ASPCA says unlicensed Iowa breeder still selling dogs and violating the law

Animal-welfare advocates say that while one of Iowa’s biggest puppy-mill operators is no longer licensed, he still is selling dogs and has ramped up the illegal practice of puppy laundering.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claims in a court filing that one of Iowa’s most prolific violators of the Animal Welfare Act, Steve Kruse of West Point, hasn’t ceased operations with the loss of his license, but has actually expanded the “illegal activities” intended to facilitate the sale of puppies and dogs.

In September 2024, the ASPCA filed a seven-count civil complaint against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the federal agency that polices animal breeders and brokers at the national level.

The ASPCA alleged the USDA has knowingly allowed illegal activity to occur through its issuance of licenses to Kruse and two of his associates, Brian Lichirie and Wuanita Swedlund, and by failing to revoke any of their licenses.

The case centers on the USDA’s alleged failure to act in response to its own written findings that Kruse has used Lichirie and Swedlund to engage in puppy laundering — the practice of routing dogs to retailers through intermediary breeders, allowing Kruse’s dogs to be sold even in states that restrict the sale of animals originating from kennels owned by repeat violators.

Aside from a USDA motion to dismiss the lawsuit, there was very little activity in the case until Oct. 8, 2025, when U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb noted that so much time had passed that Kruse’s three-year USDA license had expired. The judge asked the USDA and the ASPCA to each submit briefs as to whether the expiration of Kruse’s license rendered any part of the case moot.

In its filing, the USDA recently suggested the five claims concerning enforcement against Lichirie and Swedlund remained live, while the two counts specific to Kruse were moot and should be dismissed. Without a license, the USDA argued, there is no issue of enforcement the court can address.

Last week, the ASPCA filed its own brief, contending all seven counts should proceed, arguing the USDA “did not offer any indication that they had conducted an inquiry or investigation as to whether Mr. Kruse continues to participate in the venture even without his license, still owns the land on which the kennels operate, or otherwise maintains involvement in the ongoing enterprise.”

The ASPCA alleges that while Kruse is no longer licensed, its investigation suggests he “remains actively involved in regulated activity under the Animal Welfare Act, despite the cancellation of his license.”

The ASPCA notes that days after Kruse’s license was canceled last August, the USDA approved Christine A. Snakenberg for a license to do business at the same West Point address where Kruse has for years operated a large-scale kennel.

The USDA’s pre-license inspection report for Snakenberg indicates there were 142 adult dogs on the property when the inspector visited and the federal agency agreed to grant her a license.

Kruse still owns that property, the ASPCA says, and Snakenberg, who is not a co-owner, owns a single-family, owner-occupied home 19 miles away in Danville.

In addition, the ASPCA says, an Illinois Bureau of Animal Welfare inspection report dated Nov. 26, 2025, shows that Kruse himself “continues to supply dogs” to Ray Duckmanton, an Illinois-licensed breeder doing business as Racore Inc.

“These records demonstrate that Mr. Kruse has not ceased his unlawful activities,” the ASPCA argues. “It appears that Mr. Kruse continues to engage in regulated activities, despite the cancellation of his license, and continues his scheme to launder puppies through his associates in violation of the Animal Welfare Act — including through Snakenberg, who the USDA has licensed to conduct regulated activities on Mr. Kruse’s property.”

In its brief to the court, the ASPCA alleges that the USDA has historically failed to act even when its own inspectors have confirmed that a previously licensed individual is still engaged in breeding or brokering. The organization adds that the USDA, in its brief to the court, has not argued that the alleged illegal activity has halted and has stated only that Kruse is no longer licensed.

“There is nothing preventing Mr. Kruse from reapplying, and nothing suggesting that the agency would not re license him if he did,” the ASPCA argues. “Thus, it is entirely likely, and expected, that the wrongful behavior by the defendants will continue.”

The ASPCA claims the USDA wrote to Kruse nine years ago, in 2016, to inform him that federal law required him, Lichirie and Swedlund to operate under a single license. When Kruse failed to take corrective action, the ASPCA claims, the USDA continued to renew his license and never took any steps to revoke the licenses of either Lichirie or Swedlund.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks a court order that would force the USDA to void all current licenses issued to Kruse and his associates.

This article first appeared in the Iowa Capital Dispatch.