All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

There was a slight misunderstanding. I want to make it clear that I didn't mean that every domesticated animal is more dangerous than exotics. The reason I chose to compare dogs and horses was because they are commonly kept pets that can also prove dangerous at times. Many large predators, when kept as pets, are not as dangerous as dogs or horses. Let's start with the dog. Centuries of selective breeding has bred out quite a lot of fear in them. When compared to other creatures, dogs are one of the most fearless. For so long, they were bred to charge recklessly into danger-- something that, if practiced in the wild, would destroy other species. This is why dogs are more prone to bite than most other wild animals when kept as pets (with some exceptions, like poisonous snakes). A wild animal in captivity would rather avoid confrontations, because it is in their nature to do so. Fear has not been bred out. That is the reason for so many dog attacks.Horses were also compared alongside dogs because they are one of the most dangerous commonly kept animals (cattle is first). My point in comparing these animals is this: if we can allow such "dangerous" animals in our lives every day, in every state, why ban other less dangerous animals simply because they are perceived as vicious in the wild? Most of an animal's reputation for viciousness is just because of the way they hunt or fight for territory. People think, "It'll treat you like prey, too." But where is the proof? Here are the sources for my statistics: 78 million dogs in the US. http://www.humanesociety.org...4 million dog attacks in the US a year. http://www.americanhumane.org... After doing the math (this is done by dividing 4 million by 78 million), I found that .05 is the percentage of the dog population that ever attacks anyone in the US. 7,300,000 horses kept as pets in the US. http://www.avma.org...205,000 people injured a year by them. http://www.drsanjaydesai.com...10,000 tigers in the US (that are kept solely as pets.) http://www.usatoday.com...15 tiger attacks a year:"...incidents in the U.S. involving captive exotic cats since 1990. The U.S. incidents have resulted in the deaths of 21 humans, ... the additional mauling of 247 more..." http://bigcatrescue.org...The above website did not specify which species of big cats were involved in any of the attacks, and so obviously it also didn't specify in what environments the tigers were kept. This is important to know because tigers owned as pets are less prone to attack than tigers in zoos or sanctuaries, as shown here:http://www.rexano.org...;What does this all mean for tigers? They can possibly be much less dangerous than what my percentage shows. All I've proven is that big cats on average attack 15 times per year in captivity. Tiger attacks would be considerably less, and lesser even still when you only look at the tigers kept as pets. (I couldn't find statistics aimed directly at pet tiger attacks per year, so in my statistics I chose to have them seem more dangerous than they really are. That way, you can be sure I am not being purposely deceitful for my own gains. Even then, however, their attack stats still come up better than dogs'.)15,000 primates kept as pets in the US (this includes all kinds, not just the great apes).http://news.nationalgeographic.com...4 attacks a year. http://www.rexano.org..., like with the tiger, these statistics are on how many deaths, not attacks, were caused by primates, so I apologize. I did these stats a while ago, and at the time it took me a very long time to find my information. I can't find the same sites I found then. There is an average of 0 deaths a year from any kind of primate in any setting. That is pretty incredible, seeing as there are 15,000 that are just pets, and many more in zoos and such places. That alone shows that primates do not deserve their horrible reputation.250,000 wolfdogs in the US. http://www.graywolfconservation.com...3 wolfdog attacks a year. http://wolfwhisper.homestead.com..."These "dog attacks" are merely bites. Very few are fatalities, whereas wild animal attacks are much, much more severe (I will prove this in my arguments). "I would beg to differ. There are far more dog bites from small dogs that are never documented. Those are the ones that are mere bites. The bites that are documented are full on attacks. "Another factor to take into account is that many wild animals exist in zoo enclosures, where they have little close interaction with humans, limiting basically all harm. Another factor is that many wild animals live in the wild... Wild animals attacks are fatal and most times an attack occurs, a life is taken. This doesn't happen with dogs."I took all this into account with my statistics, as is obvious above where I sited my sources. I did not include zoo animals nor wild animals. And why is it that you keep stating how much more fatal wild animal attacks are? Where is your proof? I would imagine any large animal attacking you can easily turn fatal. My opponent also implies that wolfdogs occur mostly in the wild. The truth is, wolfdogs rarely ever occur in the wild. "...some people need dogs or cats for companions. Tigers? Bears? No, not really." How can you say that some people need dogs or cats, but not tigers or bears? Many people have different opinions on what it is they need. Some, like myself, could never be fulfilled with simple domestics. So in that sense, I would not hesiatate to say that I need exotics. "How would one even determine who is responsible?" No, it would not be based on money. I think it would astonish many to realize that raising a wolf, for instance, is far cheaper than raising one child. Exotic pets are not as expensive as many make it out to be (more on this later). Besides having the financial capabilities to care for an animal, a person's background should be checked, and he should have to pass a difficult test to prove that he truly knows enough about the animal he wants. "...wild animals are a serious threat, and they have not been "exaggerated" by the media. If anything, the media has failed to cover many major attacks on TV."Again, if this were true, why have the statistics not proven so? "...the Pro goes on some random tangent on about how Animal Rights groups will do something to domestic pets. I find this entirely irrelevant, without evidence or proof, and an incorrect claim."Here is my proof, and this is not the only source: http://www.freewebs.com...Con's Argument: Wild animals physically injure and/or kill peopleBut the question is, are there possibly enough attacks in proportion to their population to deem them more dangerous than dogs? Wild animals carry a wide range of diseases or parasites.Yes, but these are wild animals. Most exotic pets were born in captivity. They are not caught from the wild, nor pulled away from dens, etc. Having wild animals as pets limits their own survival.If there was a high demand for exotics, that would also mean more people would be breeding them in captivity. And, again, with such strict regulations, only responsible owners would even get the chance to go out and request one. That would ensure that the US will not be booming with everyone going out and getting an emu, for example. They simply would not qualify. People can't take care of them.Again, if someone can't take care of an exotic properly, they should not be allowed one. I'm running out of room, but later on in our debate I would like to state the reasons why exotic pet care is oftentimes thought to be more costly than it really is.Thank you for a wonderful debate so far! :)