Ridglan, Rescue, and the Bigger Picture
Recently, there has been a great deal of attention on Ridglan Farms, the Wisconsin facility that bred beagles for research and also conducted research involving dogs. That attention has brought out deep emotion, as it should. Any time thousands of dogs are at the center of a story like this, people are going to feel grief, anger, hope, urgency, and relief all at once.
But emotion cannot be the only thing guiding this movement.
There has also been misinformation, inaccurate reporting, exaggerated claims, and a growing divide between people who should be working toward the same goal. In some spaces, the conversation has become less about the animals and more about who gets to be seen as the hero. That does not help the dogs. It does not help the next group of animals waiting behind closed doors. It does not help the sanctuaries and rescues doing quiet, difficult work every day.
So let me say this clearly at the beginning, because I know not everyone will read to the end:
Kindness Ranch is thrilled that roughly 2,000 beagles from Ridglan now have the chance to experience freedom, safety, and loving homes. We celebrate that. We support that. We will never back away from that.
At the same time, we have serious concerns about some of the methods used, the misinformation being shared, and the precedent set when animals are purchased from the very systems we are trying to change.
Those two things can be true at the same time.
Ridglan Farms had been the subject of investigations, citations, public pressure, and legal action. Reporting has stated that the facility agreed in 2025 to surrender its Wisconsin license to breed and sell dogs for research by July 1, 2026, as part of an agreement that allowed it to avoid criminal charges. It is important to be accurate here: that original agreement was not the same thing as a full, immediate release of every dog, and reports at the time stated that Ridglan could still continue some research operations.
That distinction matters, because accuracy matters.
In March 2026, a group of people entered the facility and removed dogs. Public reporting says protesters broke in and took 30 dogs, with 63 people later referred for potential charges connected to that incident. In April, a much larger group arrived at Ridglan with the stated intention of removing dogs from the facility, and law enforcement responded with arrests and use of force.
On the same day as the March incident, I was giving a talk at Denver Law School. I was asked why I thought the Ridglan situation was not receiving the same level of national attention as Envigo. My answer then was that larger media outlets may have viewed it as a liability to promote conduct that many people would understand as breaking and entering or theft, regardless of the intent behind it.
I stand by that answer.
A month later, the situation escalated again. Many people described themselves as nonviolent protesters. Others said they were there to negotiate. But the reality is that the public conversation quickly became about force, confrontation, and spectacle. That kind of attention may create momentum in the short term, but it can also make facilities more fearful, more secretive, and less willing to work with outside organizations.
Then came the news that 1,500 dogs had been purchased for release. Suddenly, the story received far more media attention. And while those dogs’ release is absolutely worth celebrating, the way that release happened created a new and serious concern. Big Dog Ranch Rescue and the Center for a Humane Economy negotiated a confidential agreement to purchase approximately 1,500 dogs from Ridglan for an undisclosed amount. Later, Big Dog Ranch Rescue announced an agreement involving the remaining dogs and Ridglan’s permanent closure.
Again, we are grateful those dogs are getting out.
But we cannot ignore what it means when a facility that has been cited for hundreds of alleged violations is able to generate revenue from the same dogs at the center of those concerns. Reporting on DATCP records stated that Ridglan was cited for 308 counts of mistreating dogs and three counts of failing to perform required daily health checks, with proposed fines and fees of more than $55,000.
When rescue groups purchase animals from a facility like that, even for compassionate reasons, it can send a dangerous message to the rest of the industry: animals can be monetized on the way in, monetized during their use, and monetized again on the way out.
That is the precedent we are worried about.
This is one of the clearest differences between Ridglan and Envigo.
Envigo was shut down. The Department of Justice secured the surrender of more than 4,000 beagles from Envigo’s Cumberland, Virginia facility in 2022. Envigo later pleaded guilty in connection with Animal Welfare Act and Clean Water Act violations, and its parent company was required to guarantee more than $35 million in payments, including a record fine in an Animal Welfare Act case.
