All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

Wild animals do not make dangerous pets. That is a GIANT myth, spread by the media (with overly-exaggerated stuff like "Fatal Attractions," as an example). Check this out: Most Dangerous Pets -->the percentage is the percent of the population of the animals as a whole attacking (ones kept as PRIVATE pets only, not in zoos etc.). [For example: for dogs, .05% of their entire population will attack someone. For tigers, .001% of their entire population will attack someone. The higher the percentage, the more risk of attack from the particular animal.] 1. Dogs .05% 2. Horses .02% 3. Just Everyday Living .007% 4. Tigers .001% 5. Primates (all primates were counted) .0002% 6. Wolfdogs .00001% This is how I came up with the numbers: **Please note, the way I did this obviously took into account the fact that there are WAY more dogs out there than any other exotic pets. Dogs: There are 78 million dogs in the US. There are 4 million dog attacks in the US a year. .05% of the dog population attacks a year. Wolfdogs: There are 250,000 wolfdogs in the US. There are 3 wolfdog attacks a year. .000012% of wolfdogs attack a year. Tigers: There are 10,000 tigers in the US (that belong to private individuals/groups.) There are 15 tiger attacks a year. .0015% of privately owned pet tigers attack a year. Just Living: You have a .007% chance of dying every year by just living. Primates (all primate types were counted): There are 15,000 primates kept as pets in the US. There are 4 attacks a year. You have a .0002% chance of being attacked by your pet primate. Horses: There are about 7,300,000 horses kept as pets in the US. 205,000 people are injured a year by them. There is a .02% chance of you being injured with your horse. So you see, you should be more scared of walking in the street and being mauled by a random dog than you should be coming home to your wolf, tiger, or ape. I do not think any wild animal should be banned as pets, but that there should be such strict regulations that only the RESPONSIBLE owners will be able to obtain them. By responsible, I mean someone who will be able to provide zoo-like enclosures and care. I do not want anything less than that for these wild animals, but with all these random bans, even those very responsible owners are not allowed these animals. Why should the MINORITY spoil it for the rest of us? Also, America does not have this kind of attitude with anything else, so why should they have this attitude with exotics? Why not ban all dogs? 4 million attacks a year is like 6,666 attacks a month in each of the 50 states. That's A LOT. Why not ban cars? Each time you get in a car you are subjecting yourself to 3x the danger you'd be in if you actually owned a pet tiger. Check out this interesting little excerpt from: http://www.hamra.net... "HOW GULLIBLE ARE WE ? A freshman at ... [a] Junior High [school] won first prize at the ... Science Fair... He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to the alarmists ... spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide." And for plenty of good reasons, since: it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting; it is a major component in acid rain; it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state; accidental inhalation can kill you; it contributes to erosion; it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes; it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients. He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical. Forty-three said yes, six were undecided, and only one knew that the chemical was water. The title of his prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?" The conclusion is obvious." Ask yourself, are you sure that isn't happening right now with the whole exotic pet subject? They want to spread wild fear and angst at just the mention of "exotic pet." But what are their fears based on? Not facts, that's certain. Of course there will be freak accidents, but is that the norm? No, but AR groups would have you believe it was. The majority of exotic pet owners do not abuse their animals. The animals do not succumb to their "wild instincts" and savagely attack the hand that fed them. All of these (and more) are myths that have been busted when you look at the actual statistics. Please people, do not be gullible. Did you know that all Animal Rights groups are going after exotics-- EVERY kind: mice, parrots, snakes, lizards, etc.? No, not just exotics, they are going after ALL pets. If you look closely at their agenda, you will see that (it isn't just PETA, the others are just being a little more discreet about their views). And by the way, what is more logical? A kitten bought for $300 being neglected and abused, or a man who goes and invests thousands and thousands of dollars for the enclosure and cost of his bear, just to abuse and neglect it in the end? The thing is, most irresponsible people won't even waste their energy on trying to obtain an exotic animal (it's not only the money, but lots of times there are permits and licenses to get through). So the majority of exotic pet owners are responsible. They would have made sure they were ready for such a huge investment. Going back to the Animal Rights groups, us pet people must stick together, because they are starting with the exotic pets, and once they have them, they will continue on with the rest of your pets. This is not opinion, it's RIGHT THERE on their mission statements (but they never bring it up.. Hmm.. wonder why?) They want to see the end of pets because they don't see it as humane. They will argue the same arguments they currently have in place for exotics, but to domestics. That's their plan, and it always has been. Look here at the big "three" (PETA, HSUS, ASPCA): http://oisforonward.com...