Is execution in order, now?  Maybe.  (I would say, collect them and send them back to the country of origin, and let them all work it out back there.)  But why should refrigeration be the preferred method?  Why not a quick decapitation?  Is that not very silly, amongst us promoters of animal rights, that we should judge one kind of euthanasia to be better than another at least as quick and painless?

Grist should run a contest of who we consider "most disgusting" animals.  I admit, hyenas always give me the willies; and I do not like what they do to little antelopes and zebras and cheetahs and lions.  But they are not really a problem, generally.

Lice are (don't get me started); and so are mosquitoes (big big yuckiness).

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

For example, one might say maggots are disgusting, but consider their contribution to keeping the world free of bacteria-laden rotting corpses. It is hard to view them as disgusting when they provide such a valuable ecological service.

I might base my vote on behavior, especially behavior that inflicts an excess of pointless suffering on other animals. And the winner is?

Regarding freezing the toads, I'm uncomfortable with what must be done to restore balance to the infested habitat. Too bad the toads are not edible! Deportation seems like a good idea. Perhaps the toads are endangered where they originated. Or perhaps their natural predator is kept in a zoo somewhere? They could be collected and sent there as a special dietary treat. Anyway, I've heard that freezing a cold-blooded creature is the most humane means of euthanizing them if it must be done. They just drift off to "sleep" as their body temperature drops. Though I doubt anyone ever actually asked them whether it is really painless to drift off to oblivion by this route.

But the animal rights crowd may as well protest predation-on-earth at large because such predators live by killing & eating other wildlife (hence, the evolution of all species). Your position is equally as ill-informed (though well intentioned).  

The animal rights crowd would do well to back off the position of protecting & releasing exotic introduced wildlife - would you allow Hawaii and Guam (or other islands) to just be overun with introduced mongoose, snakes, pigs, and other predators we've introduced?  Had ecologists not been eliminating these introduced wildlife in key locations so many more species would now be extinct on those islands than already are...and we're talking species found only on the planet in those locations (global endemics).  Do you not really give a crap about the native species and habitats over introduced wildlife that are decimating them? Makes little sense.  

This toad was introduced and is ruining the ecology of its new area now (among other introductions, Europeans included) and they simply must be eliminated.  Not to mention its poisonous - for native wildlife too, which is something the natives have evolved without for oh, millions of years.  

You guys would do well to consult some professional ecologists & biologists vs. the constant knee-jerk reactions against killing introduced wildlife. It simply makes no sense...its as if you'de allow the rarest & most endemic plants, wildlife & habitats, and espeically migartory and other birds to be overun with frogs or cats or pigs just because they're living things.  It really goes totally against the very native wildlife, habitats, ecology, biodiviersty, and conservation efforts you possibly support as well.  

For example - the PETA release of ferrets that were being held at a lab (forget where in the US) was a HUGE impact to local ecology - releasing this totally non-native, top-predator species with who-knows-what diseases out into the local enviroment to destroy native wildlifie & songbirds - 100% against what you're really trying to do (or does that not bother you?)  

There is simply no other ecological choice for some species than ridding ourselves of them in the wrong habitats.  Its like keeping clorox and asprin together - they belong in totally diferent places!  And by the way, this isn't even a viable discussion in ecological circles...at least, not credible ecologists. No one is debating whether or not we get rid of exotic-invasive plants or wildlife - but how, where first, and how fast can we do it.  Otherwise - kiss your endemic & local biodiveristy hotspots goodbye - oh, and plants some kudzu on it when your done (since it has "1000 Uses"...)  

I apologize for sounding brash, but I would love to see the animal rights groups channel their obviously good intentions into more productive protections for native wildlife (and those you wish to protect).  There has to be a way. Otherwise you end up looking like a bunch of ill-informed urbanites protecting feral cats (which I guess you do).  

I'm up on your positions and I understand where it comes from - but its time for you guys to get real about ecology, biodiverstiy, and the incredible damage stemming from OUR introductions of wildlife in the absolutely worst places.  We could then make some progress. There's no reason I as a wacko, liberal, left wing environmental / ecological extremist should feel that the animal rights crowd is more extreme than me and completly un-informed about the true impacts of exotic wildlife...but thats how I feel and thats why I don't support PETA or the insane cat-protectors (Jesus - why don't we just feed all the migratory songbirds to them at once and get it over with!)

Redneck Leftist Liberal: Latin, 'liber' Associated with liberty and the concept of freedom; tending in favor of freedom and democracy

Still, eradication need not always mean killing the invaders.

Perhaps that is the only practical solution, though, in the case of Australia's invasive cane toads.  Hopefully the RSPCA and WiscIdea are right, that freezing is a gentle form of euthanasia.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.