CF #1423

Let's Replenish Our Oceans!

By Ben Arnold

Image credit: Photo-61129

The reason I got started down this path was politics. Yes, I know, the one thing everybody hates most!

We especially hate war...

Japan and China were really the first offenders on the stage that I noticed when growing up. Always fighting over the oceans. Watching Chinese fishing vessels wash up on the beach during Typhoons and the fishers getting arrested was an annual event. Threatening war because of fish.

War doesn't benefit the the fishers. Because in fact it contaminates ocean wildlife and our seafood! And endangers swimmers, sailors, even the fishers themselves, and the whole world. [27][28]

Certainly this struggle has been going on for thousands of years between many nations and so we know that China and Japan are just a few of the players, many other nations are doing the same thing.

Many nations are fighting over borders, ideology, religion, resources, land, revenge, and yes, even fighting over fish.

Going to war over fish seems absurd!

But it's a huge industry, not just for sport fishers who do it for fun or hobby or passion. Fishers on the sea are dealing with millions of dollars, of equipment, life's savings, expenses, their family's livelihood, everything is at stake. And sometimes these nations are on the verge of war for other reasons and this is just something that tips the scale, the straw that broke the camel's back.

WARNING: For your personal safety please see our “disclaimer” at the bottom of this page, and obey all laws. Thank you. Our offers are not valid where prohibited.

Fishing is a Matter of Life & Death...

Entire nations survive on fish as their primary food source.[1] And so it's a matter of life and death for entire nations! And even nations who use fish just as a supplement is no small matter because we all know the importance of getting sufficient nutrients especially even the so-called "trace" nutrients (minerals fall into that category and we obviously can't live without minerals no matter how "trace" they are). The word "trace" for those who don't know means that we don't drink gallons of copper, gold, iron, magnesium, silver, and so on. [2]

It would kill us.

Those minerals are only needed in tiny, tiny amounts. And yet they're just as necessary and vital as vitamins. Do you notice that the word vitamins begins with the word "vital" only dropping the letter "l" and replacing it with "mins" which could be short for "minerals" but word-ology doesn't matter right now.

What matters is that we are healthy, and as I've just stated that health requires "fish" in some nations. In fact, in many, many nations! Fish are very important then... literally a matter of life and death!

If it's so serious, then why are we not taking it seriously?

Well, we are. First of all we're starting wars because of it. That's deadly serious then isn't it. But is war the only solution? Is fish really that important? What's the big problem really? Why are we starting wars? Shouldn't we simply find a solution that works best for everyone? War clearly isn't what's best for anyone. [27][28]

War never results in anything good, contrary to what we're told in schools and movies and video games and on TV. All of the various forms of media glamorize dying in war as a brave uniform wearing killer who gets gold and bronze and silver colored badges and medals and glory. I was in the military and it was much more horrible than that.

All that glory is great but the nightmares, the missing limbs, the messed up brain, the lifelong problems, the lack of pay, lack of benefits, lack of healthcare, it's not all that glorious and many ask themselves if it was worth it, what were the reasons for that war and what were the true costs, were there really any benefits worth all this?

Coming back from war without limbs and eye balls, or half of a person's head. Most soldiers come back with completely transformed personalities and mentality status even if they look 100% unscathed and healthy. Just being in the military or police or any other career that requires violence changes a person even if they never go to war or see any action. Just ask the divorce attorneys and courts of law that must process the divorces.

Being trained to exert violence and to be violent always makes a person anything but normal. Why else do you think wearing a uniform is constantly called a "sacrifice" for the community, the nation, and so on? It's literally a sacrifice because you're giving up "normal".

And is why divorce rates are through the roof in all of the uniformed services including firefighters and other emergency first responders such as doctors, ambulence and ER persons, and so on. Any career or lifestyle that involves a constant adrenaline rush and becomes addictive and requires long hours, is risky business. [36]

How many families are affected by the men and women who come back traumatized or don't come back at all? Half the nation? Just 20% of the nation? And how many resources are wasted on war? Especially for the nation that loses the war. How are they benefited?

The #1 reason nations get so angry when talking about fishing, usually starts on the front lines, between two fishers, and is because two fishing boats have arrived at the same waters and start to fight over that fishing spot.

And then the government gets involved and defends their own citizen who was fishing in that spot. Nations almost always defend their own citizens over another country's citizen. And so the global arguments begin.

