was set to begin, the Dane County District Attorney's Office dismissed the charges, over the objections of Hsiung and another defendant, because “the victims in this case,” Ridglan Farms, had purportedly received death threats and no longer wanted the matter to go to trial. A Sheriff’s Office report obtained by Isthmus documented a single instance in which a death threat was made but not seriously investigated.

Lanford’s order follows an Oct. 23 hearing that included gruesome testimony from two former employees at the facility in southwestern Dane County, where more than 3,000 beagles are kept in tiny cages in windowless buildings. Both said they witnessed dogs being subjected to painful procedures by non-veterinary staff without pre-surgery anesthesia or post-surgery pain medication. Also testifying were veterinarians who said these procedures — to remove protruding eye glands and to cut out vocal cords — amounted to “mutilation” and were clearly contrary to veterinary practice and a violation of law.

One of the ex-employees, Scott Gilbertson, said he would hold dogs “as tight as I could so they wouldn’t wriggle around” while a coworker cut off the eye gland with a pair of scissors in what is known as cherry eye removal surgery. “Immediately afterwards, the dog would be thrashing around in pain, often yelping and crying out. And then we’d just put them back in the cage,” Gilbertson testified. Also afterwards, “there would usually be a puddle [of blood] on the floor, a pretty good-sized puddle.”

Lanford’s ruling recounts this testimony in detail, along with testimony that the dogs were never removed from their cages and that state inspectors had found dogs at the facility “displaying prominent stereotypical behaviors; such as: circling, pacing, and wall bouncing,” as well as evidence that Ridglan Farms violated standards regarding sanitation, ventilation and enclosures.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Lanford asked the petitioners to file a brief outlining why the appointment of a special prosecutor was warranted, and why Ridglan Farms should face potential criminal prosecution for violations of the state’s animal cruelty laws, based on the testimony presented. They submitted a 33-page filing on Nov. 8.

The filing documents the efforts by animal rights activists over the years to get Dane County authorities to look into bringing criminal charges against Ridglan Farms. It argued that the evidence presented at the hearing “far surpasses the probable cause threshold” required for the appointment of a special prosecutor. It invokes “the scale, seriousness, and persistence of Ridglan’s offenses, and the public interest in enforcing laws to protect animals who cannot speak for themselves.”

At a hearing on Sept. 12, Ozanne told the court that the appointment of a special prosecutor was premature since he had not received a criminal referral from law enforcement in the matter. The post-hearing filing notes that this is not a requirement under the statute regarding the appointment of an outside prosecutor.

Lanford, in her ruling, noted testimony from Hsiung that he “has contacted the Dane County District Attorney’s office and provided video and documentary evidence of the conditions at Ridglan at least seven separate times,” and that the office had received nearly 1,000 separate emails urging the DA’s office to investigate Ridglan Farms for violations of the state’s animal cruelty laws.

She also found that “the evidence shows District Attorney Ozanne and his office failed to take any action with regard to the allegations made against Ridglan, despite the petitioner’s video and photographic proof and multiple reports from state and federal agencies documenting Ridglan’s abuse. On that basis, the Court finds District Attorney Ozanne and his office have refused to issue a complaint as that term is understood” under the relevant state statute.

Ozanne, in response to a request for comment from Isthmus, reiterated in a written statement that no law enforcement agency had referred the matter to his office for criminal charges. “I am unaware of any criminal investigation of the activities at Ridgeland [sic] Farms," he wrote. "Several members of the community have sent my office paperwork and other information regarding these issues, and I have consistently referred these individuals to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.”

In business since 1966, Ridglan Farms provides “purpose bred” beagles to researchers across the country, including UW-Madison. Beagles are researchers’ dogs of choice, due to their docile and trusting nature. A recent state inspection report found the facility had 3,200 dogs and just 16 full-time employees, three of whom are assigned primarily to provide “daily positive human contact and/or socialization.” It also does on-site research involving these dogs.

State and federal inspectors have identified recurring problems at Ridglan Farms, including noise, isolation, injuries to paws caused by coated wire flooring, and fecal buildup. The state inspections are conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), which has the authority to suspend the license of a facility when there is “evidence that an act of animal cruelty” has occurred.

Asked in early October what action DATCP has taken regarding these persistent violations, agency spokesperson Sam Go told Isthmus: “The matter has been referred to our compliance team for assessment and decisions on next steps.” But in early December, in response to an open records request, DATCP stated that it had no records to document any such referral and nothing to show that its “compliance team” had done any sort of assessment or made any decisions about what it should do.

On Dec. 16, DATCP notified Isthmus that, while no records to this effort existed before, “there may now be responsive public records in existence.” A new records request was filed that day but no records have yet been provided. Jacob D. Baer, a records and forms management specialist with DATCP’s Office of Legal Counsel, said earlier this week that the agency is working on it.

According to Lanford’s ruling, “Petitioners submitted multiple DATCP reports dating from October 2016 wherein Ridglan is cited for various violations and directed to make changes in how its animals are housed and cared for. The most recent DATCP report, dated September 16, 2024, was created during a follow-up inspection necessitated by Ridglan’s ongoing unaddressed violations, and the report itself noted still more violations.”

Dane4Dogs and the Alliance for Animals were represented in the petition proceeding by attorney Kristin Schrank of Muskego, Wis. Additionally, Dane4Dogs was represented by attorney Steffen Seitz with the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law. Hsiung represented himself.

“When you cage thousands of dogs in a warehouse, never let them outside, and provide them essentially no social interaction, all in order to sell them to animal experimenters for profit, cruelty is baked into the business model,” Seitz said in a statement issued this morning. “Dogs should be home with family, not locked in cages or treated like test tubes.”

Ridglan Farms’ closest competitor in terms of size, a Virginia-based operation called Envigo, was shut down in 2022 after being cited for multiple serious violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act; most of its 4,000 beagles were placed in homes across the country. In June 2024, Envigo agreed to pay a $35 million fine, the largest ever for an animal welfare case.

There have been two other instances in recent years in which §968.02(3), the state statute allowing for the appointment of a special prosecutor, has been sought in animal welfare cases. In 2010, Dane County Judge Amy Smith found probable cause that nine researchers and officials at UW-Madison had violated animal cruelty laws and appointed a special prosecutor to investigate. But that prosecutor, David Geier, ultimately did not find that those employees broke the law.

And in November 2023, Dane County Judge Nia Trammell found probable cause that a primate research center at UW-Madison broke animal cruelty laws, but declined to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges. She said “it would be difficult for any prosecutor to meet their burden of proof and obtain a conviction.”

Lanford, in her ruling, seems to suggest she believed that, in this case, doing so was a distinct possibility.

“Based on [the] evidence, the Court finds probable cause that Ridglan, through its employees, committed a felony violation of the animal cruelty statutes by having caused ‘unnecessary and excessive pain or suffering’ by mutilating dogs’ eye glands and vocal flaps, and that their actions were not within ‘normal and accepted veterinary practices,’ constituting a violation of Wis. Stat. § 951.01(2).” This is a Class I felony punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and/or up to three years and six months in prison.

She ordered the appointment of a special prosecutor “as soon as is practicable,” saying the court would first seek assistance from other counties’ district attorneys or state assistant attorneys general. “Should the Court be unable to appoint a special prosecutor from that pool, it shall appoint a private attorney.”

[Editor's note: This story was updated with a statement from Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, who responded to a request for comment after the story posted.]