EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 5.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 106 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
European Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 
Draft 
Proposal for a 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Shark Assessment Report 
{COM(2009) 40 final} 
{SEC(2009) 103} {SEC(2009) 104} 
 
EN 2   EN SHARK ASSESSMENT REPORT  
A. SHALLOW-WATER SHARKS AND DOGFISH 
Spurdog / Piked dogfish (Squalus acanthias) 
North-east Atlantic Spurdog Squalus acanthias   
Order: Squaliformes 
Family: Squalidae 
English: Spurdog, piked dogfish or spiny dogfish 
French: Aiguillat commun  
Spanish: Mielga  
Overview:  spurdogs are long-lived, slow growing, have a high age-at-maturity, and are 
particularly vulnerable to high le vels of fishing mortality. Popul ation productivity is low, with 
low fecundity and a protracted gestation period. In addition, they form size- and sex-specific 
shoals and therefore aggregations of large fish  (i.e. mature females) are easily exploited by 
target long-line and gillnet fisheries. There is limited information on the distribution of spurdog pups, though they have been  reported to occur in Scottish waters, in the Celtic Sea 
and off Ireland. The lack of accurate data on th e location of pupping and nursery grounds, and 
their importance to the stock precludes spatial management for this species at the present 
time.  
The spurdog is particularly vulnerable to ov er-fishing, it has a long life span of up to 100 
years, a long generation time of between 25 and 40 years, slow growth rates of up to 3.3mm 
per year for adult spurdogs and a late age at first maturity of 12–23 years for females, and 6–
14 years for males. These characteristics result  in the intrin sic population growth rates for 
spurdog being between 2.3–7% growth per year. This  is low for even the majority of shark 
species.  
The spurdog is also highly migratory and str ongly aggregated by age and sex, masking stock 
depletions and allowing targetin g of the large pregnant females. This has led to a clear sex 
bias in heavily exploited populations (becoming ma le biased) with an as sociated reduction in 
pup production (Fordham, 2007). The rate of natu ral mortality is not known, though estimates 
ranging from 0.1–0.3 have been described in the scientific literature (Aasen, 1964; Holden, 
1968).  
The fishery
 
Spurdog is commercially explo ited, principally for human consumption, but markets are 
limited and large parts of the cat ch may be discarded. Spurdog fi sheries peaked in the late 
1950’s and early 1960’s. Several sp ecies of small dogfishes and sharks occur in the North 
Sea, and these have often been  reported as ‘mixed dogfishes a nd hounds’, with no information 
on the species composition. 
Gear types, fishing flee ts and their distribution : It is mainly caught as by-catch in trawl 
fisheries, especially otter-trawl  fisheries, though directed fi sheries using gillnets and long-
lines operate at certain times of year, especia lly in inshore waters. S purdog are captured less 
frequently in beam trawl fisherie s, which may be due in part to  gear selectivity (specifically 
the low height of the beam may affect the catch  rate of a largely pelagic species), but also 
 
EN 3   EN because most beam trawl activit y occurs in the southern Nort h Sea, where spurdog are less 
abundant.  
EC directed catch trends and characteristics : Spurdog in the ICES area are considered to 
be a single stock, ranging from Sub-area I to Sub-area IX, although landings from the 
southern end of its range are likely also to include other Squalus sp ecies. Spurdog occurs 
throughout the water column along the continental shelf of north-west Europe and has been 
recorded to depths of 900 m (Compagno, 1984). However, it is most common from 10–200 m 
(McEachran, J.D. and Branste tter, S., 1986.). The majority of  the landings are from the 
Norwegian Sea (IIa), Kattegat and Skagerrak ( IIIa), North Sea (IV), North-West Scotland 
(VIa), Irish and Celtic Seas (sub-area V II) and northern Bay of Biscay (VIIIa).  
For spurdog, the most accurate species-specific landings data occurred after the fisheries 
peaked. Annual landings from the North Sea an d Skagerrak were in excess of 25 000 tonnes 
in the 1970’s, falling to 1 000 tonnes per year in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Landings in 
recent years have generally been less than  5 000 tonnes per year, and between 1999 and 2003 
were lower than the TAC allocated to EU vessels. Landings in 2004 on EU and non-EU fleets 
were 6 000 t but by 2006 the ICES-reported catch had fallen to less than 3 000, of which two-thirds were caught by EC Member States. Th e main EC countries exploiting spurdog are 
France, Ireland, Norway and the UK, and non- EC countries being Iceland and Norway. 
In the UK (E&W), just over 50% of spurdog landi ngs were taken in line and net fisheries in 
2006, with most landings coming from Sub-area V II and in particular the Irish Sea (ICES, 
2007a). Such fisheries are likely to be closer inshore and may target aggregating mature 
female spurdog. Recent reports from the fishing i ndustry also indicate that fleet behaviour has 
been affected by rising fuel costs (ICES, 2007b) with many boats fishing closer to home to 
reduce costs. Such behaviour may mean that ther e could be increased fishing effort on inshore 
aggregations. Most Scottish la ndings are taken from the nor thern North Sea and west of 
Scotland. Effort in the Scottish demersal trawl fl eet is likely to have reduced in recent years 
due to decommissioning of vessels and days at  sea regulations, and therefore the effort on 
spurdog due to this fleet may well have been  reduced, with about 45% of Scottish spurdog 
landings originating from de mersal trawl fisheries. 
The Irish fishery for spurdog mainly consists of bottom otter trawlers, with less than 30% of 
landings coming from line and gillnet fisheries. Most landings are reported from Division VIa 
and Division VIIg. 
Incidental catch characteristics : While there is no EU minimum landing size for spurdog, 
there is some discarding of sma ller fish, and it is likely that  spurdog of <40 or 45 cm are 
discarded in most fisheries. A recent study on the estimated short-term discard mortality of 
otter trawl captured spurdog in the Northwest Atlantic showed that mortality 72 hours after 
capture was in some cases well below the currently estimated 50% for trawling (Mandelman and Farrington, 2006). The survivorship of di scards of juvenile spurdog is not known. 
Status of stocks
 
Northeast Atlantic Ocean stocks: a single stock of Squalus acanthias  is present in the 
Northeast Atlantic Ocean from the Barents Sea to the Bay of Biscay, with a more southerly 
Iberian Peninsula stock that is  probably distinct from the no rthern stock. The latest WGEF 
report (2007) states that in 2006 ICES advised that “The stock (of S.acanthias ) is depleted and 
may be in danger of collapse. Target fisher ies should not be permitted to continue, and 
bycatch in mixed fisheries s hould be reduced to the lowest  possible level. A TAC should 
cover all areas where spurdog are caught in the northeas t Atlantic. This TA C should be set at 
zero for 2007.” 
 
EN 4   EN Estimates of total amount of spurdog discarde d are not routinely provided although some 
discard sampling does take pla ce. A recent study on the estimate d short-term discard mortality 
of otter trawl captured spurdog in the Northwes t Atlantic showed that  mortality 72 h after 
capture was in some cases well below the currently estimated 50% for trawling (Mandelman and Farrington, 2006). When catch weights exceeded 200 kg, there were increases in 72 h mortality that more closely approached prior es timates, indicating that as tows become more 
heavily packed, there was a great er potential for fatal damage to  be inflicted. It should be 
noted that tow duration in this study was only 45–60 minutes, and additional studies on the 
discard survivorship in vari ous commercial gears are required, under various deployment 
times.  
In addition to the problems associated with obtai ning estimates of the historical total landings 
of spurdog due to the use of so me generic dogfish landing cat egories, there can be some 
misreporting (ICES, 2006). While there is no EU minimum landi ng size for spurdog, there is 
some discarding of smaller fish, and it is likely that spurdog of <40 or 45 cm are discarded in 
most fisheries. The survivorship of dis cards of juvenile spurdog is not known.  
Length compositions were presented in ICES (20 06), and no new analyses of length data from 
either market sampling or discard trips were  undertaken. WGEF examined length frequency 
data collected from UK fisher ies landings (ICES, 2006), and future studies should examine 
any data that may also available for other fish eries involved in the spurdog fishery (e.g. from 
Norway, France and Ireland). 
Fishery-independent survey data  are available for most regions within the stock area. The 
overall trends in the various surveys examin ed by the ICES WGEF indicated a trend of 
decreasing occurrence and decreasing frequency of large catches, with catch rates also 
decreasing, although catch rates are highly variable (ICES, 2006). It has been proposed that 
future studies of survey data for spurdog stock assessment could usefully examine surveys from other parts of the stock area not generally covered by the main fisheries, as well as sex-
specific and juvenile abundance trends. (ICES WGEF Report 2007) 
Although there have been several studies in the North Atlantic  and elsewhere describing the 
age and growth of spurdog (Holden and Meadows; 1962; Sosinski; 1977, Hendersen et al., 
2001), routine ageing of individu al from commercial catches or  surveys is not carried out. 
The last stock assessments of spurdog in the No rtheast Atlantic were undertaken by ICES in 
2006, with earlier work by Heessen (2003) and Hammond and Ellis (2005). The latest ICES 
assessment included a delta-lognormal GLM- standardised index of abundance and a 
population dynamic model. Preliminary results from this model confirmed that spurdog 
abundance has declined, and that the decline is driven by high exploitation levels in the past, 
coupled with biological characteristics that make  this species particularly vulnerable to such 
intense exploitation (ICES, 2006). The methods employed dur ing the 2002 SGEF meeting 
(ICES, 2002) and DELASS project (Heessen, 2003) included catch curve analysis and 
separable VPA using length distributions sliced  according to growth parameters from the 
scientific literature, and a Bayesian assessmen t using a stock production model, with a prior 
for the intrinsic rate of increas e set by demographic methods.  
The WGEF has provided estimates of total land ings of Northeast Atlantic spurdog and has 
used these, together with UK length freque ncy distributions in the assessment described 
above. However, there are still concerns over the quality of th ese data due to:  
 
