Matthew - may be a UK/USA language thing here - when I asked what you "meant
by that", it wasn't an accusitorial or aggressive question - I was just
asking you to clarify because I didn't understand. Apologies if you heard it
as negative.

Interesting what you say about inside/outside - I hadn't realised there was
so much debate. My personal view is that no animal should be made to live
inside a human habitation, but it can if it chooses to, unless it's
dangerous!. So, 14 or so years ago, after a time of refusing to give in to
my childrens' begging to have "pets", which I equate with the term
"Prisoners Enforced To Stay", I eventually agreed we would have a cat from
the rescue center on the basis that he was already alive and would be caged
or killed if we didn't rescue him, and he would be free to roam in a
neighbourhood with lots of open space and an abundance of prey in the form
of mice, birds, hedgehogs (if the cat dares try!), occasional rats, and so
on. A year later, this cat, having made it clear to all neighbouring cats
that this was HIS turf, suddenly allowed another male of the same age to
enter. We realised this was either a feral or an abandoned and much abused
animal because he was so wary of humans, but he was starving and tugged at
the heart strings enough to get his own food bowl. Cat 1 makes it clear to
Cat 2 that he is boss, but they are always together, share the same basket
overnight in the winter, groom each other, and still just manage to see off
any newcomers on the block. 14 years on, Cat 2 is still wary with us, allows
us to stroke him on good days but watches our every move the rest of the
time.

I can see that other issues arise if there are predators, but we do have
foxes and birds of prey here that will take cats if they can, and I don't
see that this means we can imprison cats against their nature.

JP