If they had both been from the same country it would be consider a police matter, possibly a crime if anything was thrown, or heaven forbid they killed each other, and the affair would be resolved accordingly, in a court of law, no war. If they're from different nations, then it's a little more serious because there could be a war.

When people become violent, even if they're both from the same nation, same neighborhood, same family, that may as well be considered a war. All violence is bad, no matter how big the scale. But, what we call a war usually involves millions of people, not just a few families and feuding fishing companies and so on. It's no longer just a dispute between a few persons. Now it's millions of people at risk.

That's why wars are truly a sad occurrence, is that millions of lives are put at risk and altered because of a dispute between just one or two politicians. If that politician is truly representing those millions of people correctly, then okay, those millions of people obviously are asking for it also. But couldn't there have been a better way? Regardless the reason, regardless how many people have very real interests in the affair.

And why can't we simply go to a different fishing spot?

Because of reefs...

Most fish in the sea tend to stay around the reefs and islands. Even the fish that travel and are in the deeper oceans and far away from reefs owe their livelihood to the reefs because most of them eat food that was directly or indirectly created by reef environments.

If a nation of 1 billion people (such as India, China) are fishing those spots, or even just half that amount of people, or less, from a smaller nation such as America, or Japan, well, those fishers would completely bury those spots under fishing boats and humans.

Luckily only the people who live on the coasts and rivers of that nation are usually the only ones who are fishing in the oceans (even half that amount of people and much less in fact, because obviously not everybody is a fisher) and so there's almost enough space for all of the fishing boats and humans from one nation to fish at all of the reefs and islands of the world, almost.

Reefs, the kind the generate life (usually designated as a "Coral" reef) are almost always near land, especially islands which basically are a type of reef.

"There are millions of islands on this planet and most are uninhabited." [31]

And islands come in every shape and size. The biggest island, a continent nation known as Australia, is home to the world's largest and most famous reefs.

However, most islands and reefs are located in areas where they're nearby many, many multiple nations. Some reefs are claimed by as many as a dozen different nations! Who sometimes go to war concerning ownership even if they're nowhere near that island (see the Falkland Islands War between the UK and Argentina). [32]

Sometimes those islands are themselves a nation for example the Caribbean nations are mostly islands.

"More than half a billion people live on islands." [31]

The fact that there are only a few million islands and reefs but 7 billion people and 200+ nations with an average nation population size of 35 million people each, and the fact that even just a million fishing boats would be way too many, is the real problem. Too many boats, too many fishers, not enough locations, not enough fish.

"Less than 1% of the ocean has reefs and yet reefs supply 1/4 of the ocean's food for both humans and sea life." [33]

You rarely see problems with fishers who fish deep out at sea for fish who don't live around reefs. It's usually the fishers around reefs and islands and the coasts that get into fights with other fishers. In fact it's usually illegal to fish in another country's waters without proper approval from that nation. And as I said before, most islands are claimed by at least one nation.

And in nations where the population is huge, such as China, they can't possibly all fish right around mainland China. To give a person an idea, China isn't really that much bigger in size than say America and Australia, in fact it has less coast than those nations yet 5 times more people to feed and five times more fishers!

And China isn't in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans like America and Australia. China has just the China sea, which is already equally claimed by more than 20 different other nations. It's a powder keg waiting to explode. But so are all of our planet's oceans! All nations regardless they're the only one fishing the areas around their own nation are experiencing fish shortages.

The average fishing site is already too full if there are more than 30 fishing vessels trying to fish the same spot. First of all, they deplete the fish and so then there's no fish for any vessels that come the next day. Secondly they damage the ecosystem, so that no fish can grow in that area until the ecosystem is repaired which in some cases is never.

"More than 85% of the world's fisheries have been pushed beyond their limits." [35]

"We've lost almost 50% of the world's reefs in the past 30 years according to the University of Columbia. We could lose dolphins, whales, turtles, lobster, and many other species if the corals are lost." [34]

What can be the solution?

Do we follow the UN method of creating a UN that handles all of the fighting for the nations so that the nations themselves don't need to raise an army and go to war anymore? Should we only allow UN vessels into the water?