EN 5   EN • uncertainty in the historical level of catch es due to landings being reported by generic 
dogfish categories 
• uncertainty over the accuracy of the landings  data due to species mis-reporting  
• lack of commercial length frequency info rmation for countries other than the UK  
• low levels of sampling of UK landings and lack of length-frequency data  in recent years  
• lack of discard information  
Survey data are particularly im portant indicators of abundance tr ends in stocks such as this 
where an analytical assessment is  not available. However, it should be highlighted that the 
survey data examined by WGEF cover only part  of the stock distribution and surveys should 
be extended to other parts of the stock distribution and not just  extrapolated from those areas 
covered and that survey data are difficult to interpret for the use of  assessing the spurdog 
stocks due to the typically highly skewed di stribution of catch per unit effort due to the 
aggregation effect of the adult females. 
Currently no reference points have been proposed  for the Northeast Atla ntic stock of spurdog. 
The NE Atlantic stock of spurdog has been declin ing rapidly and is at its lowest ever level. 
Preliminary assessments making use of the lo ng time-series of commercial landings data 
suggest that this decline has been going on ove r a long period of time and that the current 
stock size may only be a small fraction of its virgin biomass (< 10%). Although other models 
have not proved entirely satisfactory (due to th e quality of the assess ment input data), the 
exploratory assessments and survey data, also indicate a major decline in spurdog stocks and 
that most landings since 1946 have been above MSY. Biomass levels ar e at between 2% and 
11% of initial biomass (B 0). The latest stock assessment by ICES in 2006 concluded that the 
biomass levels were at 5.2 – 6.6% relative to  1905, and 5.2-7.1% relati ve to 1955 and warned 
that the stock was in a danger of  collapse. The input data available are t oo limited to give an 
accurate estimate of current stock status in term s of absolute biomass and fishing mortality, 
but the trends that have been observe d in the stock biomass are worrying.  
Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks:  spurdog are rare in the Mediterranean, with an 
estimated biomass of only 6 700t, no stock asse ssments have been carried out although there 
is some evidence for localised declines in abundance have been observed around the 
Balearics. Black Sea stocks have shown a 60%  decline based on a previous stock assessment 
by Prodanov et al. (1997). They showed that the exploi ted stock in the Black Sea rose until 
1981 where it peaked at 226 700t but had decr eased by 60% to about 90 000t in 1992. 
Northwest Atlantic stocks: the Northwest Atlantic stock can be  considered one stock, shared 
by Canada, the United States. In Canada, spurdog quotas are based on hist oric levels. In the 
US, the National Marine Fisheries Service (N MFS) imposes science-based trip limits and 
quotas for spurdogs, but federal management measur es are not compulsory in state waters and 
directed fishing has been occurring at unsustainable levels nearshore. 
In 2006, US fishery scientists outlined several reasons for concern abou t the status of the 
Northwest Atlantic spurdog stock, including: 
• Very low recruitment in recent years 
 
EN 6   EN • Imbalance in the sex ratio of th e stock, strongly favouring males 
• Resulting contraction of overall length range in the population 
• Declining average size of females, resulting in fewer and smaller pups. 
Research cruises have identifie d two periods of apparent cha nge in spurdog abundance in the 
Northwest Atlantic. During the period from the early 1970s to 19 92 to abundance and 
biomass indices from the research survey s increased, but from 1992 to 2002 the abundance 
had declined from 600 000t to 400 000t, with the majority of this  being due to the removal of 
the larger individuals. When the same pattern is applied only to the biomass of spawning 
females the biomass has decreased by 75% from 1989 to 1998 and has remained constant since then. This level is at 29%  of the target SSB Females.  
Recent assessments of the recruitment of spur dogs in the Northwest Atlantic (1997 to 2003) 
were the seven lowest recruitment estimat es (NFSC 2003). This has highlighted the 
susceptibility of this species to potential collap se due to the slow grow th and recruitment rates 
not being able to replenish the spawning stoc k biomass quickly. Estimates made by the United 
States state that the current landings made by the United States and Canada are currently 
unsustainable.  
Recent research on the pupping locations, growth  rates, tagging and stock structure have 
allowed a preliminary population model to be developed for spurdog. The model developed 
by the DoF in Canada, is an age and sex st ructured, forward projecting population model, 
which estimates a starting population size and age structure (in 1960), and projects the 
population forward by adding recruits (age-1 fish ) to the population and subtracting catches 
and natural mortality. The model is fit to th e abundance indices obtained from Canadian and 
United States research survey s as well as the proportions at  length found in the research 
surveys and commercial catch sampling. 
Some of the data series used in the model ar e short and highly variab le, and although the main 
Canadian data source (the annual summer survey ) potentially indicates a stable or slightly 
increasing population, some of the other surveys indicate a dec lining trend. As a result, the 
model in its present form does not provide robust estimates of  abundance. There has however 
been a decline in the total biomass that can be put down to the level of commercial exploitation.  
The spring minimum trawlable biomass estimates  for spurdog in Canadian and U.S. waters 
show similar trends, increasing from the early 1980s to the early 1990s, then declining. Mean 
values for both indices were around 500 000 mt in the early 1990s, decl ining to about 300 000 
mt in 2007 for the Canadian index ( a reduction to 60% of the maximum level).  
Spiny dogfish are relatively hardy fish, so it is only reasonable to assume that discard 
mortality is not 100%. There ar e a few available estimates fo r dogfish discarding mortality. 
Published studies report discard mortali ties of 0-29% for dogfish caught with OTB 
(depending on catch size), and 55% mortality for gillnet-caught fish. Therefore, dogfish 
discard mortality in Canadian waters was cal culated as per the fo llowing: 25% for OTB 
catches > 200 kg, 0% for OTB catches < 200 kg, 55% for gillnet catches, 10% for longline catches, and 25% for purse seine catches. The ex act values are debatabl e, although all appear 
to be consistent with the experimental values  reported above and obser ver observations of the 
manner in which fishers and their gear tr eat dogfish catch. Estimated dogfish discard 
 
EN 7   EN mortality has averaged about 850 mt annually since 1986. Discard mortality often exceeded 
reported catch prior to 1999, but recent landi ngs have greatly exceeded discard mortality. 
Northeast Pacific stocks : the stock of spurdog in the Northe ast Pacific has apparently already 
suffered from two stock collapses in 1910 and in the late 1940s, when it was the most 
valuable Canadian west coast fishery (Ketchen 1986) most pr obably for the vitamin A market. 
The stock has under low levels of commercial e xploitation now recovered over most of its 
original range. The fishery with in Canadian waters is now st able with catches of 5 000t – 
7 000t from an available quota of around 15 000t. (Wallace et al.  2006) 
In the US, federal management began in 2006 with trip limits pending stock assessment and 
development of quotas (possi bly in 2007). In Washington St ate, spurdogs are loosely 
managed within bottom fish management plans,  with mesh restrictions and closure of a 
pupping ground. Spurdogs are included in an “o ther species” TAC for bycatch in Alaskan 
fisheries. Canadian quotas for allocated catche s and bycatch were capped at historic levels. 
Investigations are pending to determine cu rrent sustainable expl oitation levels. Recent 
landings are only 30–50% of quotas. In Alaska, di rect fishing for sharks is not allowed, 
although spurdogs are the most common shark sp ecies. Currently 90% of spurdog catches 
within the groundfish fishery is discarded, although the overall a bundance appears to be stable 
or increasing. 
Existing specific management measures  
Spurdog in the North Sea are currently managed by quota, with a Total Allowable Catch 
(TAC). In 2007, the TAC was reduced by 20% to  841 t and spurdog bycatch  in the North Sea 
was limited to 5% of th e live weight of the retained cat ch. New for 2007 is a TAC covering 
areas outside the EC waters of IIa and IV, cove ring ICES sub-areas IIIa, I, V, VI, VII, VIII, 
XII and XIV (EU and international waters). The 2008 TAC was set to 2 004 t (total landings 
for all areas except IIa & IV was 2 087 t in 2006). New for 2008, the quota for this area is 
allocated eight Member States, with the UK, Fr ance and Ireland allocated the largest shares. 
In 2007, Norway banned fishing and landing of spurdog in its waters and in international 
waters in ICES areas I-XIV, except for boats un der 28 m using traditional gear inshore and in 
territorial waters (4 nm). Spurdog bycatch in other fisheries must be landed and Norwegian 
fisheries managers can stop fisheries when catches reach the prior year’s level. Norway has 
had a 70 cm minimum landing size limit on s purdog for many years (Shark Alliance, 2007). 
Germany, on behalf of the Eur opean Community, proposed that Squalus acanthias  should be 
included in Appendix II of CITES (CITES, 2007a). However the FAO Ad Hoc  Expert Panel 
(FAO, 2007) concluded that: (i) the available evidence does not supp ort the proposal to 
include Squalus acanthias  under CITES Appendix II, (ii) th e northeast Atlantic population 
meets the decline criterion for listing on Appendix  II and (iii) that there are serious fisheries 
management failures for some individual popula tions. Catches from th e northeast Atlantic 
stock, both internally traded in the EU and imported, need to be curtailed.  
The quality of catch data for spurdog raises a number of issues incl uding (i) landings being 
reported as generic dogfish cat egories, (ii) mis-reporting a nd (iii) a lack of discard 
information. 
The WGEF has recommended that the next assessment for spurdog be made in 2009. 
Effectiveness of management measures  
 
EN 8   EN Spurdog are long-lived, sl ow-growing, have a high age-at-m aturity, and are particularly 
vulnerable to fishing mortalit y. Population productiv ity is low, with low fecundity and a 
protracted gestation period. In th e light of this, the risk of de pletion of reproduction potential 
is high. 
Recent management advice  
According to ICES advice 2008, the only ne w information available for spurdog ( Squalus 
acanthias ) is landings data which does not offer any reason to change the advice from 2006. 
The advice for 2009 and 2010 is therefore the same as the advice given in 2006: The stock is 
depleted and may be in danger of collapse. Targeted fisheries should not be permitted to 
continue, and bycatch in mixed fisheries should be reduced to the lowest possible level. The 
TAC should cover all areas where spurdog are caught  in the northeast A tlantic and should be 
set at zero (...). 
In addition to the advice of 2006, ICES offers the followi ng considerations: 
Simulation modelling has shown there are strong potential benefits to the stock by protecting 
mature female spurdog in this long-lived sp ecies. If a non-zero TAC would be set, ICES 
recommends the introduction of a maximum landing length (MLL). This is expected to deter 
fisheries targeting areas wh ere large females occur. 
The maximum landing length should initially be se t at 100 cm. The length at 50% maturity for 
female spurdog is just over 80 cm and the ma ximum size of females is about 120 cm. The 
maximum size of males is about 90 cm. Fecu ndity of spurdog increa ses with length and 
females of 100 120 cm length generally pro duce the highest amount of pups (10 21). 
Survivorship of spurdog released from longline fisheries is thought to be high, but will be 
lower in gillnet and trawl fisheries. 
 
