The four priorities Paul Greenberg for helping in better preserving the fish populations are these:
1: Reduction in Fishing Effort
2: Convert Certain Areas in the Ocean Ecosystem into No-Catch Zones (Like a national park for fish)
3: Global Protection of Unmanageable Species
4: The Protection of the Bottom of the Food Chain
My personal priority would be this: Look for alternative methods to ease off the wild stocks of fisheries. these could include isolated aquaculture areas for breeding and genetic research in the hopes of improving a certain fish species to better feed the populations that would help the sild stocks of these fish flourish and preserve the species for the future. If they are isolated, the areas will be of no threat should any of these fish accidentally escape and contaminate the wild stock (or invade and harm the other native fish populations). This may sound like playing the Devil’s Advocate towards what Greenberg might be against, which is the direct altering of the fish genome, but in reality its an extremely effective method; and its potential could be great.
I really like your idea of alternative methods to wild fishing. This is very important, as we can’t simply reduce fishing effort without some substitute. Like Greenburg said,it is important to choose fish that will work for aquaculture. Fish with low feed conversion, at least as good as our terrestrial animals, that breed well in captivity, and have low capacity to harm wild stocks. I also agree that altering of the fish genome is a good idea, as that would allow us to further improve the efficiency of farmed fish.
Personally, I don’t love the idea of altering a animal that should be wild. Sure it would be beneficial to people who need food, but instead of altering an animal we decimated, why not teach people to restore the suffering fish stocks?