Here's an awesome way to stop overfishing: Let's just close the oceans!
Easy peasy!
Right?
Guys?
Hey piscivores, Trace here for DNews -- We're killing the oceans.
In the middle of the last century, aggressive commercial fishing really hit the oceans hard,
trying to get high-protein fish into our diet.
In 1989, 90 million metric tons of fish were taken from the ocean.
Since that peak, the number of fish caught has decreased every year since, and not because
we don't WANT more fish, but because they're simply -- not there.
In the year 2000, the BBC assumed genetically farmed fish would be sustaining the world
by 2025, that's not far off.
At the time, the United Nations estimated 70 percent of the world was threatened by
overfishing.
Then, in 2003 the journal Nature estimated of the biomass of all fish in the ocean was
only 10% of what it was before commercial fishing.
It's sort of like, we HAD 10 fish, and we ate 9 of them.
At the moment, the international community agreed to fish in seasons, with catch quotas
and minimum size limits -- with the hope this would allow time for the fish to mature, spawn
and build the population.
News flash, it ain't workin'.
Why?
Because we're not really managing the fisheries, it's essentially a free for all once ships
are in international waters.
According to the World Wildlife Federation, "the global fishing fleet is 2-3 times larger
than what the oceans can sustainably support."
So what do we do?!
A new plan published in PLOS Biology has a pretty radical solution that they say will
sustain the fish population forever...
CLOSE THE OCEANS // OKAY EVERYONE, CLOSE IT UP, WE HAD A GOOD RUN.
Seriously?
Close the oceans?
Would this work?
According to the researchers' models, Yeah.
Not only would it work, but we'd make money in the long run.
Their plan is close the high seas --- which are real, it's not just a pirate joke.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization define the high seas as international waters
more than 200 miles from land.
If you do the math, that's 64 percent of ocean's surface and 95 percent of its volume, all
unfishable.
Closed.
But only for a few years, then when they're reopened again under new regulations, we can
fish sustainably FOREVER!
Yes, it sounds a little far fetched, but last month, the director of the international consulting
firm McKinsey & Company said the SAME THING!
He said, we're SUBSIDIZING high seas fishing, which increasingly is not a profitable enterprise.
Ships meander around the oceans, looking for remaining populations.
If we designated the high seas as conservation areas it would cost us $2 per person on average,
but we'd get $4 back in the long run.
Once populations rebounded, there would be more fish to catch, which is good for business
AND conservationists.
A study in Science from 2006 says if we don't do SOMETHING then by 2050 it's all over; we're
going to have no more fish to eat.
Under the PLOS Biology plan, each country could regulate its own 200 miles of fishing
waters, and thus maintain healthy populations of local fish and allow for the global population
to rebound.
Iceland, Australia, New Zealand and the United States have already begun attempts to rebuild
their fishing stock, but there's a LOT more to do.
Would this mean you CAN'T have sushi for a while?
Not really, but the sushi you have might be more expensive as only a small portion of
the fish will wander into the acceptable fishing areas.
Yes, there WOULD be economic impact around the planet, but if we don't do SOMETHING we're
on track to hunt fish to extinction.
Is it worth it?
Should they work it?
Put your comment down below, and thanks for watching DNews today!
Subscribe for daily videos!