Buyers list leaked; Wisconsin puppy mill customer defends research
The Brief
A whistle-blower with access to an internal Ridglan Farms database has given FOX6 Investigators a list of customers who bought beagle puppies in 2019 and 2020.
FOX6 Investigators are releasing the names of the ten largest customers (by number of dogs purchased).
The founder of East Tennessee Clinical Research calls himself a "loyal" Ridglan Farms customer and defends the embattled breeder's practice of performing "cherry eye" surgeries on dogs with little or no anesthetic.
BLUE MOUNDS, Wis. - Every year, Ridglan Farms in Wisconsin sells more than 3,000 beagle puppies bred for scientific research. Now, we know who is buying them.
What we know
An anonymous source provided FOX6 Investigators with a complete list of customers who purchased beagle puppies in 2019 and 2020. The purchases are perfectly legal, but public scrutiny of what happens to the dogs at Ridglan Farms has increased since a Dane County judge appointed a special prosecutor earlier this year to investigate animal cruelty charges. Former employees testified last fall that dogs are kept in cages 24 hours a day with minimal human contact and that non-veterinarians are directed to perform painful, but routine surgical procedures on the animals without anesthesia.
According to the data provided to FOX6 (which Ridglan Farms neither confirmed nor asked us to correct), the number one buyer over that two-year period was NASCO, a biological supply company for educators based in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. NASCO bought 1,736 Ridglan dogs during that time, but it's not clear how they are using the animals or what happens when they are finished.
Number two was TRS Labs, a research and development laboratory in Athens, Georgia.
The third-largest customer was the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. FOX6 Investigators previously reported on IIT's use of 38 Ridglan beagles for a Covid-19 drug toxicity experiment. All 38 dogs were killed on the 15th day of testing so their organs could be harvested for further testing.
FREE DOWNLOAD: Get breaking news alerts in the FOX LOCAL Mobile app for iOS or Android
FOX6 Investigators contacted the 10 largest companies on the buyers list, but 9 of them did not respond to our request for comment. Labcorp (previously known as Covance) in Madison, Wisconsin, did respond to an earlier request for comment after FOX6 Investigators found USDA records showing it uses more dogs for laboratory experiments (2,758 in 2023) than any other lab in Wisconsin. A company spokesperson wrote at the time that "Labcorp firmly believes the proper care of all research animals is fundamental to ethical scientific research and the ability to develop safe and effective new medicines that improve health and improves lives."
What they're saying
The one company that did respond was East Tennessee Clinical Research, a private laboratory on a remote farm west of Knoxville. The company's founder, Dr. Craig Reinemeyer, is a veterinarian and serves as the laboratory's scientific officer. He said he decided to speak up because public perception of animal research is tainted.
"They think we're just the wild, wild west. We're out here doing whatever we want to do. And they don't realize how heavily regulated this industry is," Reinemeyer said.
Reinemeyer said ETCR conducts experiments on dogs to test both therapeutics intended for other dogs and for drugs meant to eventually be used on humans. The Food and Drug Administration requires that all experimental drugs be proven safe and effective before human trials can begin. He said they're just following the rules and he bristles at the suggestion that what they do constitutes "abuse" or "torture," as some critics claim."The implication is that I, as a veterinarian, have completely abandoned my principles. That I am only interested in profit," Reinemeyer said. "And that I am willing to stick red-hot needles in puppies' eyeballs if somebody will pay me enough money. And that ain't the case."
SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines, breaking news emails from FOX6 News
Reinemeyer said beagles make the best research animals not just because of their docile temperament, but also because of their ability to withstand life in a cage.
"Beagles tolerate confinement," Reinemeyer said.
In March, Reinemeyer wrote a two-page letter to the Wisconsin Veterinary Examining Board in defense of Dr. Richard Van Domelen, Ridglan Farms' lead veterinarian. In the letter, he wrote that he was a "loyal" customer of Ridglan. He said he visited the facility in 2024 and saw an employee playing with beagle puppies. He learned the employee's full-time job was socializing the animals. Finally, he told the board he did not think the cherry eye surgeries that are the subject of a criminal investigation constitute "animal cruelty."
The other side
The criminal investigation into Ridglan Farms was prompted by a complaint filed by an animal rights group called Dane4Dogs.
"I think it's odd that he would want to announce to the world just how low his standards are," said Rebekah Robinson, Dane4Dogs president.
Robinson said beagles may tolerate cages better than other dog breeds by comparison, but that doesn't mean it's good for them.
"Confinement is just cruelty to these animals," Robinson said. "These dogs are meant to be social animals. They are bred specifically for their attachment to humans."