EN 9   EN Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) 
 Tope Galeorhinus galeus  
Order: Carcharhiniformes 
Family: Triakidae 
English: School shark, flake, 
Penny’s dog and sharpie 
shark. 
French: Requin-hâ  
Spanish: Cazón  
Overview  
The low population productivity and the tope’s relatively low fecundity and protracted 
reproductive cycle make it highly vulnerable to ov er-exploitation. The vulne rability of tope to 
fishery exploitation is emphasized by it be ing listed as globally vulnerable (IUCN  
Red List, 2006). Tope are taken as a bycatch in trawl, gillnet and longline fish eries, including demersal and 
pelagic set gears. Though tope ar e discarded in some fisheries, due to their low market value, 
other fisheries land this  bycatch. Tope is also an important  target species in recreational sea 
angling and charter boat fish ing in several areas, with mo st anglers and angling clubs 
following catch and release protocols. 
The fishery
 
Gear types, fishing fleet s and their distribution : Many of the reported landings are from the 
English Channel, Celtic Sea and northern Bay of Biscay (Bonfil, 1994). Tope is also caught in 
Spanish fisheries in the western Cantabrian S ea (Galicia), where about 80% of the landings 
are from longline vessels, with the remainde r from trawl and small gillnets (Anon., 2003). 
Tope also feature in the catches off mainland Portugal, and are an important component of 
Azorean bottom long line fisher ies (Heessen, 2003; Morato et al., 2003). Tope are also caught 
in offshore long-line fisherie s is this area (Pinho, 2005). 
EC directed catch trends and characteristics : Tope are often landed as ‘dogfishes and 
hounds’ and thus reported speci es-specific landings are proba bly an underestimate. Tope 
catches in ICES areas have increased in the last three years from around 500 t to about 1 000 
t, mainly due to increased Spanish landings. Th e majority of Spanish catches (540 t in 2006) 
are made in Area IXa, whilst French landings (333 t in 2006) are in Area VII (mainly e).  
Incidental catch characteristics : Though some discards informa tion is available for various 
nations, data are limited for most nations an d fisheries. Some UK discard sampling data 
indicates that juvenile tope te nd to be discarded in demersal trawl fisheries, though larger 
individuals are usually retaine d, with tope caught in drift and fixed net fisheries usually 
retained. 
Status of stocks  
Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean stocks:  in the Atlantic there is  one stock of tope, the 
distribution of which ranges from the southern extremes of the NW coast of Africa and the 
 
EN 10   EN Mediterranean Sea northwards to Scotland and S outhern Norway. There is no directed fishery 
for tope in the Atlantic and as such landings  of tope are through bycatch, the majority of 
which is discarded due to its  low commercial value (ICES, 2007). There have however, been 
suggestions that it may be possible to develop a directed tope fishery in the southern North 
Sea, although this has not become at present.  
EU reported landings are mainly from the Engl ish Channel, Celtic Sea and northern part of 
the Bay of Biscay and availabl e from the UK and France fishing vessels. Data shows that the 
main EU country landing tope is France followe d by the UK. Limited data since 2001 is also 
available from other EU countries such as  Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and Spain (ICES, 
2007). However, these reported landings of tope  are inaccurate as landed tope is commonly 
included in the generic dogfishes and hounds landings group. 
Recordings of tope discards have not been accurately recorded, re sulting in there being 
limited data for most nations and fisheries. A lthough, once the data is ag gregated across years 
it shows that juvenile specimens are discarded in  demersal trawl fisher ies, whilst those caught 
in drift and fixed net fisheries are retained along with larger specimens. 
There have been no previous assessments made of  tope in the Northeast Atlantic, due to there 
being insufficient landings data. The lack of data  has also prevented recent stock assessments 
being undertaken. 
Indian Ocean stocks: there is an apparent lack of information regarding tope catches in 
IOTC waters, specifically with regards to thei r catches and landings. There is very little 
information prior to the 1970s and there are s till problems with obtaining data to present 
(IOTC, 2007). Shark landing data for the Indian  Ocean has a poor resolution due to mis-
identification of shark species, consequently an y recorded landings will be inaccurate (IOTC, 
2007).  
A stock assessment for tope in the Indian Ocea n has not been identified as a result of the 
factors that have been previously outlined, which have impeded the possibility of compiling a stock assessment for this region. 
Existing specific management measures
 
Tope are currently a non-target sp ecies in commercial fisheries,  though some of the bycatch is 
discarded, due to the low market value in many areas. 
Landings data on this species are limited, as they are often included as “dogfishes and 
hounds”. Catch data are of poor quality, and biol ogical data are not co llected under the Data 
Collection Regulations. 
Recent management advice  
According to the STECF 2008 report, there is  no species specific management advice for 
Tope in the NE Atlantic. However ICES cons iders that tope is hi ghly vulnerable to over-
exploitation, as they have low population produc tivity, relatively low fecundity and protracted 
reproductive cycle. Unmanaged, targeted fisherie s elsewhere in the world have resulted in 
stock collapse (e.g. off Califor nia and in South America). 
 
EN 11   EN B. PELAGIC SHARKS 
Porbeagle shark 
Porbeagle shark ( Lamna nasus ) 
Order: Lamniformes 
Family: Lamnidae 
English: Porbeagle 
French: Requin-taupe commun 
Spanish: Marrajo sadinero  
Overview  
Porbeagle fisheries are highly profitable (Gauld, 1989). The main countries catching 
porbeagle are Spain and France. However in the past, important fisheries were prosecuted by 
Norway, Denmark and the Faeroe Islands. In add ition, the species is taken as a bycatch in 
mixed fisheries, mainly in UK, Ireland, France and Spain. Detailed descriptions of individual 
national fisheries were presen ted by WGEF in 2006 (ICES, 2006a). 
The fishery  
Gear types, fishing fleets and their distribution : The only regular, directed target fishery 
that still exists is the French fishery, wher e most of the landings  take place during the 
summer. The majority of landings have come from longliners, mainly from ICES areas VII 
and VIII. Spanish landings are also from longlin ers, where the main target species are tuna 
and swordfish. Landings off Spain have tended to be greater during the spring and autumn, 
with a drop in the summer (Mejut o, 1985). A reasonably recent anal ysis of bycatch in Spanish 
swordfish fisheries did not fi nd porbeagle to be an important component. (ICES, 2006a). 
Effort has increased in recent years in pelagi c longline fisheries for bluefin tuna (Japan, 
Republic of Korea and Taiwan Province of China)  in the North East Atlantic. These fisheries 
may take porbeagle as a bycatch.  
EC directed catch trends and characteristics : Reported landings from the historically most 
important fisheries, around the United Kingdom and in the North Sea and adjacent inshore 
waters (ICES areas III & IV) have decreased to very low levels during the past 30–40 years, 
while catches from the offshore ICES sub-region s west of Portugal (IX), west of the Bay of 
Biscay (VIII) and around the Azores (X) have increased since 1989. This is attributed to a 
decline in heavily fish ed and depleted inshore populations  and redirection of effort to 
previously lightly exploited offshore areas (CITES, 2007b). Since a cat ch of 1 400 t in 2001, 
the annual catch has dropped to around 400 t, mostly by France and Spain (214 and 158 t respectively in 2006). The French  catch is concentrated in ar eas VIIj and g and VIIId whilst 
most of the Spanish catch is from IXa. The Fr ench and Spanish are directed longline fisheries 
although there are now only 8–11 French vessels targeting this species. In 2006, the only 
other MS to report porb eagle catches were Denmark and Irel and of 3 and 2 t respectively. In 
the southern part of the stock’s distribution, th e only ongoing target fishery is that of France. 
CPUE reached a peak in 1994 and has since declined. The decline since 1999 has been particularly marked, despite relatively consta nt number of vessels  involved (CITES, 2007b). 
Most recent CPUE is the lowest si nce the early years of the fishery. 
Incidental catch characteristics : This species is taken as a bycatch in mixed fisheries, 
mainly in UK, Ireland, France (see Biseau, 2006)  and Spain. No information is available, 
although as a high value species, it is likely that specimens caught as bycatch are landed and 
 