There was accountability. There was a legal process. There was a coordinated transfer plan. There was national rescue support.
With Ridglan, the path has been far more complicated. Dogs are being released, and that matters deeply. But the purchase of those dogs also creates a model that other breeders and research facilities may now try to follow.
For nearly 20 years, since our founding, Kindness Ranch has never paid for an animal to be released to us. That is not because we do not value those animals. It is because we do.
We believe the money raised for animals coming out of research should go toward their veterinary care, rehabilitation, transport, staffing, enrichment, behavioral support, and lifelong needs. It should not go back into the system that profited from them in the first place.
Our approach has always been nonadversarial. That does not mean passive. It does not mean silent. It does not mean we accept animal testing as ethical or necessary. It means we understand the reality we are working within.
Animal testing is still legal in the United States. That is a fact. We do not have to agree with it. We do not have to defend it. But we do have to understand it if we want to change it and if we want facilities to trust us enough to release animals instead of euthanizing them, selling them, or keeping them hidden.
Kindness Ranch has spent years building relationships with research facilities, universities, breeders, and industry partners. Those relationships are not always comfortable. They are not always simple. But they have allowed us to secure the release of thousands of dogs, cats, and other animals, bring them to sanctuary, rehabilitate them, and place many of them into loving homes.
That work happens because of trust.
Trust is slow to build and quick to destroy.
Our collaboration does not prevent us from raising awareness. In fact, it allows us to do it more effectively.
Because when we bring animals out, we do more than just receive them. We show the public who these animals are after the research ends. We show that they are not data points. They are not inventory. They are not disposable. They are dogs who learn to sleep on couches, cats who learn to trust hands, and animals who discover sunshine, soft beds, toys, routines, and families.
That is powerful advocacy.
It gives people a living, breathing reason to care. It gives lawmakers a reason to listen. It gives researchers and institutions a humane pathway forward. It gives facilities a way to do the right thing without feeling that cooperation will be used as a weapon against them.
Recently, we have also begun working toward agreements where grant funding follows the animals to help cover the cost of care and rehabilitation. That is the direction this field should be moving. Facilities should be responsible for helping fund the transition of the animals they used or bred. Rescues and sanctuaries should not be expected to absorb every cost, and we should not be asked to purchase animals from systems we are trying to change.
That is not sustainable. It is not ethical. And it is not the future we should be building.
There is a lot of discussion right now in the animal testing world about what Ridglan’s exit from large scale breeding for sale operations will mean for the industry. The concern is real. Ridglan was described by the Animal Welfare Institute as one of two remaining U.S. breeders of beagles for research. When a major supplier leaves a marketplace, demand does not simply disappear. Supply shifts. Gaps open. And when gaps open, people look for ways to profit from them.
That is where we need to be careful.
When one large source closes, the industry may not shrink in a clean, predictable way. It may splinter. Smaller breeders may emerge. Existing suppliers may become more guarded. Facilities may tighten their contracts. They may become more restrictive about what happens to animals after research. They may decide that release to rescue is too risky. They may choose silence over transparency.
That is the danger.
Many breeding organizations already have agreements with the facilities that purchase their animals. Those agreements can influence what happens to the animals after research is complete. Even when those agreements are not clearly enforceable, violating them can have consequences. A facility that releases animals against a breeder’s expectations may be blacklisted from future purchases. That can push facilities toward less transparent sources and make it even harder for outside organizations to help.
So we have to ask hard questions.
How will new breeders operate in this environment?
How will the remaining suppliers protect themselves from public scrutiny?
How much more secrecy will be built into contracts, transfers, and post-research outcomes?
What legal protections will companies with significant resources put in place so they can continue operating while avoiding public accountability?
And we cannot forget this: animal testing remains legal.
According to USDA APHIS FY2024 data, 42,880 dogs were used or held for use in research, testing, teaching, experimentation, or surgery under Animal Welfare Act reporting. That number does not include every animal used in research, and it does not include mice and rats bred for research, who make up the vast majority of animals used in laboratories.