Robinson also challenged the notion that animal research is "heavily regulated." Federal law requires animal research labs to set up internal committees known as Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. They are designed to provide oversight that ensures animal testing is safe, humane and minimizes animal discomfort and pain. Robinson said those committees are commonly staffed by insiders with a vested interest in the research moving forward.
At ETCR, the principal investigator conducting the research is Craig Reinemeyer, while the chair of the IACUC is Bree Reinemeyer - his daughter.
"It's the fox guarding the henhouse," Robinson said. "They are writing their own regulations."
Reinemeyer insists the IACUC is not a rubber stamp.
"They ask us hard questions," Reinemeyer said.
Dig deeper
In 2022, Congress passed (and President Biden signed into law) the FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which allows for non-animal alternative methods to be used to prove the safety and efficacy of a drug. That means animal testing is technically not required to get an experimental drug into clinical trials. However, FDA has yet to establish rules and regulations to implement the new law.
"I actually see the FDA as being the root of the problem," said Amy Van Aartsen, founder of The Marty Project, which advocates for "novel alternative methods" like using 3-dimentional models that mimic human organs. She said traditional research labs have been resistant to the idea of change.
"And I would argue if they're not actively, you know, doing things to be part of the solution. They are part of the problem," Van Aartsen said.
Eventually, Van Aartsen said, artificial intelligence will allow for sophisticated computer models that will be far more reliable than dogs or other animals at predicting how a drug will work in humans.
But Reinemeyer said he believes non-animal testing methods are still a long way off.
"[Some say] a decade away. I think, a generation," Reinemeyer said.
What's next
Multiple investigations into possible animal mistreatment at Ridglan Farms remain ongoing.
La Crosse County DA Tim Gruenke is serving as a special prosecutor to determine if criminal charges should be filed.
The Wisconsin Veterinary Examining Board has agreed to allow Dr. Van Domelen to continue practicing while his disciplinary proceeding continues. That agreement is conditioned upon all surgeries at Ridglan being performed only by licensed vets using proper anesthesia.
Finally, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection is also investigating possible violations of animal welfare at Ridglan that were noted by inspectors in 2024.
The Source
FOX6 Investigators relied on data from an anonymous source at Ridglan Farms, congressional legislation, FDA regulations, public records from the Veterinary Examining Board, interviews with animal rights activists, animal researchers and email communications with an attorney for Ridglan Farms.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Woman killed, man hurt after fight leads to stabbing at park: HCSO
The Brief The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office says a dispute led to a stabbing, killing a woman and injuring a man. It happened Sunday evening at Country Run Park in Carrollwood. Few other details have been released. TAMPA, Fla. - A woman died and a man was hurt after Hillsborough County deputies say a dispute led to both people getting stabbed at a park on Sunday evening. What we know According to the sheriff's office, deputies responded to Country Run Park off Anderson Rd. in Carrollwood shortly before 7 p.m. Deputies say a man and woman were involved in a dispute, and they each went to the hospital with stab wounds. The woman died at the hospital, according to HCSO, while the man remains hospitalized as of Monday morning. READ: Domestic dispute turns to gunfire, killing 1 man in Tampa: TPD What they're saying "This violent incident, in a place meant for families and children, is both disturbing and unacceptable," Sheriff Chad Chronister said in a statement. "Our detectives are committed to uncovering the full truth behind this tragic incident. If anyone has information that could assist in this investigation, I urge you to contact the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. What we don't know HCSO has not released the names or ages of the people involved in the incident. Follow FOX 13 on YouTube The Source This story was written with information from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. STAY CONNECTED WITH FOX 13 TAMPA: Download the FOX Local app for your smart TV Download FOX Local mobile app: Apple | Android Download the FOX 13 News app for breaking news alerts, latest headlines Download the SkyTower Radar app Sign up for FOX 13's daily newsletter
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 officers hospitalized after being hit by semi-truck during traffic stop in Prince William County, police say
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, Va. () — Part of Interstate 95 was closed early Monday and multiple injuries were reported after a semi-truck hit officers during a traffic stop, according to Prince William County police. Mother of missing Navy sailor in Norfolk speaks out as investigation continues In a post on X just before 2:30 a.m., the Prince William County Police Department (PWCPD) said officers were investigating a crash on I-95 south, with multiple people injured. As a result, the interstate was closed between Dumfries and Joplin Road. PWCPD told DC News Now that at least six vehicles were involved in the crash, and responders took three officers to the hospital treatment. The three were reportedly conducting a traffic stop near the Dumfries exit when the semi truck hit their cruisers. All three officers are expected to be OK, police noted. Check for updates. To keep up with the latest news and weather updates, download our Mobile App on iPhone or Android. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.