EN 12   EN not discarded. Tuna longliners from Japan, th e Republic of Korea and Taiwan, province of 
China, take an unknown bycatch of L. nasus in  the North Atlantic (ICES, 2005). Most of the 
catch is reportedly discarded or landed at por ts near the fishing grounds. Stocks and catches 
are “under investigation” (Fis hery Agency of Japan, 2004). 
Status of the stocks  
Atlantic Ocean: porbeagles of the Atlantic Ocean appear  to constitute two stocks. One stock 
in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean that undertak es extensive migrations between southern 
Newfoundland (Canada) in summer to at leas t Massachusetts (USA) in the winter, and 
another in the Northeast Atlan tic Ocean. Tagging studies suggest  there is no mixing between 
these two populations. 
The Northwest Atlantic Ocean porbeagle stock has been assessed using an age and ex 
structured forward projecting population model, utilising the available landings, CPUE, length 
frequency and tagging data to estimate the popula tion size. Different scen arios were used for 
different levels of assumed productivity. 
The CPUE data indicate a declining tre nd in porbeagle numbers from 1985 to 2004. The 
model estimates the population size in 2005 at between 12% a nd 24 % of its level in 1961, 
with the female spawner abund ance at about 12% to 15% of its 1961 level. A management 
plan was introduced to allow the recovery of th e porbeagle stock in 2002. The estimated 
change in population size since th e introduction of the plan has resulted in a cu rrent estimated 
population size of 99% to 103% of  the 2002 level, indicating th at the management plan has 
appeared to have been effective so far. 
Standard reference points to characterise the re covery have not been developed for porbeagle 
in the Northwest Atlantic. Instead the refe rence points based on the number of female 
spawners have been used: 
SSN MSY Number of female spawners at MSY 
SSN 20% Number of female spawners at 20%  of initial unexploited equilibrium 
levels (SSN 0) 
The model uses an integrated approach comb ining life history para meters and fisheries 
assessment. A number of different scen arios were used, giving a range for  
SSN 20% of 14 500 to 17 000 and for  SSN MSY a range of  31 000 to 41 000. The model also 
allowed for the projection of the population a nd age structure over a 100 year time series with 
different levels of incidental mortality. The m odel suggests that the population of porbeagle in 
the Northwest Atlantic can r ecover if under the most conser vation scenario estimates the 
incidental mortality rates are kept be low 4% of the spawning stock numbers. 
The conservation status of the porbeagle is of major concern because of the drastic decline in 
catches from targeted fisheries in the North Atla ntic and continuing exposu re of the species to 
intensive high-seas pelagic longl ine fisheries (with finning and cap ture trauma contributing to 
mortality) wherever it occurs. Recovery is possi ble if incidental mortality is kept to low 
levels, but the uncertainty about the porbeagle catch data and life history parameters leads 
remains a potential block to a clear stock assessment. 
A separate stock of porbeagle is  considered to occur in the North East Atlantic (Heessen, 
2003). A transatlantic migration for this spec ies has been reported (Green, 2007), and so 
 
EN 13   EN further tagging studies are required to better examine stock structure between the two North 
Atlantic stocks. The North-easter n Atlantic stock covers part of  the CECAF area as well as 
that covered by ICES, but catch data are unavailable for this part of the stock. 
In 2006, ICES advised that no targeted fishing fo r porbeagle from the Northeast Atlantic stock 
should be permitted on the basis of its life hist ory and vulnerability to fishing. In addition, 
measures should be taken to prevent bycatch of porbeagle in fisheries targeting other species, 
particularly in the depleted northern areas. In 2006, Germa ny proposed that porbeagle be 
added to Appendix II of CITES. This proposal di d not get the support of the required majority 
at the CITES Conference of Parties in 2007. 
Available landings data are thought to be incomplete for the majority of flag states. For some 
nations, porbeagle will have been reported within “sharks nei”, and there can be some 
confusion with mako ( Isurus oxyrinchus).  In addition there are no fi shery-independent survey 
data are available for the NE Atlantic, a lthough some limited records from recreational 
fisheries may be available these are unlikely to be of a sufficient level of coverage to provide a good basis for a stock assessment. No stock as sessment has therefore been undertaken as the 
limitations of the available landings data and absence of fishery-independent information 
hampers assessments of this stock. As a result no reference points have been proposed for this 
stock. 
Indian Ocean stocks: FAO landings data on porbeagle ca tches for the Indian Ocean are 
severely limited by the lack of species-specifi c catch, discard and landings data from the 
major fleets. Due to the lack of data avai lable no quantitative stock assessment has been 
undertaken by the IOTC Working Party on Ecosys tems and Bycatch and due to the low level 
of catch data it will likely remain a low priority.  
Pacific Ocean stocks: FAO landings data on porbeagle sh arks for the Pacific Ocean are 
limited to the Southeast Pacific Ocean. Due to th e lack of data available no quantitative stock 
assessment has been undertaken. 
Existing specific management measures
 
In 2006, ICES advised that no targeted fishing for porbeagle should be permitted on the basis 
of its life history and vulnerability to fishing. In addition, measures should be taken to prevent 
bycatch of porbeagle in fisheries targeting othe r species, particularly in the depleted northern 
areas. In 2005, ICES advised that, given the apparent depleted st ate of this stock, no fishery 
should be permitted on this stock. This advice was further considered by STECF in 2006 (see 
Section 3 of STECF, 2006a), and STECF reiterated that no directed fish ing for porbeagle in 
the NE Atlantic be permitted and that additional measures be taken to prevent bycatch of porbeagles in fisheries targeting other spec ies. In 2006 the Commission for the European 
Communities proposed establishing a TAC for porbeagle for European Community waters 
and community vessels in ICES Subareas I–XIV of 240 t (CEC , 2006), the final EC 
regulations No 41/2006 did not list a TAC for porbeagle. The 2008 regulations have set a 
precautionary TAC at 581 t for EC vessels, mostly allocated to France and Spain. 
Germany, on behalf of the European Community, proposed that Lamnus nasus  should be 
included in Appendix II of CITES  (CITES, 2007b). However the FAO Ad Hoc  Expert Panel 
(FAO, 2007) concluded that: (i) the available evidence does not supp ort the proposal to 
include the porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus , in CITES Appendix II, (ii) porbeagles in the 
northeast Atlantic Ocean may m eet Appendix II criteria, but the limited data that were 
available were not sufficient to assess the ex tent of the decline a nd (iii) though adequate 
 
EN 14   EN management measures are in place in some re gions, there are others where some form of 
management is urgently needed. 
Landings data are incomplete and further studies are required to better collate catch data. For 
some nations, porbeagle is reporte d within “sharks nei”, and ther e can be some confusion with 
mako Isurus oxyrinchus . 
Assessments have been undertaken for the NW Atlantic stock (e.g. Campana et al ., 1999, 
2001), for which there are more data. WGEF  expect to conduct a new assessment of 
Porbeagle shark in 2008.  
Effectiveness of management measures  
Porbeagle is long-lived, slow-g rowing, has a high age-at-matur ity, and is particularly 
vulnerable to fishing mortalit y. Population productiv ity is low, with low fecundity and a 
protracted gestation period. In th e light of this, risk of deple tion of reproduction potential is 
high. 
Recent management advice  
According to ICES advice 2008, available inform ation from Norwegian and Faroese fisheries 
shows that landings have declined strongly and have almost ceased. The stock is considered to be depleted. The directed fisheries have not resumed, implying that the stock has not 
recovered, at least in the areas where those fisheries took place. 
While the CPUE indices for a targeted fishery may not reflect trends in relative abundance, 
CPUE data have been relatively stable since 1996. CPUE of the French fishery has declined 
since a peak in 1994 and has been st able at a lower level since then. 
Given the state of the stock, no targeted fishi ng for porbeagle should be permitted and bycatch 
should be limited. Landings of porb eagle should not be allowed. 
 
EN 15   EN Basking Shark (Cetorhinus maximus) 
Basking shark 
Cetorhinus maximus  
Order: Lamniformes 
Family: Cetorhinidae 
English: Basking 
shark, bone 
shark, 
elephant 
shark, hoe-
mother, shark, 
and sun-fish 
French: Pélerin 
Spanish: Peregrino  
Overview  
The basking shark is listed in Appendix II of  CITES (and also covere d by the Convention on 
Migratory Species) and subsequently include d in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade 
regulation (EC) No. 338/97. 
Historically there has been a Norwegian directed fishery for basking shark using whaling 
technology in order to obtain their oil. Small fish eries also existed off the Irish west coast and 
Scotland, with the latt er finishing in 1994. 
The fishery  
Gear types, fishing flee ts and their distribution : In 2006 there were no targeted fisheries for 
basking sharks in Norway, UK or Ireland. 
EC directed catch trends and characteristics : In 2006 the only MS to report a catch was 
France (one tonne). With the exception of a Portuguese catch of around 27 t in  2004, over the 
last ten years this fishery has been effectively inactive within the EU.  
Incidental catch characteristics : Limited quantitative information exists on basking shark 
discarding in non-directed fisheries. However, anecdotal information is available indicating 
that this species is caught in gillnet and trawl fi sheries in most parts of the ICES area. Most of 
this bycatch takes place in the summer months as  the species moves inshore. The total extent 
of these catches is unknown. 
Status of the stocks  
Atlantic Ocean: historically basking sh arks have been primar ily caught by Norwegian 
fisherman. The Atlantic North East had a spor adic fishery until the 1920s when the fishery 
become more industrialised. During the 1930s the basking shark landings increased due to 
expansion of the fishery. Basking shark ca tches ranged from 1266 – 4266 sharks / year 
between 1959 – 1980. Whilst, off the coast of Irel and an average of 1475 sharks / year were 
caught between 1951 – 1955 (ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, 2007).. 
The intensive exploitatio n of basking sharks primarily by Norwegian vessels can be shown by 
 