That is why this conversation has to be bigger than one facility.
The demand remains high because alternatives to animal testing are not being funded, incentivized, and adopted quickly enough. New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs, include human-based in vitro systems, computer modeling, organ-on-chip platforms, and other tools that can reduce or replace animal use while improving human-relevant science. The FDA has recently issued guidance and resources around NAMs and alternatives to animal testing in drug development, which shows that the conversation is moving, but it needs far more support and urgency.
The path forward must be twofold.
We need to fund and incentivize nonanimal methods so they become practical, accessible, trusted, and widely used. At the same time, we need to strengthen laws and policies that protect animals currently used in research, require meaningful post-research adoption pathways, and phase out animal testing wherever better methods exist.
That is how we create lasting change.
Not through hero worship.
Not through public shaming.
Not through tearing down organizations that are working in different ways toward the same goal.
And I want to be very blunt here: I believe the next testing facility or breeding facility I approach about releasing animals will ask me how much we are willing to pay.
That is the consequence we are worried about.
When that happens, I will tell them what I have always said. Kindness Ranch does not pay for animals to be released to us. We do not believe in paying into the system we are trying to protect animals from. We believe those funds are better spent on veterinary care, rehabilitation, transport, staff, outreach, and long-term support.
And they may say no.
They may deny the release.
They may decide to keep the animals, sell them elsewhere, or choose another option entirely.
And I will spend the rest of my life wondering what might have happened if the precedent had been different.
At the same time, I will celebrate every Ridglan dog who is now sleeping in a safe place. I will support the adopters and fosters trying to help them through fear, shutdown, confusion, and all the challenges that come with life after confinement. I will offer guidance where we can. I will answer questions. I will root for every single one of those dogs.
Even when I disagree with the methods, I can still celebrate the lives saved.
That is what I am asking others to do as well.
The next time you are at your keyboard, ready to type a comment about how one organization is better than another, or how someone is not doing enough, or how someone went too far, stop for a moment.
Take a breath.
Step away from the screen.
Take your dog for a walk. Call a friend. Say out loud what is probably underneath all of it: “I wish we could do more.”
Because that is what most of us want.
We want to do more.
We want fewer animals to suffer.
We want better science.
We want stronger laws.
We want facilities to release animals instead of hiding them.
We want dogs and cats and every other animal used in research to have a life beyond a cage.
So find the organization that reflects your values. Support them. Volunteer. Donate. Share their work. Help them become stronger. Use your energy to build something instead of shaming someone else for choosing a different path.
This movement needs many approaches. It needs legal advocacy. It needs legislative work. It needs rescue partners. It needs sanctuaries. It needs scientists developing alternatives. It needs adopters and fosters. It needs people willing to have hard conversations behind closed doors. It needs people willing to show up publicly. It needs all of us.
What it does not need is cruelty toward one another.
You cannot claim empathy for animals while shaming every person who does not express that empathy exactly the way you do. Public infighting does not move the mission forward. It widens the gaps between people who should be working together.
If you and I both want to protect animals from research, and you focus on public pressure while I focus on negotiated release, we are not enemies.
If you and I both want a dog to leave a facility and find a loving home, and one person celebrates the outcome while another questions the precedent, we are not enemies.
We are people trying to solve the same heartbreaking problem from different angles.
Kindness Ranch will continue to do what we have always done. We will build trust. We will negotiate releases. We will rehabilitate animals. We will place them in homes when we can and give sanctuary when they need it. We will raise awareness. We will support the development and adoption of nonanimal methods. We will advocate for a future where animals are no longer used this way.
We will do that without paying for animals.
We will do it without shaming others.
We will do it with the belief that collaboration, not division, is the only way forward.
This movement has no room for hero worship. It will take all of us, not one person and not one organization.
This movement has no room for hate.
It has room for courage. It has room for honesty. It has room for disagreement. It has room for compassion.
And it must have room for collaboration.