Josh Griep’s paper on the policy of the Federal government and the rules about owning exotic animals is actually quite compelling. I never have really been an “activist” when it comes to the environment. It seems illogical. A “green” car does not help the environment, it only kills it more slowly. But the way the writer explains how owners of these animals lack the ability to TRULY care for the well-being of their animal actually causes the reader to consider the true need for this change. This style of writing, though not Rogerian, still helps the reader take a fresh approach to the topic at hand. One thing that I see in his paper though that (when logic is applied) seems to be a weak point is where he talks on the statistics of exotic animals who kill their owners or others around them. Statistically, more people die each day from car wrecks than these exotic animals kill in an entire year, in an almost ten to one ratio. To say that these few losses (though they ARE losses) amount to enough of an argument for persuasion is somewhat illogical. That being said, I think many other statistics on the livelihoods and well-being of these animals could have been included in place of this one that would actually make the reader think twice about the captivity of these animals. Of all the environmental scares and worries, of all the “don’t drill here” and “don’t drive that” arguments, I believe the argument to limit or even completely ban the trade of exotic animals is the most important. When there is a wild, there is also a domesticated area. But when the wild is done away with, everything can be considered wild, lacking a comparable difference. This is why we need a change.