I know there's reptile rescuers who end up saying the same thing. There's just so many animals in bad shape out there, and they constantly have to deal with that - albeit many of the rescuers signed up for it - but because of the fact they just see so much of the neglected animals and hardly ever any of the responsibly kept animals, that it's all they ever think about and they come to the conclusion that hardly any animals ever receive proper care, which isn't entirely true. I hear some people just call it "Rescuer Syndrome."
Domestication isn't entirely meaningful to the whole equation, and many birds in addition to some reptiles are often captive bred these days. Domestication doesn't have anything to do with how well they do in a home environment or not either. That varies from species to species - regardless of social status - and varies from individual to individual, in addition to who's keeping it, and what environment they provide it with. I would go so far as to say the term 'domestication' is scientifically meaningless when it comes to providing insight and understanding an animal. (A 'domestic' dog has more in common with an undomesticated wolf than it does with a 'domestic' cat. You also wouldn't keep a 'domestic' cat like you would a 'domestic' dog. A captive bred, "puppy-dog" tame pet Boa constrictor will most likely be a better pet than wild-born, aggressive feral "domestic" cat as well. People have also been keeping and breeding many 'undomesticated' animals longer than you'd think too. The list goes on...) I'd say that if an individual wanted to keep an animal, they should learn about the specific species (and possibly subspecies) and it's requirements before considering keeping them, all while ignoring the social status (but not laws!) associated with them.