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 from now. 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, only 10% of all of that is left. Thanks to commercial fishing.

It's sort of like, we HAD 10 fish, and we ate 9 of them. So now what? 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 back.

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. Close it up, we're done.

Seriously? Close the oceans? Is this gonna work? According to the researchers' models, Yeah.

Not only would it work, but we'd end up 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 opening 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 already,

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 on average $2 per person for everybody on the planet, but we'd get $4 back in the long run. Once populations

rebounded, there would be more fish to catch, which would be good for business AND conservationists.

A study in Science from 2006 says if we don't do SOMETHING then by 2050, doesn't matter, it's all over; we're

going to have no more fish to eat, all the populations would have collapsed. 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? No , Not really, but the sushi you have

might be more expensive as only a small number of the fish will wander into the acceptable

fishing areas for some of the fancier wants. 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.

Go ahead. Put your comment down below, and thanks for watching

DNews today! Subscribe for daily videos! 7 days a week.