Last night we took two steps to protect the hundreds of dogs who remain at Ridglan Farms
Last night we filed two documents in our appeal on behalf of the beagle dogs and puppies at Ridglan Farms: our opening brief explaining why we should win the appeal and a request for a temporary injunction to prohibit medically unnecessary euthanasia while the appeal is pending.
Some background. Earlier this year, we filed a habeas corpus petition (a legal mechanism to protect against illegal confinement) on behalf of the beagles asking the Circuit Court for Dane County to recognize their legal right to be free from cruelty and to remove them from conditions that violated Wisconsin’s anti-cruelty law. The petition included hundreds of pages of evidence of systemic animal cruelty at the facility, including another judge finding probable cause that Ridglan had violated anti-cruelty laws. However, the circuit court dismissed our case, stating that habeas corpus is categorically unavailable to animals. We appealed.
While the appeal has been pending, a worldwide mobilization succeeded in motivating Ridglan to sell approximately 1,500 dogs to other organizations as it winds down its operation. That effort was extraordinary and we are very relieved to see those dogs being rescued.
However, several hundred dogs remain unaccounted for, and we have not received a straight answer about their status. Ridglan has a documented history of killing dogs for business reasons—its own internal animal care and use committee has acknowledged “occasional culling of retired breeders, dogs that have traits which render them unsellable” and killing dogs to “even out sex ratios.” The special prosecutor who investigated Ridglan acknowledged that euthanasia “for economic reasons” is a “reality” of the business model, but Wisconsin’s anti-cruelty law prohibits causing unnecessary death. So last night we filed the temporary injunction to make sure these remaining dogs are not subjected to unnecessary euthanasia in violation of the anti-cruelty law while our case proceeds.
Will courts use their common law authority to protect dogs and puppies from unlawful cruelty, or is prejudice against nonhuman beings so strong that even this modest recognition of legal rights will be withheld?
At the same time, our opening brief for the appeal explains why the beagles deserve to win their appeal. Our groundbreaking “freedom from cruelty” argument is straightforward: the law gives animals a legally protected interest to be free from cruelty, habeas corpus exists to provide relief from unlawful confinement when no other remedy is available, and courts have a constitutional responsibility to develop the common law to meet the needs of a changing society. Therefore, courts can and should protect animals from cruel and illegal confinement through the use of habeas corpus.
This is the first time any court has been asked to extend habeas corpus based on violations of a state’s anti-cruelty law. The argument is a direct response to courts that have denied our claims on behalf of elephants and chimpanzees in part because no cruelty was alleged. Now, we are putting that very question to the test: will courts use their common law authority to protect dogs and puppies from unlawful cruelty, or is prejudice against nonhuman beings so strong that even this modest recognition of legal rights will be withheld?
The rescue of 1,500 beagles from Ridglan is a great victory. But it should not have required a global activist campaign and a private purchase to accomplish what the justice system should be doing on its own: protecting animals from unlawful cruelty. Our appeal aims to close this enforcement gap, to protect the beagles that remain at Ridglan, and to ensure that a court may act next time animals are suffering from illegal cruelty.
We will keep you updated as this case progresses.
Thank you for your support.