Assaulted and some of them even
killed and yeah
doesn't get much attention and that
just is it is
where it is
Seems out of whack sometimes.
No, I hear what you're saying.
La Crosse County District Attorney
Tim Greenke joins us now
and thanks very much for being here.
So why did you seek this resolution
with Ridgeland Farms?
Well, the conclusion I came to
is that I could charge one
of the types
of things that I was referred to by
the judge in Dane County, and
I was going to charge that.
But charging that would only have
started a process that probably
would have taken six months
to a year to get to trial.
There were some issues that could
have been appealed.
So charging it would have just been
the start of a process.
When the farm offered to
close down in exchange of charging.
I thought that was a good outcome
because even if I had charged and
convicted them, I still had no
authority to pose them down.
And the fines that they had been
charged with as well, they could
have just paid and kept on running.
So I thought them ending the
business is what most people wanted
and it's more than I could do by
charging and it would happen much
quicker than me charging.
So I felt that was good resolution
to have them agree to
end their business in exchange for
not charging a crime.
So the resolution
effectively closes down the
operation because I thought that
under the deal they'd still be able
to maintain their own
research on remaining animals.
Correct, there's two parts of the
business.
The part where they do their own
research, I was never part of, I had
no authority over them.
The judge didn't involve that
in the appointment of my
special prosecution.
So that was an issue I had no
control over from the start.
So whether they continue on or don't
is up to them.
And I had, I have no control over
it. The only control I had was on
the breeding part, which
is the part they agreed to shut
down.
And that's as far as my authority
could take me.
Do you have any idea how
many dogs are still at
Ridgeland farms and would
Wisconsin statutes render
Ridgelands immune from any
future prosecution based on
what they're doing there being
researched?
Um, well, the first question, I
don't know how many dogs are there
currently.
Um, I'm not keeping up to date
with them on a daily basis.
I'm relying on the state agencies
to confirm at
some point before July 1st that
they're, uh, surrounding their
license and they're out of their
business. So if they did anything
after that, they'd be doing it
without a license and could be
prosecuted.
Federal law and the state law exempt
research facilities and research
on animals from the animal cruelty
law. So if they are
doing research on dogs
under the federal grant of authority
under the USDA, the
state statutes exempt that from
prosecution.
So that's why I never had any
authority over them and wouldn't in
the future if they continue testing
on animals.
Did this week's sale and release
of 1,500 of the
Beagles there come as a surprise to
you?
When we negotiated this last
fall, the idea always was
that they would be
closing down.
And as that process went
on, they would be getting
rid of their beagles by selling them
off. Or if they couldn't sell them,
putting them up for adoption.
And they had kind of estimated a
time range.
And this was kind of the end of that
time range that they thought they
would be doing that.
We picked July 1st just so there
wouldn't be any delay and a need to
kind of renegotiate things.
But we always, I was always told
that.
About April or May, they would be
hopefully winding down and getting
rid of all their dogs.
So it wasn't a surprise to me that
this is how they did it.
That was always their intent.
Getting back to the specifics
of your investigation, you did
find that you could support charging
on one procedure conducted
on these beagles.
Can you describe what that was?
It's called the cherry eye
procedure. It's basically
an eye gland that
is swollen or prolapsed
that has to be removed.
If you were doing it with a pet,
it would be an expensive procedure
and you'd wanna have
a licensed veterinarian doing it.
They were doing the way they'd been
doing it in decades past, which is
kind of outdated, which was removing
the gland without general anesthesia
and without having a licensed
veterinary do it.
So when the veterinary board decided
that they would revoke the main
veterinarian's license because it
didn't meet their standard of care,
that's what I thought.
If they're violating that standard
of of care that allows me to charge
the case.
Honestly, if they had found that it
did not fall below the veterinarian
standards, I'm not sure I would have
had a legal authority to go forward.
But basically they were performing
a surgery
without proper veterinary methods
required by the state of Wisconsin.
One thing that you talked about in
your charging decision was the
prospect of euthanasia of
the beagles.
Why did you consider that?
The, I'm sorry, the prospect of
euthanasia.
Or euthanasia.
Being familiar with a lot of farmers
growing up and farmers in the La
Crosse area that I talk to,
you know, and they have animals that
are injured or
need some help, they have
the right to euthanize them,
as long as it's done humanely.
You had a dairy farm or a pig farm
where an animal had some injuries.
If it costs more than the cost that
animal is to you, most farmers
would, would put it down.
And so in this case, if.
Richard farms are required to go to
such an extent to,
you know, surgery on the dogs, they
could just euthanize them.
And so that was a factor in my
charging decision that it's not
a place that was breeding dogs
for sale for pets.
It's a farm like a turkey
farm or a pig farm where you're
breeding them for food or for in
this case, testing.
So it's that looked at the same
under the veterinary standards or
under the law.
And so, that just reality of the
economics of farms that are doing
business.
As a DA who prosecutes
homicides, and you're
currently in the midst of a homicide
case,
still did it pull on your
heartstrings to pour over evidence
in this case, especially
as we know that you are
a Beagle owner and a fan of Beagles,
actually have a painting of one in
your office.
Yes, I, like
most people, like dogs and like
beagles are, in my opinion,
some of the cuter dogs.
It's heartbreaking to see them in
cages and heartbreaking to
them not
being socialized properly, not being
able to run free and do
what dogs do.
But the law allows for
this behavior on a farm.
You know, I've been to farms before
with friends of mine that grew up on
farms the way the cows
were treated, I didn't like.
But when you've got 100, 200
cattle or cows,
they're not gonna be treated the
same as a pet.
And same goes for other types of
animals.
So if you don't think of this as
your pet, or think of it as
raising dogs to be pets, but think
of as a farm,
it's a little bit different.
And the standards are different.
The way they're gonna be treat is
different.
And the reasons are,
It should be obvious that they're
not going to get pets.
That can be considered pets.
So as long as you're following the
USDA regulations and the DACAP
regulations, the fact that
I don't like it or we don't it
doesn't mean that we could charge a
crime. So I was relying mostly on
the state regulators, inspectors
that are experts in this area
and going by their advice on what
they normally see on farms,
dog breeders.
And that's why
one of the reasons I came with the
decision I came to about this
behavior.
We leave it there.
DA, Tim Greenke.
Thanks very much.
Good luck with your criminal case.
Good luck to you and say hi to Gary.
I will, I will.
Thank you.