Nations Agree To Ban Fishing in Arctic Ocean For At Least 16 Years (sciencemag.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nations Agree To Ban Fishing in Arctic Ocean For At Least 16 Years (sciencemag.org)

Posted by msmash on Monday December 4, 2017 @08:40AM from the welcome-move dept.

Several readers share a report: Nine nations and the European Union have reached a deal to place the central Arctic Ocean (CAO) off-limits to commercial fishers for at least the next 16 years. The pact, announced last week, will give scientists time to understand the region's marine ecology -- and the potential impacts of climate change -- before fishing becomes widespread. "There is no other high seas area where we've decided to do the science first," says Scott Highleyman, vice president of conservation policy and programs at the Ocean Conservancy in Washington, D.C., who also served on the U.S. delegation to the negotiations. "It's a great example of putting the precautionary principle into action." The deal to protect 2.8 million square kilometers of international waters in the Arctic was reached after six meetings spread over 2 years. It includes not just nations with coastal claims in the Arctic, but nations such as China, Japan, and South Korea with fishing fleets interested in operating in the region.

96 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Japan says Fucka You! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 08:43 · Score: 0

We gotta have a da whale!
1. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  obligatory southpark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybv7C1sbSC0
  The most bizarre thing is it's not made up, why the fuck do they insist on killing whales for no apparent reasons.
2. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u_G8L-BIHU
3. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by magarity · 2017-12-04 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  The most bizarre thing is it's not made up, why the fuck do they insist on killing whales for no apparent reasons.
  What do you mean, no reason? They want to eat the whales.
4. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  As Yes said, Don't Eat the Whales! in this ground-breaking music video
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
5. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by ShanghaiBill · 2017-12-04 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  They want to eat the whales.
  Actually, they don't. Whale meat is not very good, and there is not much of a market for it. Japanese whale harvesting is really about subsidies to a special interest group which donates liberally and is adept at exploiting nationalism and the "culture" angle in their propaganda. Much of the whale meat ends of in dog food.
  On the other hand, minke whales are plentiful and I don't see any moral difference between killing them and killing cows.
  Disclaimer: I am a vegetarian, and I don't eat whales or cows.
6. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-12-04 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  I tried minke whale in Iceland last spring. It's really delicious, like filet mignon.
7. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Immerman · 2017-12-04 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  How about chimpanzees? Or is eating intelligent beings with complex social lives only distasteful when they're relatively closely related?
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
8. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Gussington · 2017-12-04 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  How about chimpanzees? Or is eating intelligent beings with complex social lives only distasteful when they're relatively closely related?
  Well let's flip that around, are you ok eating a potato? At what point on the biological hierarchy between potato and human do you define the boundary between living thing with a social life and things that are allowed to be eaten?
9. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by PoopJuggler · 2017-12-05 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Central Nervous System.
10. Re: Japan says Fucka You! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-05 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  What is âharvestingâ, if not for food? What is your point?
  âThe government made they do it?â
11. Re: Japan says Fucka You! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-05 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  The man who didnt get the memo.
  People used to eat people many aeons ago. It is now frowned upon (the memo you didnt get).
12. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Immerman · 2017-12-05 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Self-awareness perhaps?
  Personally, I try to avoid commissioning the death of anything that demonstrates sophisticated tool-use and problem-solving skills. Which pretty much rules out most whales and higher primates, elephants, etc.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
13. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by ShanghaiBill · 2017-12-05 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you should learn more about cows. Their social lives are very complex, and they have distinct personalities.
  I don't eat whales, but I don't eat cows either. If you eat cows, but are outraged about people eating minke whales (which are plentiful), they you are being hypocritical. There is no moral difference.
14. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Gussington · 2017-12-05 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Central Nervous System.
  So no animals at all? Boring...
15. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Gussington · 2017-12-05 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Self-awareness perhaps?
  Personally, I try to avoid commissioning the death of anything that demonstrates sophisticated tool-use and problem-solving skills. Which pretty much rules out most whales and higher primates, elephants, etc.
  What if the trade-off is a good life in exchange for your corpse? To demonstrate, if someone offered me a guaranteed good life on the condition they'd eat me when I'm dead, I'd take it. What right do you have to deny that to others?
16. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Immerman · 2017-12-06 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Even if "when you were dead" involved them probably killing you before age 20? Because that's about the norm for farm animals.
  Typical slaughter age --- Natural lifespan --- Animal
  1.5y --- 15-20 y --- Cow (beef)
  4y --- 15-20 --- Cow (dairy)
  1.5y --- up to 8y --- Chicken(laying hens)
  3-5y --- 10-12 y --- Pigs (breeding sow)
  And of course farm animals have been long bred to be stupid/placid enough to not realize/put up a fight when being led to slaughter, not exactly problem-solving tool users, even if many are more intelligent than they're typically given credit for.
  And while some farms may indeed offer the "good life", in the US at least the vast majority of meat comes from farms that offer anything but. And *none* offer a choice in the matter, even if the animals could comprehend what they were choosing.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
17. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Gussington · 2017-12-06 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  Even if "when you were dead" involved them probably killing you before age 20? Because that's about the norm for farm animals.
  More context is probably required such around what is the life expectancy of a farmed animal compared to wild? If infant mortality and life expectancy were similar to the 16th century then 20 good years might be a good deal.
18. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Immerman · 2017-12-07 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Even in the 16th century, life expectancy at birth was ~40 years. And if you survived your first few years it went way up.
  A lot of domestic animals don't have close wild relatives anymore, but we can make rough comparisons - like cows, elk can live to be 20, but their life expectancy is 10-13. Similarly wild boars typically live to about 12 in captivity, or about 6 in the wild. And the trend continues - like 16th century humans, it seems wild animals have a life expectancy of roughly middle-age, about halfway to the point where they'd die of old age.
  Meanwhile, farms typically slaughter them at a much younger age, once their youthful growth spurt begins to plateau.
  You still up for it? Knowing your "good life" will likely mean living alone in a small, filthy cage with an unending supply of food, and a distracted slaughter that you probably won't be conscious for as puberty begins to slow down?
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
19. Re:Japan says Fucka You! by Gussington · 2017-12-07 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  You still up for it? Knowing your "good life" will likely mean living alone in a small, filthy cage with an unending supply of food, and a distracted slaughter that you probably won't be conscious for as puberty begins to slow down?
  Maybe where you live has lower standard of living both for humans and animals. Where I live, cows and sheep roam free in paddocks. Not a bad life compared to a lot of other species.
Won't make an impact by MBGMorden · 2017-12-04 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
1. Re:Won't make an impact by fluffernutter · 2017-12-04 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, not business as usual; enjoying a yield like they haven't seen in years!
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
2. Re:Won't make an impact by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-04 08:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.
  Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
3. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  I can already hear the Twitter rants and a declaration to open it up to any US based company.
4. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  It is pretty easy, the fishing vessels from the country in question can register their boat in any place in the world.
5. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  We're not fishing, were doing research using a sampling without replacement design.
6. Re:Won't make an impact by CaseyB · 2017-12-04 09:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Dead surprised to see the US on that list. No doubt they'll change their mind once they realize they can make a quick buck at the expense of the planet.
7. Re: Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  So long, and thanks for all the fish!
8. Re:Won't make an impact by CustomBuild · 2017-12-04 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.
  Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.
  Japan's commitment covers commercial fishing, not their 'scientific' endeavors.
9. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.
