"Phil P." wrote in message
ink.net...

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-01-27, MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his
cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought
the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a

I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens.
There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really
isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of
the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One
intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put
your money on spaying queens, first.

This makes no sense - you seem to be arguing against your point. If one
intact tom can service many queens then it would be more cost effective
to
neuter the tom to keep him from impregnating many queens

Actually, queens determine population- not toms. For example:

100 queens + 100 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 50 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 10 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 1 tom = 100 litters
100 toms + 50 queens = 50 litters
100 toms + 1 queen = 1 litter

The best solution is neuter all the cats. If you can't, neuter the
queens.
It will have more of an affect on population control and they will derive
more health benefits. Males can track a cycling queen miles away. So
neutering local females will control the local population.

Phil

I understand that, but also know that

100 queens + 1 *NEUTERED* (former) tom = 0 litters

But what it comes down to is that until *all* cats in a colony are desexed
there is a chance of pregnancy either in that colony or in a neighboring
colony. Spaying your queens and ignoring the toms is only moving the
problem into another neighborhood.

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/