Earlier this week, Rise for Animals and The Marty Project filed another formal complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) — this time, urging the federal agency to cooperate with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) to investigate whether Ridglan Farms has violated the federal Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) in ways not previously documented by the USDA.

As we previously reported, DATCP is preparing to charge Ridglan with 311 violations of state regulations for 311 separate instances in which it harmed dogs in its care either through unlawful neglect or veterinary malpractice. 

DATCP’s action stems from Ridglan’s state-issued dog breeding license and does not, on its face, directly implicate its federally-issued Class A breeding license.

But that’s exactly why our new complaint matters.

Ridglan’s federal Class A breeder license is governed by the AWA — a federal law that, in Congress’s own words, was enacted to “insure that animals intended for use in research facilities . . . are provided with humane care and treatment.” 

And, it turns out that the federal regulations implementing the AWA closely mirror the Wisconsin regulations cited by DATCP. 

This means that if Ridglan violated state regulations — as DATCP is now alleging — it likely violated federal regulations, as well.

Consider the following:

1. For the dogs with untreated injuries:
   • State regulations require daily “body, mobility, and behavior” checks.
   • Federal regulations require the daily assessment of ”health and well-being.”
2. For the dogs subjected to cherry eye surgery by untrained personnel without anesthesia or pain relief:
   • State regulations require handling “as carefully as practicable and in a humane manner that does not cause physical or unnecessary injury.”
   • Federal regulations (here and here) require:
     • Handling “as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma . . . . physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort”; 
     • The use of “appropriate methods to prevent, control, diagnose, and treat diseases and injuries”;
     • The availability of appropriate personnel; 
     • Adequate guidance for personnel “involved in the care and use of animals regarding handling . . . anesthesia, analgesia….”; and
     • “Adequate pre-procedural and post-procedural care in accordance with established veterinary medical and nursing procedures.”

It seems plain that DATCP’s findings place Ridglan’s transgressions squarely within the purview of the USDA’s enforcement authority — authority that the agency has the direction to wield.

Moreover, federal law explicitly authorizes the USDA to cooperate directly with state authorities, like DATCP: 

The [USDA] is authorized to cooperate with the officials of the various States or political subdivisions thereof in carrying out the purposes of [the AWA] and of any State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance on the same subject.

And, that’s exactly what we’re calling on the USDA to do now.

🔎 Read our full complaint to the USDA

Share this article on X or Bluesky.
Or copy, paste, and share this link anywhere else:
riseforanimals.org/news/usda-complaint