EN 16   EN CPUE data available from 1965 – 1985 (ICES , 2007), which shows that there was a 
significant decrease in the CPUE during this time,  which can be inferred as indicating that the 
stocks of basking shark have been depleted. 
Currently there is no directed fishing for Bask ing sharks with there being no reported direct 
catches since 2001, with Norwegian bycatch only 16 tonnes down from 100 tonnes in 2005 
(ICES, 2007). As there is no longer a directed fishery it makes compiling a stock assessment more difficult and as such there are no up to da te stock assessments available for the basking 
shark in the NE Atlantic. The difficulty in pr oducing an up to date stock assessment is 
increased by the requirement of  EU fishing vessels to discar d all bycatch, therefore meaning 
no stock assessment can be carried out. Limited da ta however, is available from these discards 
of basking sharks from non- directed fisheries (ICES, 2007). 
Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks: the Basking shark is list ed on Annex II associated 
with the protocol ‘Endangered or Threatened Species’ of the Barcel ona Convention for the 
Protection of the Mediterranean Sea (1976). Cons equently the Basking Shark receives full 
protection in the Mediterranean Sea. Although the Basking Shark is fully protected in the 
Mediterranean there is no international co-ope ration to introduce a stock assessment for the 
Mediterranean. As such there have been no stock assessments identified for the Basking 
Shark in the Mediterranean. 
Existing specific management measures
 
Since 2007, the EU has prohibited fishing for, retaining on board, tr anshipping or landing 
basking sharks by any vessel in EU waters or EU vessels fishing anywhere (Council 
regulation (EC) No 41/2006). ACFM advice in  2006 was for a zero TAC in 2007. Based on 
this, Norway banned all directed fisheries for basking shark in 2006, and the ban was 
continued in 2007. Live specimens  caught as bycatch must be released, while dead or dying 
specimens can be landed and sold as before.  
The basking shark is listed in Appendix II of  CITES (and also covere d by the Convention on 
Migratory Species) and subsequently include d in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade 
regulation (EC) No. 338/97. 
Basking shark was listed on Appendix II of the Convention on Inte rnational Trade in 
Endangered Species (CITES) in 2002. The ba sking shark was listed on the OSPAR 
(Convention on the protection of the marine envi ronment of the north-east Atlantic) list of 
threatened and / or declining species in 2004. 
Official live weights reported prior to 1990 probably are overest imations (due to imprecise 
conversion factors) and should be adjusted downwards. 
Effectiveness of management measures  
Basking sharks are long-lived, slow-growing, have  a high age-at-maturity, and are particularly 
vulnerable to fishing mortalit y. Population productiv ity is low, with low fecundity and a 
protracted gestation period. In th e light of this, the risk of de pletion in reproduction potential 
is high. 
Recent management advice  
According to ICES advice 2008,  the only new information av ailable for basking shark 
(Cetorhinus maximus ) is landings data which gives no ba sis to revise the advice from 2006. 
 
EN 17   EN The advice for 2009 and 2010 is therefore the same as the advice given in 2006: "No targeted 
fishing for basking shark should be permitte d and additional measures should be taken to 
prevent bycatch of basking shark in fisheries ta rgeting other species. A TAC should cover all 
areas where basking sharks are caught in the nor theast Atlantic. This TAC should be set at 
zero". 
ICES notes that from 2007 onwards the TAC c overs all areas where basking sharks may be 
caught. 
 
EN 18   EN Blue shark (Prionace glauca) 
Blue shark Prionace glauca  
Order: Carcharhiniformes 
Family: Carcharhinidae 
English: Blue shark, blue dog and blue 
whaler 
French: Peau bleue 
Spanish: Tiburón azul  
Overview  
Although there are no large-scale di rected fisheries at this speci es, it is a major bycatch in 
many fisheries for tunas and billfishes, where it can comprise up to 70% of the total catches 
(ICCAT, 2005). Observer data i ndicate that substantially more sharks are caught as bycatch 
than reported in catch statistics. For the entire North Atlantic, catch is estimated to exceed 100 
000 t with mortality estimates be tween 26 000 to 37 000 t. Blue  sharks are also caught in 
considerable numbers in recreational fisher ies, including in the ICES area (Campana et al., 
2005). 
The fishery  
Gear types, fishing fleet s and their distribution : An examination of fishing effort in FAO 
Area 27 (NE Atlantic) shows that the Spanish Ba sque fleet is currently the predominant EC 
country catching around 400 t of blue shark per annum, a lthough until 2003 Portugal caught 
up to 2 000 tonnes yearly. France also catch es significant volumes at around 107 t in 2006. 
Taiwan, Japan and China also catch blue shar k, although their catches are not specified to 
individual FAO area, only the whole Atlantic Ocean. A detailed description of the Basque 
fishery was presented by Diez et al. (2007). This ICES Working Document shows that blue 
shark used to be a traditional and rather low bycatch of many Basque (Spanish) fleets operating in the Bay of Biscay (ICES Divisions VIIIa, b, c, d). Since 1998 a small fleet of Basque longliners spend part of th eir yearly activity targeting blue  sharks in the Bay of Biscay 
VIIIa,b,c,d (Diez et al, 2007). Blue sharks are caught predom inantly in ICES Areas VII, VIII, 
IX, X and XII.  
EC directed catch trends  and characteristics : The 2006 EC catch of 4,162 t was mainly 
caught by Portugal (2 627 t), Spain (1 400 t) and France ( 134 t). The Portuguese catch is 
mainly from Area IX, whilst the Spanish catch is from IXa, VIIIa,b,c,d and X.  
Incidental catch characteristics : Discards are presumed to be far higher than reported 
(Campana et al., 2005), especially in  high seas fisheries. Shark byc atch in some fisheries are 
finned, although the USA, Canada and EC have ta ken measures to stop finning. If left intact, 
survival rates for discarded sharks can be high, the proportion of blue sh arks alive at hauling 
longlines is given between 80–90 % and about 60% of these sh arks released may survive 
(Campana et al., 2005). 
Status of the stocks
 
Atlantic Ocean stocks:  the ICCAT pelagic shark assessment working group (ICCAT, 2005) 
considers there to be a single stock of blue shark ( Prionace glauca ) in the North Atlantic, one 
in the South Atlantic and one in the Mediterranean (Heessen, 2003; Fitzmaurice et al., 2005, 
ICCAT, 2004).  
 
EN 19   EN ICCAT started collecting data on shark by-catche s from the Atlantic tuna fleets only in 1994, 
and catch reporting of sharks has not been goo d. Estimates from a study of the Hong Kong 
shark fin trade (Clarke 2003) showed that blue  shark catches were underreported globally. 
Based on this information ICCAT attempted to construct a more accurate picture of shark 
catch and mortality in the Atlantic tuna fleets based on ratios of shark to tuna landings from fleets reporting both to ICCAT and using these ra tios to reconstruct an example catch history 
by major gear type. 
Several CPUE series have been discussed within ICCAT for use in blue shark stock 
assessments and the following catch rate series were selected as being the best representative 
series: 
• Japanese longline logbook series (applied to  North and South Atlantic separately); 
• USA longline logbook series (appl ied to North Atlantic); 
• Chinese Taipei longline series (a pplied to South Atlantic); and 
• Brazil NE and SE longline series (applied to South Atlantic; partial series).  
Various different models where used for the stock assessment of Atlantic blue shark. A 
surplus production model was applied to the catch and CPUE data available at the 2001 ICCAT Bycatch Working Group meeting (S CRS/2001/021), implemented with the BSP 
(Bayesian Surplus Production) software. The model used informative Bayesian priors for historical catches (before reliable  catch data of blue sharks were  collected), and the biomass at 
the beginning of the time series. Model results implied that current le vels of harvest are 
sustainable for blue sharks. Th e greatest source of uncertainty in the model results was the 
missing catch data early in the time series. Fo r the North Atlantic stock of the runs that 
produced results these showed an average current status around 85% of K (although the 
trajectory was quite variable. The ICCAT Bycatch  Working Group noted that there is a wide 
range of other sensitivity anal yses including alternative cat ch scenarios that could be 
examined into the future to help define the most appropriate set of model assumptions for these data. The Group noted that the model was not able to track  the decrease in CPUE in the 
recent years. For blue shark in the South Atlantic , six sensitivity analyses were run, and all but 
one converged. The runs all showed an average current status around 75% of K. 
No full-scale benchmark assessment has been  conducted to date due to limitations on 
available data for this species. ICCAT comple ted a preliminary stock assessment in 2004, but 
no management recommendations were made. A lthough the North Atlantic  Stock appeared to 
be above biomass in support of MSY, the assessment remained highly conditional on the 
assumptions made. These assumptions included (i) estimates of historical  shark catch, (ii) the 
relationship between catch rates and abundance, (i ii) the initial state of  the stock in 1971, and 
(iv) various life-history parameters. The auth ors pointed out that the data used for the 
assessment did not meet the requirements for proper assessment (ICCAT, 2006), and further 
research and better resolved data collection for this species was highly recommended. A 
recent study of the population trends of Atlantic  pelagic predatory fishes reported that blue 
sharks have declined over 60% in recent decades (e.g. Baum et al., 2003), though this study 
has attracted some controversy (see Baum et al ., 2005 and Burgess et al ., 2005a,b). Other 
studies on blue shark have shown smaller declines (e.g. Campana et al., 2005), or significant 
declines in males only (Simpfendorfer et al., 2002). 
 
