All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

Thanks for the reply! Let's get into some refutations. Refutations 1. On the issue of responsible owners, the Pro believes in keeping our current regulations and lifting all bans. In this case, he believes that there would be less wild animal abuse. However, one must realize that the only current regulations we have are virtually the bans. Permits do exist, but they're as easy to bypass as the Pro's alternate solutions. The Pro makes the big claim that in places without bans or permits, there are not a larger number of attacks. If this is indeed the case, then it goes against the former stance the Pro took. Formerly, the Proposition stated that regulations and tests were necessary to find the right owners for exotic pets. Now, the Pro says that by lifting the bans (the only piece of regulation that exists), attack and abuse rates won't increase. Before, he said, with regulations, there will be fewer incidents from exotic pets. Now, he says, without bans which is the only regulation that exists, there will be no increase in incidents from exotic pets.It's a total contradiction.2. The Opposition made the assertion that people cannot take care of exotic pets, evidenced by the number of familes who wish to release them. The Pro has never directly refuted this, but chooses to compare it to domestic animals. Domestic animals are abandoned by bad families sometimes. But when a dog is released into the street, it's not a big threat. When a tiger or a bear is released, it's much more of a problem. 3. The Opposition made the assertion that the current laws (obtaining a permit) are not working that well. As a result, the integrity of people can't be trusted. The Proposition does not defend the current laws which are clearly not working. Instead, he avoids the argument and links it back to domestic animals. Once again, the idea of comparing a domestic animal to a wild creature is silly. Domestic pet owners don't need to get a permit and this point is never directly refuted.4. Back to the assertion that people cannot take care of exotic pets, the Pro responds with an assertion of his own. I said that there was not enough evidence to prove responsibility. The Pro continues with the statement that pet owners are very responsible and creates the idea of a place where wild animals have perfect enclosures and they're totally healthy. This isn't proof. I could talk about another world where wild animals are subjugated to extreme torment every single minute of their lives, but that isn't true either. The Pro has not proved that pet owners are responsible. I have proved they are irresponsible by the sheer fact that many wish to relinquish their animals (proven multiple times throughout the debate).5. The Proposition makes another claim that exotic pets won't be abused in different settings because they're sold by breeders whose sole desire is to find a precious home for their lovely wild pet. ...Again, incorrect. Many are sold through the black market or online. [http://www.animallaw.info...]It's nearly impossible to find statistics since it is the black market, after all.6. The Opposition said in the assertion about wild animals being hurt that they have little use of their natural instincts. The Pro responds with a copy and paste from a website. If you actually read the quote, it really attacks the ownership of all animals, wild and domesticated. The Pro again tries to refute the point by comparing it to domesticated animals. Since domesticated animals are restricted, must wild animals be restricted? Again, let me make this clear. They are different beings. As your own quote says, it is necessary for domestic animals to be confined to houses most of the time as it is for their OWN safety. However, wild animals are even more instinctual; they're wild! They have never been domesticated and they need the wilderness to feel safe.7. On the issue of finding the "right hands," the Pro responds by another comparison. Guns, domestics, cars, and alcohol are all things of our society, but not wild animals. These arguments do not directly answer those I have made. I would love to debate you about gun control (already a big issue in America), about domesticated animals, about Prohibition (which failed horribly), and even cars. We ban exotics because they're dangerous and unnecessary. Simple as that. 8. Pro claims that I stated that if exotic pets were allowed in the US, then illegal trade will become a problem. No where did I ever say it would become illegal; logically, if it was allowed, then it's totally legal. What I stated before was that the exotic pet market would be even bigger than it is now, and now it is huge. I cited the UAE as an example.More on the Danger of Wild AnimalsThe Animal Protection Institute, an animal welfare group, catalogues attacks or escapes involving exotic pets. It details over 120 captive large cat incidents (attacks or escapes) since 1990, 75 nonhuman primate incidents since 1994, nearly 200 reptile incidents since 1995, and nearly 75 incidents involving other exotics such as bears, wolves, ferrets, and even a hippo, since 1995. All of these lists show drastic increases over the last several years, and API stresses that these are only partial accounts of the number of incidents. [http://www.animallaw.info...]The Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition releases a monthly report of incidents including human injuries and fatalities, animal injuries and fatalities, confiscations, and escapes. For April 2003, CWAPC reported 4 human fatalities, 93 animal fatalities (most from a single California faux-sanctuary), 17 confiscations, 4 escapes and one indictment of an individual for selling lion and tiger meat. [same source] The Proposition has not been able to refute the vast amount of evidence, statistics, and research piled against him. He has only been able to make factless claims, hypothetical situations, and comparisons between wild animals and irrelevant issues that are being debated today. There's a reason why these animals are banned or limited in most states. It's because lawmakers know their dangers and they and understand that the wild animals suffer, too.Thank you.I look forward to the response.