Ok, I looked at all three links. NONE of them show a scientific study and NONE of them cite their sources. I'm sorry, but I'm a trained scientist and these articles might as well be pulling numbers out of their rear-ends as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not convinced they are independent (I'm inclined to think they are all "quoting" Kress and not giving him credit, but I could be wrong of course.)
The link to Steve Kress' article in the Audubon magazine is the most credible being that he does have a PhD in Environmental Studies (I had to go dig for that info). But, he should know better. There's no mention of how he came to the number of deaths from cats (but he did say how he got to the number of cats in the US and how he got to the number of window/glass deaths...). I'd loose my job and get kicked out of grad school if I tried to pass off something like that as scientific (and honestly he probably wasn't trying to, but he should cite or link to the scientific work as well). The info would never get through a peer reviewed journal like that, but unfortunately he's a scientist so it's automatically credible to the public even when it's not credible. IMO, that's an abuse of the trust put into scientists and it makes me ill. (I'll resend that last statement if he in fact has published a peer reviewed scientific work with his data on this).
In the end I'm not arguing that cats do not contribute at all. And in fact I agree with you that the vast majority of cats should be kept indoors and confined when outdoors.
In fact here's a scientific article that actually agrees with your point, ranking cats as potentially equal to glass strikes in deaths (however, they still don't cite or explain the data behind cat deaths (at least in the intro where it is mentioned)...so I still don't "trust" the information, though I'm more inclined to believe it's plausible):
http://www.muhlenberg.edu/depts/biol...ent%202004.pdf