EN 20   EN SCRS/2004/105 presented a detailed age-struct ured population dynamics model which could 
be used to describe the dynamics of shark popu lations and evaluate the effects of exploitation. 
Uncertainty in the understandi ng of shark dynamics and expl oitation patterns was again 
incorporated using Bayesian methods. The mo del failed to converge when the complete 
CPUE series from Japanese longline for blue sh ark in the North Atlantic was used. However, 
convergence of the model was achieved when th e model was run using the complete CPUE 
series from the USA longline fishery and the CP UE series from the Japa nese longline without 
the CPUE values for years 1971-19 73 (the first 3 points of the seri es). Thus, the different runs 
were conducted using the complete USA longlin e CPUE and the modified CPUE series for 
the Japanese longline. The model was run using two different as sumptions about the 
weighting of the CPUE series; equal weighti ng (Run 1) and catch dependent weighting (Run 
2). The model was also run assuming options  for biannual (Run 1) or annual reproduction 
cycle (Run 3). The mode of the results of the runs showed the virgin mature fish biomass 
smaller than 700 000t but also gave considerab le probability to much  greater values. The 
probability density function (pdf ) for the depletion of the population supported values for 
population depletion which are close to 50%. Howe ver, for all runs considered, the mode of 
the distribution supported values fo r the ratio of current stock to virgin stock size which were 
very close to 1 (i.e. showing no depletion). 
In summary, both North and South Atlantic blue  shark the current biomass appears to be 
above the biomass at MSY. In many model runs, stock status appeared to be close to unfished 
biomass levels. A full evaluation of the sensit ivity of model outcomes to the assumptions 
made by the Working Group (e.g. initial biomass)  was not possible and it was recommended 
that such studies should be carried out be fore drawing stronger conclusions. The Working 
Group stated that without solving these problems,  they cannot present either more precise or 
accurate views of the status of these stocks, si nce the available data are quite uninformative. 
No reference points have been proposed for this stock. 
Document SCRS/2004/112 proposes a statistical  framework for estimating blue shark 
movement and fishing mortality rates from the tag-recapture data of the NMFS Cooperative 
Shark Tagging Program. The dataset of the NMFS- CSTP shows potential for use in a blue 
shark stock assessment. 
Indian Ocean: in 2005 (the latest data available to the IOTC Wo rking Party on Bycatch and 
Ecosystems), seven countries reported catches of blue sharks in the IO TC region although this 
data is not used by IOTC as its likelihood of being representative is  highly uncertain. FAO 
landings data on elasmobranchs for the Indian Ocean are severely limited by the lack of 
species-specific data and data from the major fleets.  
There is little information on blue shark biolog y in the Indian Ocean and no information is 
available on stock structure. The catch estimates for blue shark are highly uncertain and 
CPUE trends are also not available as ther e are no surveys specifically designed to assess 
shark catch rates in the Indian Ocean. Trends in localised areas might be possible in the future 
(for example, from the Kenyan recreational fisher y) but these are likely to  be of limited use in 
assessing the stock of the Indian Ocean overall . A standardized CPUE for blue shark caught 
by the Japanese tuna longline fishery in the Indian Ocean was calculated using logbook data 
from the period 1971 to 2005. For much of this period, shark catches were not recorded by 
species, therefore all sharks were assumed to be  blue sharks, which would of course lead to 
some over reporting of blue shark abundance. A recent Japanese observer programme in the 
Eastern Indian Ocean recorded 77 blue shark out of a total of 3,718 specimens. This was the 
highest catch rate among sharks species en countered at 0.268 per 1000 hooks. Other studies 
 
EN 21   EN conducted in the Indian Ocean using observer data have shown that blue sharks constitute 1% 
of all species caught on longlines by number and up to 4% by weight, with sharks overall 
making up 1.76% by number a nd 5.38% by weight at a catch rate of 0.243 per 1000 hooks 
(MRAG, 2004) The results from the analysis i ndicate a relatively stab le blue shark CPUE 
except for some relatively high catch rates in 1998 and 1999. Overall, the results of this 
analysis suggest that the stock st atus of blue sharks has not ch anged drastically over the past 
three decades in the high seas area of the Indian Ocean.  
Due to the lack of data availa ble no quantitative stock assess ment has been undertaken by the 
IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatc h. There is a clear paucity of information 
available on this species and this situation is not expected to improve in the short to medium 
term. There is no quantitative stock assessment or  basic fishery indicators currently available 
for blue shark in the Indian Ocean therefore th e stock status is highly uncertain. Blue sharks 
are commonly taken by a range of fisheries in the Indian Ocean and in some areas they are fished in their nursery grounds. Because of th eir life history characteristics – they are 
relatively long lived (16-20 years), mature at 4- 6 years, and have relativity few offspring (25-
50 pups every two years), the blue sh ark is vulnerable to overfishing. 
Pacific Ocean: blue shark is not actively managed intern ationally within the Pacific and there 
are no quotas set by any of th e RFMOs. Recent studies indi cate the species, which may 
comprise a single Pacific-wide st ock, is abundant and healthy (F/F
MSY < 0.5). There is some 
evidence for a decline of the stocks of blue shark in the central Paci fic (Nakano 1996), but not 
yet evidence of overfishing. The north Pacific blue shark stock appears healthy (Kleiber et al. 
MS1) with a current population size that is above B MSY with F/F MSY < 0.5, and that MSY 
could be 1.7-3.0 times the catch observed in the late ‘80’s early ‘90s. Sibert et al.  estimate that 
the North Pacific blue shark population is at 91% of the unexploited level. In spite of being 
the largest component of the bycatch incidenta lly taken by high seas, longline fleets for over 
50 years the MSY for the north Pacific stock is tentatively estimated to be approximately 120 
000t. No harvest guidelines or reference point s have been recomme nded at this time.  
Existing specific management measures  
EC Regulation No. 1185/2003 prohib its the removal of shark fins of this species, and 
subsequent discarding of the body. This regulation is binding on EC  vessels in all waters and 
non-EC vessels in Community waters. 
Data quality issues : the landings data for blue shark are unreliable due to the amount of 
pelagic sharks that are thought to be declared  under generic sharks “nei” categories (Johnston 
et al., 2005). 
ICCAT completed a preliminary stock assessment in 2004, but no management 
recommendations were made. A joint ICES / I CCAT working group plan a new assessment in 
2009. 
Effectiveness of management measures  
Catch data of pelagic sharks are considered unreliable as many sharks  are not landed whole 
but are landed as fins. For accurate stock asse ssments of pelagic sharks, data from throughout 
the North Atlantic must be made available to the Working Group. In addition, reporting 
procedures must be strengthened so that al l landings are reported, and that landings are 
reported to species level, rather  than generic nei categories. 
Recent management advice  
 
EN 22   EN According to the 2008 report of the SCRS of ICCAT, for both North and South Atlantic blue 
shark stocks, although the results are highly uncertain, biomass is believed to be above the 
biomass that would support MSY and current ha rvest levels below FMSY. Results from all 
models used were conditiona l on the assumptions made ( e.g., estimates of historical catches 
and effort, the relationship between  catch rates and abundance, the initial state of the stock in 
the 1950s, and various life-history parameters), and a full evaluation of the sensitivity of 
results to these assumptions was not possible du ring the assessment. Nonetheless, as for the 
2004 stock assessment, the weight of available evidence does not support hypotheses that fishing has yet resulted in depletion to  levels below the Convention objective. 
 
EN 23   EN Shortfin mako shark 
Shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus  
Order: Lamniformes 
Family: Lamnidae 
English: Shortfin mako shark, blue pointer, 
blue shark, bonito shark 
French: Taupe bleue  
Spanish: Marrajo dientuso  
 
Overview  
The shortfin mako is a highly migr atory pelagic species that is caught frequently as a bycatch, 
mostly in longline fisheries targeting tuna and billfish. Like porbeagle shark, it is a relatively 
high-value species (cf blue shark, which is of lower commercial value). Recreational fisheries 
on both sides of the North Atlantic also catch th is species, although so me of these fish are 
released. 
the Shortfin Mako shark ( Isurus oxyrinchus ) is a large pelagic species attaining a maximum 
total length of 3.94m (DFO Atlantic Fisheries, 1996). Th e Shortfin Mako frequents warm-
temperate and tropical waters circumglobally, preferring water temperatures ranging between 
17 – 22 °C (DFO Atlantic Fisheries, 1996., NAFO,  2007). The Shortfin Mako is typically an 
offshore species that is present between the su rface and a depth of 500 m, however they have 
also been observed in sha llower littoral zones (NAFO,  2007). The Shortfin Mako’s 
morphology is characterised by a crescent-shaped tail with pronounced keels in addition to its large fins (ICES, 2007). 
The Shortfin Mako is an ovoviviparous species (DFO Atlantic Fisheries, 1996) that has a 
lifespan of 30 years (NAFO, 2007). Males are se xually mature at 7-9 years old at a total 
length of 2 – 2.2 m, whilst females become sexually mature at a much later age (18 – 21 years old), at which time their total length is 2.7 – 3 m (NAFO, 2007). The Shortfin Mako has a 
long gestation period of 15 – 18 months a nd only produces 11 young ev ery 3 years (NAFO, 
2007). The Shortfin Mako can be classified as an K-species due to its life history 
characteristics of low fecundity  and delayed sexual maturity. 
The life history characteristics of elasmobranchs that makes th em susceptible to exploitation 
are less apparent in the Shortf in Mako meaning it has a greater recovery potenti al than other 
elasmobranch species. The reason for this is due to  the fact that the Shor tfin Mako' has a rapid 
growth rate in comparison to other elasmobranchs (DFO Atlan tic Fisheries, 1996). However, 
in comparison to the commercial teleost fisherie s species the Shortfin Mako’s growth rate is 
still moderate (NAFO, 2007). 
The susceptibility of the Shortf in Mako to exploitation is increased due to their migrational 
movements. Tagging work on Shortfin Makos in  the North Atlantic has shown that they 
migrate over 3 000 km (ICES, 2007). This is sup ported by the DFO Atla ntic Fisheries (1996) 
who found that the Shortfin Mako exhibited seasonal movements. 
 
