Now that a lawsuit has been filed in the case of the county humane officer and the confiscated cows, the facts will likely emerge through courtroom testimony and expert witnesses. Given time, the public will learn the true condition of the animals, and the circumstances of the animals' surrender by the farmer.

Just days after being reported to the public, the mid-February incident has become a "he said-she said" story with Lorraine Sicilia, the county humane officer, and the Butler County Humane Society alleging a serious case of animal neglect and portraying a story of a physically and emotionally distressed farmer voluntarily turning over the 22 most-compromised animals in his herd.

However, Thomas and Katherine Hogg, the Brady Township farm couple, through their lawsuit, contend their cattle were not sick or abused, as alleged by the county humane officer. Their lawsuit also claims the veterinarian hired by the Humane Society did not recommend confiscation of the animals.

Not surprisingly, there are many facts disputed in the lawsuit. The original report from the county humane officer told of 50 starving cattle being rescued because an elderly and infirmed farmer who could no longer care for them. The number of cattle taken and the characterization of the farmer being physically incapable of caring for his cattle have since been found to be false.

It will likely take time for the true facts in the case to be publicly known. But even without all the facts, it appears this case could have been handled better.

Although the county humane officer is paid by the Humane Society, it would seem that farm-focused or livestock issues are outside the normal area of expertise of the humane society. The evolution of a "no-kill" philosophy at the Butler County Humane Society, while appreciated by many animal lovers when it comes to dogs and cats, seems at odds with the realities of a beef cattle operation.

Still, nobody would want animals, even those who will eventually be killed for food production, to be mistreated or abused. But beef cattle are raised for food, not to graze contentedly for the rest of their natural-born lives, as the confiscation imposed on the farmer by Sicilia mandates. The issue has raised questions about the expertise of the county humane officer when it comes to evaluating conditions of a cattle operation.

Even if there were concerns about the animals' health, a better way to handle the situation would be to tap into the livestock expertise in Butler County. Cattle farmers, while competitors to a certain degree, are more likely to feel a kinship and be inclined toward helping one another when a crisis arises.

In this case, if the humane officer had brought other cattle ranchers onto the Hogg farm, a better solution to the problem (if there really was a problem) might have been found.

It's possible that other county ranchers might have been willing to take a few cattle each to bring back them to a healthier condition - in terms of feeding and disease treatment - if, the humane officer's claims of starvation, abuse and infection were accurate.

Once the cattle were brought back to health, they could have been returned to the farmer who could then sell them if he still felt he was incapable of properly caring for the herd. Or he could return to ranching with a now-healthy herd and better management techniques learned through consultation with the Penn State Agricultural Extension Service - as is now reportedly happening.

A consensus of opinion from various cattle ranchers and veterinarians would have likely produced a different outcome, and avoided the lawsuit that was filed by the Hoggs in Butler County Court last Wednesday.

Regardless of the outcome of the pending lawsuit, officials from the humane society and members of the county's agricultural community, including members of the Pennsylvania Cattleman's Association, should sit down and talk about better ways to handle a situation such as the Hogg farm incident, if it arises again.

- J.L.W.III