Dulvy et al in ‘3 (Nicholas, (School of Marine Science and Tech. @ U. Newcastle), Yvonne Sadovy, (Dept. Ecology and Biodiversity @ U. Hong Kong), and John D. Reynolds, (Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation @ School of Bio. Sci. @ U. East Anglia), Fish and Fisheries, “Extinction vulnerability in marine populations”, 4:1, Blackwell-Synergy)
Marine fish populations are more variable and resilient than terrestrial populationsGreat natural variability in population size is sometimes invoked to argue that IUCN Red List criteria, as one example, are too conservative for marine fishes (Hudson and Mace 1996; Matsuda et al. 1997; Musick 1999; Powles et al. 2000; Hutchings 2001a). For the (1996) IUCN list, a decline of 20% within 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer) triggered a classification of 'vulnerable', while declines of 50 and 80% led to classifications of 'endangered' and 'critically endangered', respectively. These criteria were designed to be applied to all animal and plant taxa, but many marine resource biologists feel that for marine fishes 'one size does not fit all' (see Hutchings 2001a). They argue that percent decline criteria are too conservative compared to the high natural variability of fish populations. Powles et al. (2000) cite the six-fold variation of the Pacific sardine population (Sardinops sagax, Clupeidae) and a nine-fold variation in northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax, Clupeidae) over the past two millennia to suggest that rapid declines and increases of up to 10-fold are relatively common in exploited fish stocks. It should, however, be borne in mind that the variation of exploited populations must be higher than unexploited populations because recruitment fluctuations increasingly drive population fluctuations when there are few adults (Pauly et al. 2002).
2. Current policies solves the impact
Houston Chronicle 08(9/9. “Ocean preserve; A Bush plan to set aside vast swaths of pristine ocean recognized the need to protect this vital habitat”, L/N)
PRESIDENT George W. Bush, to put it mildly, has a less-than-stellar record on the environment. It has been the consistent practice of this administration to loosen standards for clean air and water, and to misrepresent the science that supports the need for protecting wildlife and habitats. That's the assessment not only of environmental activists but of scientists, medical experts and academics from a wide range of disciplines. But where praise is due, it would be wrong to withhold it. Happily, Bush does deserves great compliments for a plan he has devised to protect several huge swaths of pristine Pacific ocean within U.S. jurisdiction. The total area of the proposed protection zone is 900,000 square miles. If realized, the sites would comprise the world's largest marine sanctuary. According to news reports, Bush asked a number of Cabinet secretaries to work out a means for protecting areas of the Mariana Trench, the Rose Atoll in American Samoa and the Line Islands, which are a long spray of atolls and reefs in the central Pacific. The Mariana Trench is the deepest area on planet Earth, large enough to hold Mount Everest. The proposed zone of protection is so immense because the area is likely to include all the area of water within 200 miles of each island or reef that breaks the surface of the ocean. The action is stunning in an administration that typically has been more interested in allowing commercial interests to exploit federal lands for profit than in establishing environmental protectorates. Actually, though, this is not the first time President Bush has undertaken to safeguard marine life and habitat. In 2006, Bush set aside a group of remote islands covering 84 million acres to create a national maritime monument, now known as the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. It's an area that is, as the president pointed out, more than 100 times bigger than Yosemite National Park. The importance of creating such ocean preserves cannot be overstated. Today, there are some 150 dead zones covering from a few square miles to as much as 45,000 square miles of water. These are areas that are so oxygen-depleted from pollution runoff that they can sustain no life. One of the best known such zones is in our own Gulf of Mexico. Other ocean areas are polluted with vast flotillas of decomposing plastic that blot out the sun and choke off marine life. Overfishing in some places threatens to disrupt the ocean-based food chain on which humans depend for sustenance. Meanwhile, global warming is wreaking its own havoc on the delicate web of sea life. As vast as they are, it is now clear that the health of the planet's oceans cannot endure unlimited assaults by human beings. The Bush plan acknowledges this reality and takes concrete steps to preserve and protect priceless and irreplaceable marine life and habitat.
SJMN in ‘2 (San Joes Mercury News, “Environmental group says overfishing is biggest threat to oceans”, 7-10, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8802339_ITM)
The world's oceans are in failing health today, mostly the result of years of overfishing, according to a reportreleased Tuesdayby the Ocean Conservancy,a Washington, D.C.-based environmental group.Overfishing is even more damaging than pollution or global warming,said Roger Rufe, president of the Ocean Conservancy and a retired Coast Guard vice admiral. ""It has had a more profoundly negative effect on ocean ecosystems than all other human impacts,'' he said.