EN 24   EN The fishery  
Gear types, fishing fleets and their distribution : In the ICES area, shortfin mako sharks are 
caught predominantly by Portuguese and Spanish vessels in Subareas, VIII, IX, and X. EC 
vessels also operate in FAO Area 34. 
EC directed catch trends and characteristics : the Portuguese catches make up the vast 
majority of EU landings, accounting for 730 of  the 820 t caught over in ICES waters 2006. 
Over half this was caught in area IX (off the west coast of Portugal), with 141 t caught in area 
X (Azores). 
Incidental catch characteristics : Estimates of shortfin mako bycatch are difficult, as 
available data are limited and documentation is incomplete. There is considerable bycatch of shortfin mako sharks in Japanese and Taiwan ese tuna longliners operating in the Atlantic. 
Estimates given in Matsunaga and Nakano (2005) in dicate bycatch levels in Japa nese longline 
operations of 300 to 500 t of shortfin mako annually for the North Atlantic. 
Status of the stocks
 
Atlantic Ocean stocks: historically the Shortfin Mako  has been caught as bycatch 
predominantly in tuna and billfis h longline fisheries. It is a hi gh value species and as such is 
also targeted by recreational fisheries in both  the North East and North West Atlantic. At 
present there is still no directed fishery towa rds the Shortfin Mako which is considered to 
have only a single stock in the North Atlantic. 
Current EU catches of the Shortfin Mako are predominantly by Portuguese and Spanish 
vessels, although landings from Spanish vesse ls only began in 2004. The UK also have 
reported landings, but these are negligible be ing below 3 tonnes. The Portuguese report the 
largest landings with the maximum reporte d being 542 tonnes in 2003, which made up 50 % 
of the total North Atlantic reported landings (ICES, 2007). Th e catch data provided is 
incomplete and as such it is difficult to accurately determine catches and produce stock assessments. However, CPUE data has shown that  the North Atlantic stock has been declining 
since 1975 although further analysis  is required (ICES, 2007). 
Despite the catch data available and the CPUE data indicating declining stocks there have 
been no recent stock assessments. A decision wa s taken not to undertake stock assessments as 
there was limited data all of which was consider ed poor quality. The lack of accurate precise 
data is emphasized by the fact that NAFO us es commercial and recreational fisheries to 
provide them with abundan ce indices (NAFO, 2007). 
Mediterranean stocks: it is considered that there are two stocks of Shortfin Mako in the 
Mediterranean; a Northern Stoc k and a Southern Stock (ICCAT,  2005). A lack of available 
landings data and relevant catch data from commercial fisheries has resulted in no stock 
assessments being able to be unde rtaken. Increased levels of da ta recording are required to 
enable stock assessment to be achieved. 
Indian Ocean stocks: historically there has been very litt le information on the status of the 
Shortfin Mako fishery in IOTC waters and it is apparent that landings of Shortfin Mako have 
gone unreported in the past. Consequently, IOTC  catches of Shortfin Mako sharks are highly 
inaccurate and have little re presentativeness. (IOTC, 2007) 
A lack of representative data is emphasized by the fact there is no extensive FAO data due to 
a lack of species-specific data from major fl eets (IOTC, 2007). A lack of landings information 
 
EN 25   EN subsequently means it has not been possible to  carry out a stock assessment. In addition 
CPUE has not been available as no surveys have b een carried out enabling the suitable data to 
be obtained to produce the re levant CPUE information. 
Existing specific management measures  
EC Regulation No. 1185/2003 prohib its the removal of shark fins of this species, and 
subsequent discarding of the body. This regulation is binding on EC  vessels in all waters and 
non-EC vessels in Community waters. 
Effectiveness of management measures  
Catch data of pelagic sharks ar e considered unreliable, as many sharks are not reported on a 
species-specific basis, and some fi sheries may have only landed fins. 
Recent management advice  
According to the 2008 report of the SCRS of ICCA T, estimates of stock status for the North 
Atlantic shortfin mako obtained with the diffe rent modelling approaches were much more 
variable than for blue shark. For the North Atlantic, most model outcomes indicated stock 
depletion to about 50% of biomass estimated  for the 1950s. Some model outcomes indicated 
that the stock biomass was near or below th e biomass that would support MSY with current 
harvest levels above FMSY, whereas others estim ated considerably lowe r levels of depletion 
and no overfishing. There is  a non-negligible probability that the North Atlantic shortfin mako 
stock could be below the biomass that could support MSY. A similar conclusion was reached 
by the Committee in 2004, and recent biological data show decreased productivity for this 
species. Only one modelling approach could be a pplied to the South Atlantic shortfin mako 
stock, which resulted in an estimate of unfis hed biomass which was biologically implausible, 
and thus the Committee can draw no conclusi ons about the status of the South stock 
 
EN 26   EN Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) 
Common thresher Alopias vulpinus and 
bigeye thresher A. superciliosus  
Order: Lamniformes 
Family: Alopiidae 
English: Thresher shark, common 
thresher, fox shark, sea fox, 
swiveltail, and thrasher 
French: Renard and renard à gros yeux 
Spanish: Zorro and zorro ojón  
 
The fishery  
Gear types, fishing fleets and their distribution : There is no target fisheries for thresher 
sharks in the NE Atlantic; al though they are taken as a bycat ch in longline and driftnet 
fisheries (e.g. Buencuerpo et al., 1998; Macias et al., 2003; Mejuto et al., 2001: Tudela et al., 
2005). Both species are caught ma inly in longline fisheries fo r tunas and swordfish, although 
they may also be taken in driftnet and gillnet fisheries. The fisheries data for the ICES area are scarce, and they are mostly  unreliable, because it is likely that the two species ( A. vulpinus  
and A. superciliosus ) are mixed in the records. 
EC directed catch trends and characteristics : The main landing countries are Portugal (106 
t in 2006), Spain (59 t in 2006) and France (23 t in 2006). The majority of the Portuguese and 
Spanish catches are made in Area IX, wh ilst the French catch is in Area VIII. 
Incidental catch characteristics : No data is available. 
Status of the stocks
 
Atlantic Ocean stocks : two species of thresher sharks o ccur in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean 
the common thresher ( Alopias vulpinus ) and bigeye thresher ( A. superciliosus ). Of these, A. 
vulpinus  is the dominant species in the ICES area.  There is little information on the stock 
identity of these globally distributed sharks . In the absence of r ecords of transatlantic 
migrations, assume there to be a single NE Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of A. vulpinus . 
This stock could possibly be extended south in to the CECAF area. No detailed stock 
assessments have been performed for thresher sharks in the North Atlantic though both the 
common and bigeye threshers are classi fied as vulnerable by the IUCN. 
Indian Ocean stocks : FAO landings data on elasmobranchs for the Indian Ocean are severely 
limited by the lack of species-specific catch, dis card and landings data from the major fleets. 
There is also little information on the biology of  thresher sharks in the Indian Ocean and no 
information is available on stock structure, although three species of thresher shark, the 
pelagic thresher ( A. pelagicus ), common thresher ( A. vulpinus ) and bigeye thresher ( A. 
superciliosus ). The catch estimates for thresher shar ks are highly uncertain and CPUE trends 
are also not available as there are no surveys sp ecifically designed to assess shark catch rates 
in the Indian Ocean.  
 
EN 27   EN Observer programme estimates conducted in the Indian Ocean using observer data have 
shown that pelagic thresher sh arks constitute 0.22% of all species caught on longlines by 
number and up to 0.76% by weight, at a catc h rate of 0.056kg per 1000 hooks (MRAG, 2004)  
Due to the lack of data availa ble no quantitative stock assess ment has been undertaken by the 
IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatc h. There is a clear paucity of information 
available on thresher shark species and this situa tion is not expected to improve in the short to 
medium term. There is no quantitative stock asse ssment or basic fishery indicators currently 
available for thresher sharks in the Indian Ocean  therefore the stock status of each species is 
highly uncertain. All three thre sher sharks are classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. 
Pacific Ocean stocks : FAO landings data on elasmobranchs for the Pacific Ocean are 
severely limited by the lack of species-specifi c catch, discard and landings data from the 
major fleets.  
Existing specific management measures  
EC Regulation No. 1185/2003 prohi bits the removal of shark fins of this species, and 
subsequent discarding of the body. This regulation is binding on EC  vessels in all waters and 
non-EC vessels in Community waters. 
Despite its midrange intrinsic re bound potential, the management of A. vulpinus  is of concern, 
as shown by the quick decline of the USA Pacific fishery targeted on this species and which 
ended in the 1990 due to overfishing (Hanan et al ., 1993; Cailliet et al ., 1983). Liu et al . 
(1998, 2006) consider that Alopias  spp. are particularly vulnerabl e to overexplo itation and in 
need of close monitoring because of its high vulnerability resulting from its low fecundity and relatively high age of sexual maturity. Precautiona ry management measures could be adopted 
for the NE Atlantic thresher sharks, due to the fishing effort for large pelagic fishes in the 
region. 
The two species are recorded mixed or separate ly; however analysis of the available data 
seems to indicate that they are often mixed ev en when recorded under specific names. Also, 
some discrepancies are observed when different  sources of data ar e available (e.g. FAO, 
ICCAT, national data). 
Other pelagic sharks 
Besides the species examined above, several othe r pelagic sharks and rays occur in the ICES 
areas, including: 
• White shark, Carcharodon carcharias 
• Longfin mako, Isurus paucus  
• Spinner shark, Carcha rhinus brevipinna 
• Silky shark, Carcarhinus falciformis 
• Oceanic whitetip, Carcharhinus 
longimanus 
• Dusky shark, Carcharhinus obscurus 
• Sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus • Night shark, Carc harhinus signatus 
• Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier 
• Scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini  
• Great hammerhead, Sphyrna mokarran  
• Smooth hammerhead, Sphyrna zygaena  
• Pelagic stingray, Pter oplatytrygon violacea 
• Devil ray, Mobula mobular 
 
EN 28   EN These pelagic sharks and rays are taken as bycat ch in tuna and swordfish fisheries (mainly by 
longliners, but also by purse seiners). Some of them, like the hammerheads and the requiem sharks, could constitute a noti ceable component of the bycatch  and are landed, but other are 
only sporadically recorded (e.g. great white; tige r; pelagic stingray, devil ray). Among these 
species, some are an important bycatch in high  seas fisheries (e.g. silky shark and oceanic 
whitetip) and others are taken in continental shelf waters of the ICES area (e.g. various 
requiem sharks and hammerhead). 
No accurate estimates of catch are available, as many nations that land various other species 
of pelagic sharks record them under generi c landings categories. Portugal and Spain have 
reported landings of hammerheads and the requiem sharks in ICES sub-areas VI, VIII, IX and 
X, totalling 86 t in 2004. Since 1997, landings have been recorded in the ICCAT data base for 
the NE Atlantic by Spain and Portugal, totalling 475 t of hammerhead and requiem sharks in 2004. See table overleaf for details. 
Recent management advice
 
According to the 2008 report of the SCRS of I CCAT, bigeye threshers, longfin makos, and 
shortfin makos have the highest vulnerability (a nd lowest biological productivity) of the shark 
species examined (with bigeye thresher being substantially less productive than the other 
species). 
Precautionary management measures should be considered for stocks where there is the 
greatest biological vulnerability and conservation concern, and for which there is very little 
data. Management measures should ideally be species-specific whenever possible. 
For species of high concern, which are expected to have high survivorship on longlines, like 
the bigeye thresher, prohibiti on of landings could be effectiv e for conservation. However, for 
other species which can be easily misiden tified, such prohibitions could complicate 
compliance monitoring. 
 