Should the world's fishing be done by the UN as an unbiased third party intermediary? Maybe. That would be one solution. Many people are objecting to the UN but even Einstein thought the UN was a great idea and so did many other geniuses. [37]

I think the UN idea is a good one. But also, what about the problem of there being no fish? Here's another solution that is similar to the UN idea but also solves the over-fishing problem: Feed Zones. [3]

"It is the entire fishing industry that ultimately suffers when all of the fish are gone" [3]

Fish in the ocean are no different than fish in your home aquarium. They sit there waiting, watching, and get so excited when you arrive home because there's only one thing on their mind: Food.

Fish love to eat. Most animals love to eat. Humans included. In fact, it has been well documented that fish will migrate if there's a shortage of food. They're so desperate for food that they'll traverse entire oceans to find better grazing grounds.

What if we had exclusion grounds which were large areas where fish could come and eat and eat without being fished? Areas that would become so abundant with fish that the fish would then migrate to the surrounding reefs and islands to live life and be fished?

"Sanctuary zones within marine parks have been set aside to help protect breeding grounds and other areas vital to marine life." -National Parks South Australia [4]

If we fish all parts of the planet, there won't be any fish, we must have exclusion zones. The only problem then would be ensuring they have food, are growing, and also are being distributed evenly to the open fishing areas.

That would be the difficult part, ensuring that they do disperse, which they probably wont. You'll have plenty of fish but all in the exclusion zone getting fat and dying of old age and never arriving at the dinner plate. I'll discuss the solution for that in a moment...

There are benefits to having exclusion zones. Not just to allow the fish to repopulate and grow, but it also benefits other animals and the environment as a whole. For example the whale populations of the planet and other animals are also being damaged by the shortage of fish.

Having more fish will make those other wildlife and ecosystems grow also, including our human ecosystem, and our entire planetary environment. In America they created exclusion zones not so that fishers will get more fish but so that whales will get more fish:

"San Juan Island was a primary hangout for whales, which eat mostly Chinook salmon during the summer months. Their declining numbers inspired the governor to consider emergency actions to save the species from extinction. Including temporary bans on fishing of the whale's food source."[5]

This is the solution to dealing with a lack of dispersion in these exclusion zones that I referred to just a moment ago. Those fish might not want to leave the exclusion zones and so how do they arrive on our dinner plate? Temporary and regularly easements of those exclusion zone restrictions could be one option. Allowing fishing in those zones during certain seasons. Same thing we do with deer and bear populations in many countries. And other land animals. Why not make that same method apply to the oceans?

The Jews in the Bible were told by God through their prophets (many of whom they would then kill because apparently rejection of truth (Isa 30:10) and mobocracy are human nature: 1 Kings 19; 22:27; Chronicles 24:20; 2 Chronicles 24; Nehemiah 9:26; Jeremiah 2:30; Talmud Yevamot 49b; Amos 7:10) that they needed to plant new orchards of fruit trees and not touch them for at least one year, sometimes as much as 3 years (Leviticus 19:23), to allow the first season of fruit to drop on the ground and become fertilizer for the trees.

(while Israel is still on my mind I'll go ahead and say it now that you'll be very interested to see my exclusive revelations down below concerning why you should buy real estate in Palestine and send your children to universities in Palestine and why nearly 2 million people love living in Palestine... keep reading...).

That's basically what an exclusion zone is. You leave the fruit trees to grow without harvesting the fruit for several years, so that the tree (ecosystem) becomes strong. And then you end up with a lot more fruit, exponentially in fact. In the case of the Jewish fruit orchards they would then be permitted to come in and take all of the fruit in those areas, after the years of exclusion had been lifted.

"Fish stocks off the Chinese coast have been effectively replenished this year due to successful temporary bans on fishing"[6]

Perhaps we need exclusion zones that are just temporarily or on a certain schedule are made open to fishing. The problem is that the nations of the world demand constant supply because restaurants and markets for example can't simply go on vacation for half of the year! Even being closed for just a few months would kill the average business. And so, it's truly a tricky matter.

In America the fishers are being asked to stay out of certain zones only temporarily, just for the summer: "Fishers in the San Juan Islands are being asked to make sacrifices this summer to help Puget Sound’s whales."[5]

"It's definitely a good first step towards the recovery of the species."[7]

Also, when talking about exclusion zones maybe we should discuss what's recently being discovered concerning sound pollution's affects on ocean wildlife especially visible in whales dying. The exclusions zones in America were considered a benefit to whales not only for the increase in food for the whales but also a decrease in noise pollution: "The goal is to offer the whales more fish to eat and to reduce the noise and interference of boats, which can affect their ability to hunt for salmon."[5]

Maybe entire sections of the ocean need cut off, not just areas where fish grow, but areas where whales and other ocean animals are traveling and mating and so on. Migration routes from many sea creatures have already been well mapped out. We totally have the capability to show on the map where these creatures are and even what time during the year they're in which areas.

