All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

Thank you, Splashstorm for starting this debate. I'm sure this will be a fun, fulfilling 5 rounds of debate. :)Now let's debate.The Proposition case has several points.A) Domesticated animals are more dangerous than wild ones.B) Stricter regulations will ensure that responsible owners will be able to obtain them.C) People are gullible; the fear of wild animals is untrue. RefutationsPro Point 1) Domesticated Animals are more dangerous than wild ones.The Proposition brings some interesting evidence into this debate. This evidence comes from... himself, taking factual numbers and calculating his own numbers. I will not say that they are incorrect, but rather, that my opponent has not taken many things into account. Furthermore, they are not backed by any sources.The Proposition claims that domesticated dogs are more dangerous than most wild animals; therefore, since dogs are allowed, wild animals should be allowed. On the other hand, the amount of dogs in the US is much, much higher than any wild animal. 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). 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. Wolfdogs? They don't roam the streets. They're in the wild, far away from humans. They're even shier than dogs and generally do not approach humans... provided that the human is not an idiot and provokes the wolfdog. Wild animals attacks are fatal and most times an attack occurs, a life is taken. This doesn't happen with dogs.Why not ban cars?Because we actually need cars to get around. And some people need dogs or cats for companions. Tigers? Bears? No, not really.Lastly, the Pro mentions "horses." When you think of wild animals, do you think "horses"? I doubt it. Horses should be excluded, though this is trivial.Pro Point 2) Stricter regulations are necessary to ensure the "responsible" can get wild animals.The strictest regulation (and the smartest one) is just not allowing anyone to obtain wild animals at all. Many places don't allow the possession of a wild animal and for good reason.How would one even determine who is responsible? Is one "responsible" if he/she has a lot of money? In that case, only the rich could own wild animals because they cost so much. The Pro claims that "the minority" is ruining it for the majority, that the bad wild pet owners are ruining it for the good wild pet owners. On the contrary, it's only the minority, the rich, that can HAVE the wild pet int he first place.Mention some strict regulations you have in mind, please.Pro Point 3) The threat of wild animals is a lie passed around by the media, and people are gullible.Or some people are just dumb sometimes and didn't really have time to listen to a raving freshman. Regardless, 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. These attacks are not fiction. They are not false. And the seemingly "freak accidents" that occur, are not rare, but common. I will prove this in my speech.Lastly, 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. He says "they," "their," a bunch of pronouns, but they're not really directed towards anyone, just Animal Rights groups in general. And it seems ludicrous that they want to "see the end of pets".Arguments1. Wild animals physically injure and/or kill peopleKeeping wild animals as pets can be dangerous. Many can bite, scratch, and attack an owner, children, or guests. Animal owners can be legally responsible for any damage, injuries or illnesses caused by animals they maintain [1].There have been many instances in which wild animals have attacked their owners [2].Travis the chimp once seriously mauled a woman who had to fend him off with a knife. When police arrived, he went after them too until he was shot. In fact, primate attacks are pretty common [2].August 2006, Chicago: A 14-year-old girl was hospitalized after a pet rhesus macaque monkey escaped from a cage. The girl's arm was reportedly "bitten to the bone."June 2005, Morehead, Kentucky: A monkey reached through a car window and grabbed and bit a drive-thru worker, while the primate's owner was picking up an order.August 2000, Jessamine County, Kentucky: A woman who was eight months pregnant was hospitalized after one of her two pet rhesus macaques attacked her when their cages were being cleaned.Visit the second source for even more primate attacks.Let's not forget tiger attacks either.2003, Millers Creek, North Carolina: Ruth Bynum's 400 pound Bengal tiger dragged her 10-year-old nephew under a fence and into his cage, where the boy was mauled to death.August 2005, Clackamas, Oregon: Pet lynx escapes and pounces on six-year old girl, clawing on her head.Visit the second source for even more tiger attacks.There are cases of pet bear attacks and pet reptile attacks. Simply visit the second source for more evidence.2. Wild animals carry a wide range of diseases or parasites.Wild animals can carry diseases dangerous or fatal to humans. Diseases include rabies, distemper, herpes viruses, salmonella, polio, tuberculosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever and bubonic plague. Wild animals also harbor parasites, such as intestinal worms and protozoa [1]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discourages direct contact with wild animals for a simple reason: They can carry diseases that are dangerous to people, such as rabies, herpes B virus, and Salmonella. The herpes B virus commonly found among macaque monkeys can be fatal to humans. Tens of thousands of people get Salmonella infections each year from reptiles or amphibians, causing the CDC to recommend that these animals be kept out of homes with children under five. A 2003 outbreak of monkeypox was set in motion when African rodents carrying the disease were imported for the pet trade and infected native prairie dogs, who were also sold as pets [3][4].3. Having wild animals as pets limits their own survival.If having wild animals is legal in the US, then there will be a large demand for them. Animals will have to be captured, transported from different places all over the world. This limits their own survival.For example, parrots are the world's most endangered family of birds due to devastation from the international pet trade. The enormous global demand for these and other exotic pets is fueling the illegal capture and trade of millions of animals, most of which die during transportation [1].4. People can't take care of them.Taking care of an exotic pet is no easy feat; it sucks your resources if you're willing to provide for the animal and it hurts the animal's natural behavior as well. Veterinarian Kevin Wright of the Phoenix Zoo in Arizona says primates are highly intelligent, emotionally complex, and long-lived animals that need to be around their own kind in order to develop normally. "If you try to keep them as pets you're creating a mentally disturbed animal in 99.9 percent of the cases," said Wright, director of conservation, science and sanctuary at the zoo. "The animal will never be able to fit in any other home. Never learn how to get along with other monkeys. And, more often than not, will end up with a lot of behavioral traits that are self-destructive." [4]I look forward to hearing from the Proposition. Sources:1. http://www.aza.org...2. http://www.thedailygreen.com...3. http://www.humanesociety.org...4. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...