All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

Thanks for the reply, Splashstorm.Refutations"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?"By such "dangerous" animals, I'm assuming you mean "dogs" and "horses" because that's what your opening statement is all about. The reason why we ban these wild animals is because they indeed are dangerous, as I have shown in the last round. The reason why we have animals like dogs and horses is for several reasons. Firstly, sometimes these domesticated animals are necessary. Horses can be used for transportation. Dogs are for companionship and friendship, whereas you don't need to cuddle with an exotic animal, like a tiger. Secondly, sometimes dogs are used for defense, like guard dogs.Third, animals like horses are used for sport, as in equestrians.So let's focus mainly on dogs. The Proposition's point is mainly about how dogs "often" act violently and are bad. Therefore, because they're worse than wild animals, we should have wild animals as pets. He claims that there are many attacks from dogs, citing multiple sources, except one is a dead link (the one about tigers, though, the "Rexano" one). Anyway, let's examine these attacks, using his own source from the American Humane Association. http://www.americanhumane.org...4.7 million bites occur in the U.S. each year, approximately. That's quite a bit, but it's not necessary a fatality. My opponent begs to differ, but it's true, very few are fatalities."At least 25 different breeds of dogs have been involved in the 238 dog-bite-related fatalities in the U.S."238? Doesn't seem very deadly after all. "50% of dog attacks involved children under 12 years old." "Bite rates are dramatically higher among children who are 5 to 9 years old."So many attacks seem to occur on young children. I'll explain why this is relevant in a bit.If you navigate further down the web page, you'll find that parents need to "educate" their kids and there are "safe rules of behavior for kids." So you see, dogs are just provoked by young kids when they do silly things. Any creature can be provoked by a young child if that kid doesn't know how to act around it. This is even truer for a wild animal. A dog doesn't necessarily attack when a young kid pulls its ear, but a tiger? The chances are much more likely. In conclusion, these bites aren't fatal, and they mostly occur on young kids who don't understand. You cannot use dogs as an excuse for the keeping of wild animals.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."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." Background? What would we be searching for? That they're not a poacher or some exotic pet trader? How does a good background equate to responsibility?Furthermore, why a test of knowledge? Many pet owners don't know about their own domestic pet, yet they don't have to pass a test. The thing is, either this "responsibility test" completely and utterly fails, or people will just be unsatisfied because they were deemed "irresponsible" as to whether or not they could have a pet.Do you have actual evidence of a plan that may actually work?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.Refuting the Refutations"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."I don't know if the statement that most exotic pets are born in captivity is true, but regardless, I'll refute it. Even if the animals are born in captivity or reared in a zoo, they still have the potential to get a disease. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov..."Exposure to captive wild animals at circuses or zoos can also be a source of zoonotic infection.""Petting zoos, where children are allowed to approach and feed captive wildlife and domestic animals, have been linked to several zoonotic outbreaks." This is the most important."Emerging infectious diseases have a major effect on human health and can create tremendous economic losses. Animals, particularly wild animals, are thought to be the source of >70% of all emerging infections." "If there was a high demand for exotics, that would also mean more people would be breeding them in captivity."Except there isn't. You don't see protestors on the doorstep of Washington begging the government to allow wild pets. It's simply not a big issue."And, again, with such strict regulations, only responsible owners would even get the chance to go out and request one."Such strict regulations as the ones you suggested? Those aren't very strict.People in the exotic pet trade don't care if you're responsible or not. They just want money. And if you have money, they'll give you the pet; it means nothing about the wild money. It's a matter of how much you have financially. So the debate thus far has seem to boiled down to this. Statistics. The Proposition has his own statistics, generated from his sources, but using his math. I don't know whether or not it's true, but I'll go with it.On the issue of statistics, here is credible evidence.There have been 75 deaths from 1990-2011. http://www.livescience.com...90% of reptiles carry and shed salmonella in their feces.There have been 1610 reported incidents involving exotic pets."Born Free USA, a nonprofit advocacy organization that strives to end the ownership of wild animals, has documented some 1,500 attacks, including 75 human deaths, escapes and other incidents involving exotic pets since 1990...""In the end, exotic pets are not safe to keep in people's homes, advocates say."But I'd like you to know that the danger of keeping a wild pet is more of a minor point.I'd like to talk more about the health of the wild animals themselves.Firstly, the possession of wild animals hurts nature itself. In the states that do not regulate or do not fully regulate the possession of wild animals, there exist about 15000 pet tigers according to my opponent. That's more than there are in the wild. According to the above source, about 3,200 tigers are left in the wild. The idea that there are more tigers in zoos and houses rather than in the wild is shocking and horrible.Secondly, people can't take care of wild animals. "Once owners realize they can't handle the animals, they look to place them in other homes. Zoos don't take former pets. Some unwanted primates end up in sanctuaries to live out their remaining days. Sadly, most end up being sold and resold over and over again. Others are sent to laboratories or used in breeding programs. As pets grow older, stronger and more unpredictable, some owners may attempt to change the animal's natural behavior. Sanctuary owners say those tactics include confinement in small enclosures, chaining, shocking, beating, and removal of teeth and nails to prevent scratching and biting. On average, April Truitt of the Primate Rescue Center receives two phone calls a day from people who want to relinquish their animals." http://news.nationalgeographic.com... There's a reason why they're called "wild." I look forward to the response.