  I'd not be so sure about that. Quite a lot of countries, especially in Africa and Asia, have no concept of sustainable use of renewable resources whatsoever, they have already fished out their own territorial waters and the pirate fleets they operate are now perpetrating a tragedy of the commons in international waters.There are plenty of costal states in the Atlantic for example who watch these pirate fleets overfish the areas outside of their 200 mile EEZ and they are are just itching to go after these people with satellites, patrol aircraft, drones and patrol ships. What is missing is the legal framework and the consensus to do it, not the will. We have been seeing pirate fleets from as far away as Asia invading the North Atlantic where they engage in rampant overfishing of stocks that travel in and out of the various costal states' EEZs. Sooner or later there will be some kind of cooperative effort to patrol and prevent rampant overfishing in international waters simply to prevent the worst of what is already an unfolding catastrophe of dead oceans.
10. Re:Won't make an impact by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-12-04 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.
  No, that's a lot of countries that won't be fishing in the specified area. If, for instance, North Korea were to send fishing boats there, well, they'd be catching as much as they wanted to, what with no competition for the fish...
  As to whether it'll make an impact? Probably, assuming no major crop failures anywhere in the next decade or so. On the other hand, Global Warming (whether A or not) will tend to make crop failures more likely. So it's a toss-up.
  On balance, I personally think it'll be a good thing. Of course, I believe we should be farming/herding fish, rather than hunting them (we've been doing farming/herding on land for 10K years, about time we stopped this stone-age hunting crap on the oceans)....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
11. Re:Won't make an impact by tsa · 2017-12-04 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Farming/herding on land has its problems too. But they're easier to contain and control.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
12. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Japan, is that you?
13. Re:Won't make an impact by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-04 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  All fish in Arctic waters property of the Glorious Soviet, err, Russian Nuclear Powered Icebreaker/Research Vessel. Comrade, err, Doctor Lysenko already planning experiments to produce Gillmen able to approach American submarines and plant magnetic bombs charges on them, as NKVD punishment battalions were assigned to do to Panzers in Great Patriotic war after all suicide dogs eaten by greedy Kulaks.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
14. Re:Won't make an impact by Attila+Dimedici · 2017-12-04 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  North Korea is unlikely to have the icebreaking capability to send fishing boats to this area.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
15. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  Since when has Chinese or south Korean fishers ever honoured fishing restrictions? I am sure that this wil overall be a positive thing but you can guarantee that because of the reduced fleet fishing their others will see it as a prime opportunity for exclusive profitable access.
16. Re:Won't make an impact by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-04 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'll be surprised if the US is still intact in 15 years, let alone honoring an environmental treaty.
17. Re:Won't make an impact by JustNiz · 2017-12-04 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Japan doesn't care about the Arctic yet, they are still too busy illegally exterminating the Antarctic whale population.
18. Re:Won't make an impact by MangoCats · 2017-12-04 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  It will make an impact, but the next 16 years are going to be a period of extreme environmental upheaval in the Arctic as the cap starts to melt every summer.
19. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  you mean 1-2 years; all the drumpf faggots will have heart attacks when he is removed for treason then the dead areas will be abandoned
20. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  I was more surprised to see Iceland; their second largest fishing port is basically in the Arctic Circle, and although they're a wonderfully tolerant and environmentally friendly people, you fuck with their fishing and they'll gut you like a herring, i.e. with terrifying efficiency.
21. Re: Won't make an impact by WindBourne · 2017-12-04 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not true. China signed and they will still fish there.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
22. Re: Won't make an impact by WindBourne · 2017-12-04 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see. Environmental movement started with America. America has done a good job of managing our fisheries except when we have europeans and Chinese running through our waters and fishing illegally. Otoh, both Europe and China are destroying the fishing all around their nations. Hmm.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
23. Re: Won't make an impact by Gussington · 2017-12-04 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see. Environmental movement started with America. America has done a good job of managing our fisheries
  
