All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

My opponent claims that domesticated animals are necessary, but exotics are not. Therefore, domesticated animals should not be banned along with exotics despite their risks. I would venture to say that horses are not the primary mode of transportation anymore. If they were, then cannot we keep camels for transportation too? Why limit it to horses? And you can cuddle with many other animals than just a dog. What about a serval or sloth? Those creatures are known to be extremely affectionate. Also, which house would thiefs be more afraid of: one with a dog or a lion? And horses used as sport? That isn't a need. I think most can agree that pets aren't usually a necessity anymore. "The Proposition's point is mainly about how dogs "often" act violently and are bad."They are not "often" bad and violent. As you can see, the percentage of dogs that do attack is very low: .05%. Yet other creatures, that happen to have a lower score, are deemed so dangerous as to be banned.I admit, with wild animals, you have to be a little more cautious. I don't think just anyone should be able to own one. But my point is, they are just as safe as domestics in the right hands. Bans should not be placed on these animals. There are so much more dangerous things that are legal. Why make exotic pets the exception? Imagine if little kids who went rock climbing without prior instructions was the norm? That would definitely increase the risk of fatalities, wouldn't it? But it isn't the norm, therefore, rock climbing death statistics wouldn't be as high as it would be if it were. It's the exact same thing with exotic animals. Death tolls could be a lot higher if just anyone was allowed one, but that isn't the case (and shouldn't be the case), and that is why there are less exotic pet bites than dog bites.No child should be left alone with any large animal, not just dogs. That is a given. Supervised, incidents rarely ever occur. Notice most exotic pet attacks are on unsupervised children? They tend to run around and throw tantrums, which are very similar to the actions of struggling prey. http://www.michigan.gov..."The Proposition moves on to say that some people need creatures like tigers or bears opposed to a common domestic creature. I think this number of people is relatively few. Regardless, it's a matter of safety, and domestics are pretty safe, unlike wild animals."It's very safe to say that the demand for exotics has grown exponentially in the past years. Also, would it really matter how many people want exotics? And wild animals are pretty safe in the right hands. You have no proof that they are more dangerous than even riding a motorcycle (which is not a necessity, yet it is more dangerous than owning a pet tiger-- therefore, shouldn't it be banned?) My opponent questioned my idea of background checks and tests of knowledge as qualifiers for keeping exotics, deeming them worthless. I am not claiming to have a plan for anything. I was simply suggesting ideas that might work. However, in general, a person should have to pass some sort of criteria in order to own an exotic pet. If bans were lifted, surely all these procedures would be written out clearly on some sort of official form. The criteria would of course be different for each species. If we can make it strict enough, and think it out more clearly (in which I'm sure we would be given plenty of time), everyone could be happy. If someone doesn't pass the restrictions, why grieve? An innocent animal's life would be spared from abuse or neglect."Many pet owners don't know about their own domestic pet, yet they don't have to pass a test."That may be so, but owning a hippo is not the same as a cat or dog. I would not allow anyone to buy a hippo from me if he didn't know the basics of it's husbandry. However, I think there should be tests for ordinary pet owners as well. That would certainly decrease the amount of pet abuse and neglect in this country. "The Proposition somewhat refuses to drop the contention that Animal Rights groups will do something to our domestic pets. He believes that a source means credible evidence. If you look at the source, it's from "freewebs" and seems very not credible to me. It seems to have been written by a teenage girl who is obsessed over animals."Does it matter who wrote the site? She has many credible sources to back up her claims. Anyway, here is more proof for my case:The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) said: "We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals." (They have also taken over Animal Planet, which is why the channel is now often referred to as "Animal Rights Planet." I'm not surprised they have an exaggerated show like "Fatal Attractions" to promote their views.) Here is the source of the quote (plus many other quotes similar to it--some from PETA as well): http://www.mydogmychoice.com...I said that most exotic animals were not pulled from the wild, and my opponent replied that he did not know whether or not it was true, but he'd refute it anyway. Well, here is a quote: "Most exotic animals ... are born in captivity, and not "stolen" from the wild." My source: http://www.usatoday.com...My opponent is saying that a large part of why exotic pets should be banned is because they spread disease. This is true of reptiles as well. They are notorious for spreading salmonella. Why are they not banned? "Animals, particularly wild animals, are thought to be the source of >70% of all emerging infections."At the beginning of this sentence, "animals" can mean any kind of animal. "Particularly wild." Again, exotic animals are not wild animals. A wild bat has a very high rate of rabies, but a captive-born one will not. My opponent claims the exotic pet issue is not a big deal, so there would not be as many people breeding them in captivity if there was a high demand for them. I am sure there are many who want to breed exotics, but do not, because either the animals are banned where they live, or they don't think there would be enough qualified people to buy from them. That would surely change if bans were lifted. Many more would go out and venture to learn more about the species they want, possibly becoming qualified enough to attempt such a feat. "People in the exotic pet trade don't care if you're responsible or not. They just want money."Most people in the exotic pet industry are actually very responsible. They just are not spotlighted in the media, unlike the rare incidents of pets gone wrong, so naturally you don't hear of them very often. As I have stated before, who would be more responsible? The man going out to get a $100 puppy, or the man who has to invest thousands and thousands of dollars for a tiger? Most who own exotics are not millionaires. They are usually normal people like you and I. And yes, this debate has boiled down to statistics. The reason is that without statistics, the truth would never be seen. It has become too clouded from the media. I intend to to clear up this fog.If 90% of reptiles carry salmonella like you stated, why do pet shops continue to sell them? Surely 90% is a huge risk, yet reptiles are among the most popular pets today. Why would that be allowed if disease was really such a huge issue? My opponent states that he finds it horrible that there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild. My stance on that is that captive breeding eliminates the pressure on wild populations, and also serves as a backup in case the animals go extinct. If not for the ones in captivity, tigers could be in a lot more trouble than they are now. My opponent then states that people should not own exotics because they cannot handle them. I agree that not everyone will be able to, but to say that no one can is incorrect. There are tens of thousands of exotic pets right now, living happy, fulfilled lives. I happily await your next response.