Another comment from me: Logically speaking, if we proceed thinking clearly about the priorities in this which is an environmental emergency, rather than a pet welfare one, the eradication or containment of the pet species indoors are the only responsible, moral, and ethical choices.
"Jackie Mabe says that if it weren’t for feral cats, the city would be overrun with rats, mice and snakes."
Tell Jackie for me she doesn't know beans about rats and mice.
The following are summaries of specific studies:
East Bay Regional Park District, CA: A two-year study
was conducted in two parks with grassland habitat. One park
had no cats, but more than 25 cats were being fed daily in the
other park. There were almost twice as many birds seen in the
park with no cats as in the park with cats. California Thrasher
and California Quail, both ground-nesting birds, were seen
during surveys in the no-cat area,whereas they were never seen
in the cat area. In addition, more than 85% of the native deer
mice and harvest mice trapped were in the no-cat area,whereas
79% of the house mice,an exotic pest species,were trapped in the cat area. The researchers concluded, “Cats at artificially high densities, sustained by supplemental feeding, reduce abundance of native rodent and bird populations, change the rodent species composition, and may facilitate the expansion of the house mouse into new areas.” (Hawkins, C.C., W.E. Grant,and M.T.Longnecker.1999.Effect of subsidized house cats on California birds and rodents. Transactions of the Western
Section of The Wildlife Society 35:29-33)