  Has done, being past tense. There's a new sheriff in town and all bets are off.
  As they say in the corporate gambling world, historical performance is no indication of future performance.
24. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, even Japan signed up. I guess they're too busy killing whales (for science!) in other oceans...
25. Re: Won't make an impact by WindBourne · 2017-12-04 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  nope.
  Just like reagan, Trump will not be able to make any changes to environment to matter.
  For example, Trump claims that we are going to expand coal in a massive way. Yet, we are not building any new coal plants. Why not? Because both wind and nat gas are MUCH CHEAPER than coal. While there are places in America, where coal is cheaper than say wind or nat gas, then the other remains cheaper than coal. As such, NO UTILITY will build a new coal plant in America. It is just not economically feasible.
  
  And if we get the nuke SMRs going, then we will likely see fossil fuel replaced quickly.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
26. Re: Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yes to what you said.
  But it's not just that prices are against coal. The C-levels of the power generating utilities know that the biggest menace facing coal plants is regulatory, whether unaffordable new emissions controls for minor pollutants (what if the EPA says capture ALL metals from the smoke) or carbon-taxes.
  Right now coal plants are in even greater regulatory danger in the long term than even nuclear. No one at the upper levels thinks that the changes the Republican party is pushing through will ALL stick.
  It's said that the people running utilities are slow to adopt change, and that's because they take the 50-100 year view. No way is coal going to be regulatory safe for 25 years, much less 50.
27. Re: Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 19:41 · Score: 0
  
  The Cod Wars (Iceland vs. England) was a good example of that.
28. Re:Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  More lutefisk for the Swedes!
29. Re: Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  Let's see. Environmental movement started with America.
  Not true.
  
  America has done a good job of managing our fisheries
  Not true.
30. Re: Won't make an impact by dunkelfalke · 2017-12-04 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
31. Re: Won't make an impact by Maritz · 2017-12-04 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Both sentences after 'let's see' are factually wrong. You didn't check? Maybe you did check, but you have a Drumpf fan's relationship to reality?
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
32. Re:Won't make an impact by Maritz · 2017-12-04 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, just stay on slashdot where nothing like that ever happens. Chinese hoax.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
33. Re:Won't make an impact by Mashiki · 2017-12-04 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'll be surprised if the US is still intact in 15 years, let alone honoring an environmental treaty.
  You should be saying that about EU countries. As it stands now, Canada has repeatedly arrested commercial fishers from norway, sweden, denmark and iceland for illegally fishing, illegally fishing in Canadian territorial waters, and illegally using banned netting. US commercial fishers at least have adhered to the rules for the last 50 years(or are clever enough not to be caught). China is another flagrant abuser of international maritime laws relating to fishing.
  Keep in mind that with this treaty it doesn't apply to "natives" in Canada. Meaning they can still pull as much as they want out of the water and are subject to no treaty requirements.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
34. Re: Won't make an impact by WindBourne · 2017-12-05 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Notice where all of this is occuring for the last 150 years.
  Europe and most of coastal Asia, have collapse nearly all of their fisheries.
  That is why both Europe and Asia (mostly China), send their fleets all over the world to fish other's waters.
  You really should have checked before speaking up. Or are you a follower of trump and have not a clue of what you are saying?
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
35. Re: Won't make an impact by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-05 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  Did you read any of those links? Because they don't in any way corroborate your wild fantasy.
Good. by OffTheLip · 2017-12-04 08:48 · Score: 2

Good. Hopefully all nations will be complaint and this is the start of something big.
1. Re:Good. by CustomBuild · 2017-12-04 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  Good. Hopefully all nations will be complaint and this is the start of something big.
  I'm complaining already, by just reading the comment.
2. Re:Good. by OffTheLip · 2017-12-04 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  ^complaint ^compliant :^/
"before fishing becomes widespread."... uuuh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 08:49 · Score: 1

...Think they are about 40,000 years too late for that.
Does this Ban Fishing for Science? by CodeHog · 2017-12-04 08:52 · Score: 1

Because I recall an article where some countries get around bans like this by saying it's for scientific purposes.

--
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
1. Re:Does this Ban Fishing for Science? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Delicious, savory scientific purposes.
We promise! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 08:52 · Score: 0

