It's an interesting list... some I agree with, some I don't. Much of it is subjective - and therein lies the problem.
The biggest issue I have is sustainability of wild stocks. If it's rare in the wild, let it be. Once a fish is removed from the ocean it's ecologically "dead" whether it lives for a minute or a decade.
Personally I don't stock what are considered to be "rental items" (things that are typically short-lived for various reasons), but I don't believe in legislating such things - it should be up to the individual (hobbyist, store, importer, etc) whether they choose to buy them or not.
This subject is discussed ad-nauseum on an industry-related forum - and some have tried to compile different "lists" for different reasons, depending on their agendas.
It really does boil down to hobbyist responsibility and researching the creatures they wish to keep and choosing to keep them in the best possible scenario, or not keeping them at all.
My Tiera Batfish does just fine - and has for many years. He's spent the last 2 years with me in a 1000-g aquarium and survived having his eye removed for him by an Undulated Triggerfish....
Many hobbyists have figured out how to keep seahorses successfully - foods available for them have improved in recent years.
Venomous fish that are otherwise adaptable should be fine *as long as* the purchaser is aware of the dangers and is willing to accept personal liability for themselves and those around them, should someone have a "close encounter".
The list is both over-cautious, and "incomplete" in my opinion. No corals are listed (Goniopora, Cataphyllia for example), no Flame Scallops... and it does list some fish that many are able to keep with great success.
It's a decent guideline - but IMO nothing of this sort should be "legislated" unless it involves sustainable capture - whether that means that chemicals are used, or the species are captured to a point where the numbers in the wild decline as a result.
JMHO
Jenn
