Here's my take on this: I'm against animal exploitation. Intentional breeding is wrong, keeping wild animals is wrong, making animals do things against their nature is wrong. Problem is that animals like cats have been selectively bred, and kept domestically that they're not wild animals. They still have all those instincts, but they're much like small children who need protection. They're horribly immune to most diseases and parasites unlike local wildlife. Cats's aren't local wildlife, but they're everywhere. I feel that even as much I'm against using one animal to feed another, I still such a concern for animals that HUMANS have so debilitated.If its too wild then a-letting it outside will surely cause more birds and such to be hunted and b-you shouldnt have it in the first place. Why keep an animal that is 'too wild'
It's not as though if we stopped taking them in, or feeding them, they would die out, as cows and modern chickens would. They would continue to breed out of control, ravage wildlife, and suffer and spread disease. Worse yet, if not seen as domestic animals, people probably would start to care less, and even the spay, neuter, release programs would be seen as unnecessary. They would be treated as so many rodents are now.
I know there are places where cats are safe to roam, but where I am, no way! They need homes. Ferals should be fixed and cared for in colonies.