Yeah like that's going to work!
Dead Sea by youngone · 2017-12-04 08:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Meanwhile the Antarctic is being sucked dry of everything that swims as quickly as the massive seafood concerns can fish.
Lots of it is illegal fishing, and using slave labour.
Also the Pacific is being fished empty, illegally by vast foreign fishing fleets, despite the Pacific nations protests.
In my view commercial fishing is unsustainable long term, and should be outlawed completely.
1. Re:Dead Sea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  ok just outlaw commercial fishing what an amazing plan. Perhaps we should outlaw a few other unnessacary things. such as breathing out (co2 you know)
2. Re:Dead Sea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  the Pacific is being fished empty, illegally by vast foreign fishing fleets
  What do you mean by "foreign" in the context of the Pacific ocean?
  Atlantic fleets maybe?
3. Re:Dead Sea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  I believe Foreign would be countries with no coastline that touches the pacific.
4. Re:Dead Sea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  International waters by definition have NO country that has a coastline on it and are available to all. I don't agree with what is happening around the world but either no country is foreign in international waters or they all are.
5. Re:Dead Sea by Freischutz · 2017-12-04 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile the Antarctic is being sucked dry of everything that swims as quickly as the massive seafood concerns can fish. Lots of it is illegal fishing, and using slave labour. Also the Pacific is being fished empty, illegally by vast foreign fishing fleets, despite the Pacific nations protests. In my view commercial fishing is unsustainable long term, and should be outlawed completely.
  Not just the Pacific, fishing fleets from the Pacific have been operating in the North Atlantic for years. A lot of these fleets come from places like Taiwan and the Comoros. There are also fleets engaging in massive overfishing operating out of Italy and the Balkans. The only way to fix this is to extend the fisheries managment authority of nations to international waters and then form naval task forces with the authority to board and confiscate illegal fishing vessels under piracy laws. Soft power isn't enough anymore, the gloves have to come off.
6. Re: Dead Sea by WindBourne · 2017-12-04 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Less Taiwan and more China. https://www.ft.com/content/e7b...
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
7. Re:Dead Sea by youngone · 2017-12-04 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  I agree entirely with you. I didn't know the Italians were at it too, but as a Pacific Islander am fully aware of the destruction being wrought by the Chinese and the Thais (among others).
  I am old enough to remember our Government (NZ) impounding a Vietnamese fishing boat, then auctioning it off because of illegal fishing (late 1970's). Although it was a stupid political stunt to boost the popularity of an unpopular government, and to brown-nose the Americans, it did stop the pirates for a while.
  We are told that the inshore fishing industry in New Zealand is the most sustainable in the world, but the numbers of rare Hector's dolphins keep falling, and the numbers of Albatross returning to nest on the Otago peninsula is also falling, so it's probably bullshit.
  We also have TV advertising by the fishing industry every night telling us how great they are and how they love the environment and would never do any harm to anyone, not even those nice fishies. It's clumsy propaganda just like the Soviet Union used to shove down people's throats but no-one seems to think twice about it.
  As far as I'm concerned they're all arseholes and will be first against the wall when I'm named President for Life.
if more ppl were vegan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:00 · Score: 0

this wouldnt be an issue at all
1. Re:if more ppl were vegan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  if vegans love animals so much, why do they keep eating their food?
2. Re:if more ppl were vegan by Maritz · 2017-12-04 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  I've always thought that veganism in general would be more popular if fewer vegans were absolute doses of shit.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
River Monsters Guy Approves? by omfglearntoplay · 2017-12-04 09:01 · Score: 1

Jeremy Wade is more into freshwater, but I'm pretty sure he would approve of this. Do I speak out of turn?
While I'm here using a supposed celebrity endorsement that is entirely of my own imagination, I think this is a move in a good direction. It does seem hard to count the fish accurately even with some major change like cancelling most fishing... the fish should be increasing in number, so any detrimental effects would be masked for a good while, right?
Japan has better things to do by nwaack · 2017-12-04 09:05 · Score: 1

When asked for comment, a Japanese spokesperson said they were too busy stabbing whales and dolphins to death with sharp sticks to concern themselves with the Arctic Ocean.
1. Re:Japan has better things to do by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  When asked for comment, a Japanese spokesperson said Fuck you, Whale and fuck you, Dolphin!
  