What if only the UN was allowed to fish, and then the UN supplied all of the fish to all of the nations equally, balanced, and fair? In fact, the same vessels and fishers who are working today would be simply inducted or drafted into the UN fishing fleets and be given a fixed salary and so they wouldn't lose their jobs but would follow strict schedules concerning when and where to fish. And the UN would also turn most fishing zones into feed zones, delivering food to the fish that aids in growth and health for the fish and ecosystem.

"Fish food such as seaweed requires no additional fresh water, fertilizer, pesticides, feed or soil to grow. And it grows super-fast — an inch or more a day."[8]

"Kelp can help de-acidify oceans and provide a feed-stock for fish."[9] Farming seaweed can feed fish! And heals damaged ecosystems!

"Specific blended seaweed products are available for cattle, pigs, poultry, horses, salmon, shrimp, and pets."[10]

Yes, these exclusion zones will hurt fishers, as explained by several American fishers: "fishers fear they could be forced out of business because new overlapping State and Federal government restrictions will prevent them from fishing in their most productive areas. An executive of Southern Seafood Producers said he was even concerned for the mental health of the fishers effected." [26]

Laws would need to be established and they would need to be clear as was explained recently in SE Asia by Thailand's government who was updating their fishing exclusion zones policy:

"The maps do not clearly show exactly where the borders for these zones are, which is resulting in fishers being confused and fishing in areas where they think they are allowed, all because the maps say so. This creates confusion and fishers cannot follow the law if it is not clear." [11]

And also, "what are the penalties for doing the wrong thing in the sanctuary zones? First time offenders will be given a formal warning and information about sanctuary zones. Second offenses may attract an expiation fee of $315. Serious or repeat offenders may face a maximum penalty of $100,000 or imprisonment for two years." -National Parks South Australia [12]

The big problem would be dispersion. You don't want too many fish living in the same area, they damage the ecosystem and then you end up with sick and dead fish or unpredictable migrations. It's a tricky issue. Perhaps dispersion isn't necessary especially on larger reefs and island systems where there's plenty of room for the fish. Who knows.

Anyhow, these are matters that the scientists and UN and governments of the world should consider seriously. Because as is, many of the world's tastiest and most beloved fish are in fact on the brink of extinction and soon won't be found anywhere. I was shocked when I learned that without healthy reefs we would lose the dolphin, whale, turtle, and lobster to extinction.

That's a horrible thought!

And that's only the tip of the iceberg because most of the wildlife in the ocean, if not all of it, requires healthy reefs for living. How many millions of species have become extinct on this planet? The real numbers are unfathomable: Dinosaurs, Dodo bird, Mammoths, and millions of other animals that are already extinct, and so on.

Maybe humans are next?

We can raise cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, dogs, cats, and other animals and have been doing this for thousands of years. Now we are raising fish, there are fish farms everywhere, even as much as 60% of the fish we eat now has been grown on farms in the ocean and even on land! This proves that it's possible to help the wildlife of the oceans to grow and thrive.

The biggest difference between a fish and a cow is that we don't start wars over cows, pigs, chickens, horses, dogs, cats, and other animals. In fact, we're not even fighting over the whales. We're simply happily making them extinct. But for fish, we're literally risking World War 3 and that's truly insane and there's probably a much better solution. Historically speaking there have been wars fought over cows... just not today thankfully. [38]

Usually fishing vessels from Japan and China fish side by side without any conflict. The problem doesn't really begin until suddenly there's a shortage of fish, or the profits drop.

Sometimes there's plenty of fish but the economy changes and suddenly the fishers get less money and are facing bankruptcy and so they're more irritable and perhaps they can't risk losing any opportunities to get a full catch.

That's when they start taking the activities of the other fishing vessels very seriously. If their fishing nets or crab cages are missing or have been damaged, they are much quicker to come to violence if they suspect the other fishing vessels were to blame.

Desperation, fear, blame, it all leads to violence.

