User talk:2A00:23C6:39F:600:2171:CBE6:B06B:FB65

"The general idea is that owned cats that wander away from their homes may become stray cats, and stray cats that have lived in the wild for some time may become feral."

This statement appears as a generally accepted assertion. Yet it doesn't seem to be factual or logical.

A domesticated cat that has become stray and survives in the wild may exhibit some behaviour of a feral cat but it was not born feral.

There is a difference between a true feral cat which has had no human contact (and is therefore wild) and a previously domestic cat which has had human contact but has become wary of humans from living in the wild.

A significant difference is that a previously domestically cat can be more likely re-domesticated, as opposed to a true feral cat where domestication is much more difficult, if not impossible.

For a cat to be a true feral cat, surely it has to be born in the wild to feral parents. And have had no human contact or history of domestic lifestyle. Else it's just a stray cat showing feral behaviour.

This seems to be a contextual terminology problem of the use 'feral', so perhaps the statement is better phrased as:

"Some consider stray domestic cats that have survived in the wild without human contact to be feral."