All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

I thank Con for his response. Con states that "the only current regulations we have are virtually the bans." He also states that I claimed that with bans lifted, there would be less animal abuse. Actually, permits do a great deal to secure animal and human safety. And bans are most definitely not the only regulations! I never said there would be less exotic animal abuse. I said that the amount of abuse would not suddenly grow just because now there are no bans. I compared this to how Wisconsin (which has no bans) does not have a larger amount of abuse than other states that do. And I said that regulations and tests could be useful-- this is what mostly defines a permit. To get a permit for many large mammals, for example, one must get one's facilities checked by the USDA. "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." Most people do not release their animals into the streets. Only a crazy person would release large exotics like elephants or tigers. This is extremely rare, and the person would be heftily fined. Con himself previously said that primates were given up to sanctuaries by their families, so this argument is a contradiction on his part. Con stated that I said that permits were not working well. He then says that domestic and wild animals should not be compared because you do not need a permit for a domestic animal. When did I ever say that permits did not work well? I advocated permits and dismissed bans. And yes, domestic pet owners do not need permits because their pets are "normal," despite having so many dog attacks and abandoned pets. Perhaps all animals should need some kind of permit. That would certainly help the animals in shelters. "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)."The majority of exotic pet owners are very responsible. Most are not abusing their pets. This is absolutely false. Where is your proof? The media makes it seem like this is the case but it is not. This is just so far from the truth. So many exotic pets are living great lives, but the media will not have a very good story if they did a report on that. Just imagine: "Headline News: A beloved pet tiger passed away after living 20 good years with owner." Therefore, you don't hear much about them. Imagine if I were a newcomer to earth. I was flooded with stories about all the domestic animal abuse, and rarely heard about the good owners. I'd think most dog or cat owners were abusive, but that just is not the case, and it isn't the case with exotics. Yes, some exotics will be relinquished, but so can some domestics. There is no difference. "If an animal is being fed, housed, and properly cared for, if the animal appears content in captivity, on what grounds do you have to assert that such an animal is suffering? Are you suggesting that due to its captivity the animal must be suffering even if it is not apparent? Then how will I know if my dog or cat is or isn’t suffering? It sounds a lot like the idea that the animal must be suffering is being derived from emotional non-logic. As for the obvious cases of abuse that have infrequently occurred, there's enough domesticated pet cruelty to keep multiple Animal Planet series running, while Fatal Attractions struggles to search for more stories after 2 seasons. It is incredibly unreasonable to hold exotic pet owners to a higher standard than domesticated animal owners and expect there to be zero rates of cruel situations. As for the idea that just because an animal is wild or undomesticated that it cannot be cared for in captivity, that statement comes without a shred of actual evidence and is based on personal sentiment (often by people who are uneducated about captive animal care, and also refuse to do so)." [1]"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."No, domesticated animals and wild animals are not that different. Domesticated animals still have nearly all of their basic instincts. If you allow a dog, horse, cat, or bird to become feral, you will see that they will very quickly adapt. What does this say about them? It shows how wild they still all are at heart. There have been stories of dog packs in the country that attack children. These are dogs that, when they go back to their families, would never hurt a fly. This shows just how strong the pack instinct and prey drive still is in them. So, wild or domesticated, they are very nearly the same. A person who is educated on their specific wild animal would have no problems when keeping it as a pet. And the assumption that wild animals are or feel safe in the wild is ridiculous. Only in captivity can many animals who are usually skittish finally let down their guard."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."Sorry, I misunderstood. Very well, then the exotic pet market would be bigger than it is now, but what is the problem with that? Most exotics would not be coming from the wild, as I've already stated before. They would ensure endangered species will not go extinct, and like I stated before, illegal poaching would be greatly decreased, because why buy animals from an overly expensive ILLEGAL source when you can buy from a good breeder legally for a much more acceptable price? Con has given me copy and pasted information about why exotics are so dangerous. In fact, I think my statistics greatly refute all that. The media and AR groups overexaggerate the dangers of exotics. This is proven when you take a "highly dangerous" animal like a tiger and look more closely at their attacks, like I did. Like I showed in my statistics, tigers are really not dangerous at all, in the right hands. Especially since getting in your car poses 3 times the threat of actually owning a tiger. If animal attacks were really so frequent, why is it that Fatal Attractions struggle to find more stories after just season 2, like my quote above stated? Exotic pets are not dangerous. And even if they were, why would it concern others? Most animal attacks are not on the public. If someone wanted to put themselves at risk, who are you to stop them? This goes for extreme sports. Why aren't they banned? They are a whole lot more dangerous than exotic animals, and they are not a necessity. Animals are banned or limited in most places because people assume that animals are dangerous. Almost everyone will automatically think: "You have a panther? It's gonna eat you!" This is why most lawmakers deem them dangerous. But if they really were so dangerous, why haven't they been completely banned? Why are some places still holding on? There's a reason for that as well. Thank you.[1] http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com...