Only the governments of the world have the authority and power to tell fishing vessels and fishers that they now belong to the UN. And commence feeding operations to enhance the health and growth of fish and their habitats. Only governments have the authority and power to guarantee that fishers can get a good income.[13]

The UN already has several resolutions concerning the oceans of the world. Visit the UN's own website and webpage concerning that matter, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[14]

For example the UN is right now trying to take over control of the global internet. It might succeed depending on the desires of the people and governments of the world for unity and governance concerning the internet. "Delegates from 120 countries will gather under the auspices of the United Nations to consider a plan to take administrative control of the Internet."[15]


Farmers on land are subsidized, why can't fishers be subsidized? Corporations can go a long way in normalizing and controlling the industry however sometimes they overstep their bounds. But, aside from those oversteps they none-the-less have normalized global operations to the extent that there are
no wars over cows, chickens, oranges, apples, and so on.

Banana Wars...

There have been wars over bananas however. And so, yes, corporations can overstep their bounds and sometimes governments assist in these wars. It's very unfortunate. "During the Banana Wars of the early 20th century, the U.S. military toppled regimes and massacred thousands to keep U.S. business booming."[16]

The UN is failing, has failed many times, to do its assumed job.[17] But this is primarily because it lacks the support of the nations and people of the world. It has plenty of support, but it could have so much more and would require so much more.

Perhaps the problem is that the UN is as was pointed out many times in recent news by Russia, is none-other-than the US because it's the US that is the primary funding source of the UN and provides the greatest military support to the UN and provides much of its leadership.[18] If more nations contributed a fair share of support, there would be a more balanced bias in the UN.

The UN is basically the US according to all of the evidence.[18] Not that I see any problem in that, as long as it's the freedom loving, justice loving, peace loving nations who have the greatest sway over the UN, however, what if the US isn't a freedom loving, justice loving, peace loving nation and is the nation that has the most sway over the UN, and it suddenly wants to fish where it wants?

What if the US begins building islands in the China sea?

What if China was the UN. That would spell disaster for many competing nations that want to fish in the China sea. Of course nations want to defend their own citizens and prioritize their own nation's needs.

It's not wrong.

But it hurts all of the other nations if there's not a fair balance. Nobody denies that survival is a basic right. Even when it means that only one can survive. "Survivor" was one of my favorite TV series (shout out to Joe Rogan who still argues that "Fear Factor" was better than Survivor, I loved both of those shows, where only one person can win).[39][40] And when starvation is the only option, it's impossible to demand that any nation restrict its own fishing activities. There must be another solution.

Obviously it's wrong for only one nation to control the UN. And that was never the intention of the UN and the citizens of the nations that participate in the UN.

Just to be fair and ensure equality, perhaps the UN needs to be unbiased. What I mean is that the UN needs to be made up of citizens who have no nation. I'm not recommending creating humans in a petri-dish or clones and raising them in the middle of the ocean or outer space so that they have no nation.

That would pose its own set of problems.

Really, it's just human nature to be corrupted by power and to have both good and bad humans. Perhaps cryptocurrency is hinting at the answer, because cryptocurrency works so well because it's created, operated, and maintained by a system called "blockchain" technology which is reportedly unbiased.

Because it's 100% automated, basically AI (artificial intelligence) runs itself without any human involvement. AI through blockchain would apparently render it decentralized i.e.- unbiased. [41]

And can we truly say that giving each nation an equal and fair vote at the UN wouldn't cause any problems? When looking at the fact that nearly 100% of the UN has "unanimously" voted to exterminate Israel, every year for many, many years... it obviously would not be a good thing if all of the nations of the world had an equal voice and fair vote in the UN.

Israel would be destroyed overnight!

If such a tiny nation as Israel is split in half, which basically it already is, and its enemies allowed to rule both outside and inside, which basically they already do, and launch missiles at Israel each month, like they're doing now, then obviously Israel would be destroyed instantly or rather 6 million Jews ethnically slaughtered instantly.

And so how is Israel surviving in spite of all of this?

How is it that they're not already obliterated? Obviously it's a miracle. Israel's very existence defies all science, nature, and logic. And how can we any longer deny the true intentions of its neighbors when missiles are fired at Israel each month?! And what's truly sad is that Israel supplies some of the most significant medical, security, and food production technology to nearly every nation on the planet... talk about an ungrateful planet! A self-destructive planet!

