Replying to singular lines or small parts of comments makes the whole comment a disjointed mess. If you aren't even willing to accept the multitude of studies and animal welfare organisations saying there's an (obvious) increased risk from unsupervised roaming, then there's nothing much to go on from here. If you feel there's more positives and can support that with studies, I'd be interested to see that. If it's just your emotional take, I understand that, but it's just not very responsible way to handle a pet.

[–] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Sorry, I'll make it easy: just 3 little things to know:

Your study doesn't prove what you say.
This is tricky, not just good or bad.
You need help; this is too hard for you.

Version for anyone reading this with at least average analytic capabilities:

I'm sorry, I seem to keep overestimating your analytic capabilities. I'm boiling it down to 3 simple points:

Your study - even while showing some bias - does not support your claims.
This - like most cases - is not a black and white one.
You are out of your depth - not only in this thread. Get help.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago

I mean it's fairly straightforward when considering if "uncontrolled outdoor access" has dangers and harms to the cats

Uncontrolled outdoor access allows these natural behaviors, but it also poses a number of significant health and welfare risks, and the overall benefits of the performance of these behaviors is unknown.

But if you're not willing to take their word for it, there's other people talking about those dangers too

https://www.orangecountync.gov/1331/Safety-concerns-for-free-roaming-cats

https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/free-roaming-owned-cats

https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2023/10/19/how-free-roaming-cats-impact-wildlife-disease-transmission/

And so on and so on.