Originally posted by Roller
I'd say killing animals to preserve native environment, ecosystems and species is quite justified. For some species neutering is indeed viable - mainly on small islands where it is much easier to control the population. In isolated outback bushland it is much more practical to cull the population than desex.
Roller, you seem to be missing the entire point of what I was saying.

The reason they catch and kill the cats is because they can't be fucked paying to have them neutered or speyed. The reason for killing the cats isn't to stop that particular cat doing damage tio the ecosystem, but to stop it breeding and having shitloads of other cats that do an exponentially greater amount of harm than that original cat.

In fact, it would actually be BETTER if they fixed the cats and release them, than if they just caughts and killed them. Here's why:

If you catch and kill the cats, then that means that every cat still in the wild can still breed. Therefore, every time any of the cats mate, there's the normal chance that they are going to have babies. IE, a high chance.

BUT if you ctach, fix, and then release cats again back into the wild, that means you've got an increasing number of cats who are "duds": they can fuck, but they can't actually produce offspring. Therefore, when any two cats mate from now on, there's an increasingly greater chance that they won't produce offspring, because one of the two involved in the mating has been fixed. Therefore, there should be fewer and fewer litters of kittens being produced per fertile female, cos an increasing number of the males she mates with are going to be "fixed" and unable to impregnate her.