This reason Israel's plight matters to global fishing is because as I said, Israel supplies some of the most advance food production technology, which includes medicines for both humans and animals (most fish medicines are in fact human grade and produced by human medicine pharmaceutical companies). Israel's ability to produce water in the middle of a desert was perhaps some of their first globally beneficial technologies developed. [42][43][44][45][46]

If we're going to destroy one source of humanity's successes in food development and preservation, are any other sources safe? Humanity seems self-destructive at many levels.

A balanced vote in the UN wouldn't be good for Israel.

Israel is happy that the US has so much power at the UN. For the sake of Israel's survival! Between 2003 and 2012, the UN issued 314 resolutions against Israel. In the past few years alone, the US has used veto power against UN resolutions more than 43 times to save Israel. That's 86% of all UN resolutions! [19][20][21][22]

All directed at just one country (Israel)!

Not against North Korea, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, Myanmar, Central Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda, and other most dangerous countries in the world with dictators and despots.[23] There have been resolutions against Syria primarily, and Russia, and that's all, oh, but mostly just Israel.[23]

The reason it matters to fishing and conservation is that the Mediterranean isn't only a home to many fishers, swimmers, ships, but also countless communities and epicenter of many cultures and humanity. And I've already discussed the dangers that weapons dumped in the ocean has on ocean wildlife and on our dinner plates! [28]

"And since cod are deep divers, they are more likely than many other Baltic fish to come in contact with sediment at the bottom of the sea—and with chemicals from weapons." [29]

The irony is that Israel was basically created by the UN and yet the UN's entire purpose has since then seemed to be to destroy Israel. Which further leads us to worry that perhaps not even the UN could be a solution to the world's problems if it's so bipolar and self-destructive. Lately in fact the US is attacking the UN as much as it's supporting the UN. And so, who knows.[24]

"Let them vote against us. We’ll save a lot of money. We don’t care." -Trump's threat to the UN nations that continue to deny Israel's rights to its own land. [25] In fact, almost a million Jews live in Palestine and you'll see why if you watch this video showing universities, parks, water fountains, swimming pools, basketball courts, beautiful neighborhoods, mansions, hundreds of thousands of happy and successful families, all living peacefully in Palestine contrary to what we're shown, or rather NOT shown, by most media, Palestine as the prime real estate and ideal location for your family's Utopian lifestyle. [30]

Watch here:

And so, the solution for the oceans is perhaps a long way off.

Unfortunately, the oceans don't appear to have more than just a few more years before they're completely void of fish and completely dead and toxic.

The Bible says that the seas will boil in the last day (Revelation 8:9). Perhaps that day is just around the corner because the seas appear to already be commencing to boil.

Recently contamination from WW2 weapons was found in Sweden's sea food. Not at levels high enough to cause any problems in humans who consume that seafood, but it's still there, and shows yet again the effects that humans and war can have on the oceans and fish.

And this won't be an easy undertaking, as explained by several fishers who have firsthand experience with exclusion zone implementation:

“It has taken years for us to find out where the good fishing spots are. Three years ago, fishers were stopped from using hooks, because of concerns this method was catching a certain species of fish that was going extinct. Only being able to use nets, forced us to change the type of boat we used, incurring an $80,000 loss." That's a huge loss! Imagine if every fisher had to discard their vessels and purchase a new one! [26]

Another interesting fact however is that the world doesn't need to fish the entire seas to feed the whole planet. "Now, a study from UCLA suggests that if fish farming can be moved offshore, then an area of sea the size of Lake Michigan (0.025 percent of the ocean's surface), could meet the global demand for fish and allow wild stock to recover." [27]

If you loved my article you'll really love my full confession (only one page) which reveals everything about me! How I improved my health and life and can speak any language instantly, and become fluent fast, and permanently, by reading for only 1 minute only a few days per week and also it cost me nothing!!! Yes, I spend no money! You'll never spend any money! Always FREE! A package worth $100,000 is now yours FREE, my charity to a desperate world, and you can give it to others, totally FREE! Perfect gift to yourself and others!!! Never spend any money!!! Only one page! Learn my secrets right now, all on this one page (takes less than 30 seconds to skim it), go here right now (and give it to loved ones):

Thank you!

Contact me anytime!

CEO Ben Arnold (ChatFellow)

WARNING: For your personal safety please see our “disclaimer” at the bottom of this page, and obey all laws. Thank you. Our offers are not valid where prohibited.