  FTFY.
Someone may want to check the fine print by Lucas123 · 2017-12-04 09:08 · Score: 1

Are we sure President Trump knows about this deal? I find it hard to believe he'd sign off on not exploiting a natural resource... any natural resources to the fullest of its extent.
1. Re:Someone may want to check the fine print by fluffernutter · 2017-12-04 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure I know where Trump is going for his next fishing vacation..
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
2. Re:Someone may want to check the fine print by tsa · 2017-12-04 09:44 · Score: 2
  
  As soon as he gets to know what they did behind his back he will fire some random people and repeal the ban.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
3. Re:Someone may want to check the fine print by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-04 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Jokes aside, not into the Arctic Ocean.
  He does not like to freeze his nose or ass off.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
4. Re:Someone may want to check the fine print by Gavagai80 · 2017-12-04 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  He's worried the fishing boats would get in the way of the oil exploration.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
agree what you want, the Chinese will get it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 09:33 · Score: 0

Just means they will have their private fishery for 16 years
1. Re: agree what you want, the Chinese will get it by WindBourne · 2017-12-04 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.ft.com/content/e7b.... Exactly. Chinese gov subsidizes their fishing fleet to go into others waters.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2. Re: agree what you want, the Chinese will get it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-05 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  At least they aren't as bad as Japanese 'fishing' fleets.
Where's the list of signatory countries by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 12:00 · Score: 0

I'd like to scan the list and check for significant omissions. Sorry, "y'know, all the important ones that matter" isn't good enough.
Lucky 16 by dohzer · 2017-12-04 12:12 · Score: 1

I'm glad it was 16 years and not 15 or 17.
international waters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 12:41 · Score: 0

So in the middle of no where in international waters, with not a cop to be found they expect people to obey the law.... They havent been able to stop japan from killing whales, what makes you think they will stop with the little fish.
Alaskans won't eat farmed fish by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-12-04 12:47 · Score: 1

So now that they will have to eat farmed fish whether they like it or not, what happens?
1. Re:Alaskans won't eat farmed fish by Gavagai80 · 2017-12-04 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  Both of the people in northern Alaska will have to fish in the river or order their fish from southern Alaska, where the Gulf of Alaska can still be fished freely.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
2. Re:Alaskans won't eat farmed fish by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Alaskans aren't getting any significant fish from the CAO now.
  The fishing areas that are being placed off-limits is the Central Arctic Ocean. This is not the full Arctic ocean, The treaty covers only the international waters outside each nations 200-mile zone. It's about 20% of the Arctic ocean, and it's the worst part to fish in.
  That's not where Alaskans fishing fleets go to get their fish from today.
  Here's a pic
  https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0308597X17301367-gr1.jpg
International waters by manu0601 · 2017-12-04 13:26 · Score: 1

Theses are international waters. What prevents a ship from a non signatory nation to come and fish there?
So anyway by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-12-04 19:44 · Score: 1

"It's a great example of putting the precautionary principle into action."
Which is a great example of what's wrong with government. The People reserve freedom unto themselves and not that they get on their knees to beg those in power for permission to do things.
Government shouldn't be outlawing things without good reason, and the precautionary principle self-admittedly is not.
It isn't up to free people to prove to those in power why they should be free to do somethimg.
I will now await my downmod by those who want to hide challenges to their worldview. See my .sig.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:So anyway by Maritz · 2017-12-04 21:54 · Score: 2
  
  Fairly incoherent to be honest.
  But yeah, I think I see what you're saying. Boo government, let the people fish the oceans until they are underwater deserts. Fish the oceans until you have full blown ecosystem collapse. That'll work out great. Libertarianism, yay.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
big whatevs by eyenot · 2017-12-04 22:53 · Score: 1

in this paper i cover most of the wrongs industry has caused life on earth since the industrial revolution, and in the middle there is a long section on overfishing. just read about what really happens in the fishing industry when you digest news about some part of the ocean being "protected from fishing x years". if you've ever argued with fishing industry professionals when they are being told to cut it out, you know firsthand what a bunch of lying phoney bastards they are when it comes to the environment.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbs0...

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
You're a crackpot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-05 13:50 · Score: 0

Trump and the Republicans won't have any effect on the environment? Are you for real? Is your google broken? There have already been permanent changes and he still has 7 years to go!
You're batshit insane.