Thank you for reading my article. Share, quote, use it however you like, please use proper attribution or simply include this link and be sure to say that it's where the article was originally posted, thanks! Here's the link:


Give me feedback by email: and if this forum allows comments you’re welcome but be kind to other commenters. I can’t always read and reply to comments, the best way to communicate with me is directly by email. Thanks!

Speak Any Language Instantly!

If you know anybody who learned a foreign language in school but still can’t speak it fluently, my 1 minute program makes anyone fluent in any language! Very fast! Very easy! And did I mention that it’s FREE for the rest of your life? The results are permanent! Go here now!

Here’s the link:

Thank you! Please give this awesome gift to yourself and your friends! Simply give them that link!

Want Money?

My company is always trying to find ways to share our billions of dollars with the communities of the world. It might not be a billion dollars that we give you, but if we can help you have more money, we will. Usually we'll ask you to do something simple like post our slogan online where people can see it. And then we pay you for doing that! We're not talking peanuts. We pay much better than anyone else! Usually a lot more than you'd imagine! To see our current free money offer please visit our website:

Let's be social:

Contact me anytime!

CEO Ben Arnold (ChatFellow)


WARNING: For your personal safety please read the following:


To see the complete Disclaimer, Full Disclosure, Impressum, Privacy Policy, and Legal Notices please go here:

Disclaimer: Our articles are for informational purpose only and not intended to be advice of any sort. We’re not authorized, licensed, certified, or approved by governing agencies responsible for people’s safety. We’re not doctors, scientists, etc and we’re not experts. Anyone we’ve mentioned in our articles including companies, organizations, entities, third parties and everyone, have not viewed or approved our quotes, statements, etc concerning them. They could disagree with this article. We don’t have their approval to quote, discuss, or mention them. And we might have quoted them incorrectly or gotten the information wrong and even mentioned the wrong person or attributions entirely. We promote products and companies and others. Our articles can be biased because of our affiliation with those products and companies and others. Some products and companies mentioned and sold are our own. All offers are void where prohibited. You follow, do, believe anything we say at your own risk. The worst could happen. You could lose everything. You could be harmed. Please be wise, ethical, and kind. No spam. Obey all laws, rules, policies, regulations, and safety. Pay proper taxes.

To see the complete Disclaimer, Full Disclosure, Impressum, Privacy Policy, and Legal Notices please go here:

Questions? Please email:


[1] Countries that Consume the Most Fish

[2] Trace Minerals

[3] Help Fish Stocks Recover

[4] Sanctuary zones within marine parks

[5] Exclusion Zones in Puget Sound

[6] Bans help replenish sea fish stocks - China Daily

[7] Tuna-fishing nations agree on plan to replenish

[8] Vertical Ocean Farms

[9]  Feed Fish with Fish Farms

[10] Increasing production, weight gain, and fertility

[11]  Phuket Exclusion Zones

[12]  Fishing Restrictions

[13] 200 countries signed a U.N. resolution

[14] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

[15] The UN's Internet Grab

[16] Banana Wars

[17] The UN is failing

[18] Who Really Controls the World?

[19] 151 UN states vote to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem

[20] The 43 times US has used veto power against UN resolutions on Israel

[21] UN issued 314 resolutions concerning Israel - Bloomberg

[22] Does The UN Single Out Israel?

[23] most dangerous countries

[24] Donald Trump at the U.N.

[25] Trump threatens to cut aid

[26] Exclusion Zones Hurt Fishers

[27] Farming fish in a tiny percentage of the oceans could feed the world

[28] Weapons in Ocean Threat to Whole World

[29] Nasty Surprise on Ocean Floor

[30] Palestine is ideal location for Utopian lifestyle

[31] How Many Islands are There in the World?

[32] Falkland Islands War

[33] Reefs Supply 1/4 of Ocean's Food

[34] We've Lost Almost 50% of the World's Coral Reefs

[35] 85% of World's Fisheries Beyond their Limits

[36] Rates of PTSD in Firefighters

[37] Einstein Thought UN a Good Idea

[38] War In Lincoln County

[39] Joe Rogan Podcast

[40] Survivor TV series

[41] Blockchain and Benefits of Decentralized AI

[42] Sectors of the Israeli Economy

[43] Israeli Technologies Changing Lives


[45] Israeli Technologies - A true farming miracle in desert

[46] Israeli expertise feeds the world