EN 29   EN Great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) 
Overview  
The great white shark inhabits coastal and o ffshore waters from the subarctic to tropical 
regions, but do not enter brackish or freshwater s. They range from surface waters down to 
depths as great as 1280 meters. They tolerate a wide range of water temperatures (5 to 27°C), 
and can maintain body temperatures a bove the ambient water temperature. 
The biology of the great white sh ark is poorly understood. The li fe history of the great white 
shark is indicative of elasmobranchs as it is  slow growing with a low fecundity and a 
relatively long life span (23-60 years) (DFO , 2006). Great white sharks are ovoviviparous and 
have a gestation period of 14 months. During a females lifetime she will only produce 45 pups 
with an average of 7 pups per litter (DFO, 2006). Sexual maturity is reached by males in 8 to 
10 years (3.5 to 4.1 m), whilst females mature later at 12 to 18 y ears old at a length of 
between 4 and 5 m (DFO, 2006). Th e lack of knowledge in the great white’s biology makes 
stock assessment difficult to achieve. A fact that is compounded by how little we know about 
the essential fish habitats (EFHs) of great whites, although there is circumstantial evidence 
that suggests the Mid-Atlantic Bight, between Cape May and Cape Cod, could possibly be a 
mating area for great whites (DFO, 2006). 
Status of the stocks  
Atlantic Ocean stocks : the great white sharks in the Nort h Atlantic have experienced a sharp 
decline in white shark abundance between  1986 and 2000 (between  59 and 89%) (DFO, 
2006). The Atlantic population of  great white sharks was desi gnated as endangered in April 
2006 by the Committee on the Status of Endangere d Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). The 
decline in stocks is emphasized by the rarity of great white shark sigh tings in the Atlantic, 
with only been 34 observations of white sharks, one every 2 – 3 years, were recorded from 
eastern Canada between 1874 and 2004 (DFO, 2006). 
This decline in great white sharks in the Nort h Atlantic is indicative of the global situation 
with all available data sugges ting that great white shark numb ers are declining worldwide. 
The great white shark doesn’t ha ve a directed fishery but is caught as bycatch in longline 
fisheries. Baum et al (2003) analysed US longline bycatch data from the northwest Atlantic 
that showed a sharp decline (59 - 89%) in white shark numbers between 1986 and 2000. 
Whilst, the southern US pelagic longline fleet  has been identified as having the most 
significant source of great white bycatch with more than 400 captures per year on average 
between 1986 and 2000 (DFO, 2006) 
The current status of the great white shark stock in the North Atlantic is unknown, with no 
stock assessment identified. The lack of a stoc k assessment is a consequence of the lack of 
information on the abundance and productivity of the species (DFO, 2006). Subsequently it is 
not possible to assess and determine the recovery  potential of the North Atlantic great white 
shark population (DFO, 2006). Management of the st ock should therefore be conservative and 
work towards enhancing the recovery of the stock, which would involve the live release of 
captures (DFO, 2006). The Internat ional Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
(ICCAT) (2005) have previously proposed an approach for mana ging great white shark stocks 
involving setting the recovery  target as an approximation of maximum sustainable yield 
(MSY) for shortfin mako: one half the virg in spawning stock biomass (SSB0). This is 
consistent with the Cautious-Healthy boundary of Precautionary Approach Framework being 
 
EN 30   EN established by DFO (DFO, 2005). Most importantly  the current shortcomings apparent in 
monitoring, control and surveillan ce systems will have to be overc ome for the recovery of the 
great white shark to occur (DFO, 2006). 
Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) 
Overview:  the tiger shark is found th roughout the world's temperate and tropical waters, with 
the exception of the Mediterranean Sea. It is a wide-ranging species that is at home both in the 
open ocean as well as shallow coastal waters. Re ports of individuals from as far north as 
Iceland and the United Kingdom have been conf irmed but are probably a result of roaming 
sharks following the warmer Gulf Stream north across the Atlantic. 
Status of the stocks  
Atlantic Ocean stocks: both commercial and recreational fish ing catch rates for this species 
in the mid-Atlantic region have declined since the mid-1980's, in dicating that fi shing pressure 
has adversely affected the size of the popula tion. In contrast, rela tive abundance and catch 
rates for this species noted by commercial fish eries observers, especially for juveniles, are 
much higher than in previous fishery-independ ent and fishery-dependent surveys. The World 
Conservation Union (IUCN) presently lists th e tiger shark as “Near Threatened” throughout 
its range.  
Pacific Ocean stocks: there are no directed fisheries for Tiger sharks in the Pacific Ocean; 
however they are caught as bycatch in longline fi sheries. Tiger sharks ar e also caught as part 
of shark control programs introduced ar ound the cost of Australia (QDPI, 2001). 
Hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp) 
Status of the stocks  
Pacific Ocean stocks : there are no directed fisheries fo r Hammerhead sharks in the Pacific 
Ocean; however they are caught as  bycatch in longline fisheries.  Hammerhead sharks are also 
caught as part of shark control programs intr oduced around the cost of Australia (QDPI, 
2001). 
Indian Ocean stocks : there is a lack of catch and by catch data on Hammerheads through the 
Indian Ocean, with the current available data insufficient to adequately assess the effect 
fishing is having on the stock (IOTC, 2005). Subse quently little is known about the status of 
this stock and the CPUE of the stock (IOTC, 2005). The management of Hammerhead shark 
stocks in the Indian Ocean has been difficult due  to the low level of research and monitoring 
activity of Hammerheads, in addition to the la ck of knowledge we have about their biology 
and critical habitats (IOTC, 2005) . This is emphasized by the leve l of misidentifications with 
regards to Hammerhead species. Appropriate steps should be introduce to allow stock 
assessments to be carried out in the futu re utilizing scientif ic data (IOTC, 2005). 
 
EN 31   EN C. DEEPWATER SHARKS 
Siki sharks 
 Deepwater ‘siki’ sharks: 
Leafscale gulper shark Centrophorus 
squamosus & Portuguese shark  
Centroscymnus coelolepis  
Order: Squaliformes 
Family: Centrophoridae / 
Somniosidae  
English: Portuguese shark, 
Portuguese dogfish and siki 
shark 
French: Squale-chagrin de 
l'Atlantique & pailona 
commun  
Spanish: Quelvacho negro & pailona  
Overview : The term “siki” is used to describe th e combination of leafscale gulper shark and 
Portuguese shark. Although these species have ve ry differing biological traits, ICES has had 
to combine them for assessment purposes. This is because landings data for both species were combined for some of the main countries fo r most of the time since the beginning of the 
fishery. The term “siki” as used here does not have the same meaning as in commercial 
fisheries, where it encompasses all co mmercially exploited deepwater sharks.  
The fishery
 
Gear types, fishing fleets and their distribution : C. squamosus  and C. coelolepis  are both 
taken in several mixed trawl fisheries in the northeast Atlantic and in mixed and directed 
longline and gillnet fisheries. Fisheries taking these species were extensively described in 
ICES (2006). 
French trawl landings peaked in 2001 at 3 500 tonnes and have  since declined to about 800 
tonnes. Spain (Galicia) began trawling for these species on the Hatton Bank in 2000 and 
catches peaked at 1 400 tonnes in 2002. Norweg ian longline fisheries began in 1999. Peak 
catches were about 400 tonnes in 2001 and this  fishery has now ceased. Irish fishing (trawl 
and longline) began in 2000 and catches have been  stable at about 400 tonnes. German fishing 
began in 1992 using longlines. Recorded landi ngs in the UK (England and Wales) fishery 
began in 1991 and peaked in 1997 at 2 000 tonnes. UK and German fisheries were initially longline but gradually changed to gillnet s by 1998. The UK and German longline/gillnet 
fishery retained only livers before 1998 a nd therefore landings may be under estimated. 
Portuguese fisheries have been stable at 500 tonnes of each species since 1988. The banning 
of gill-netting in waters deeper than 200 m in  2006 led to increased longline effort in deep 
water. A new gillnet and longline fisheries de veloped in Subarea VIII and Division IXb in 
2006. This represented a displacement of effort from VI and VII, due to the ban on gillnet fishing in those areas. Other information sources on the characteristics of fisheries for these species include Figueiredo, I. and Machado, P., 2006; Hareide et al, 2005; and Jones et al, 
2005. 
 
EN 32   EN EC directed catch trends and characteristics : Landings began in 1988 (although an 
unknown quantity is likely to have been discarde d prior to this) and increased rapidly to over 
8 000 tonnes in 1997. Since 1997 landings have fl uctuated with an overall upward trend, 
reaching a maximum of over 10 000 tonnes in 2003. Since 2003, reported landings have declined, possibly as a result of the introduction of quotas on deepwater sharks, a ban on 
gillnetting in waters >200m and the reduction quotas for other species in the mixed trawl 
fisheries. 
Landings of the Portuguese shark Centroscymnus coelolepis  by EC Member States over the 
last six years showed a peak in 2003 of 4 229 t and a subseque nt decline to 1 274 t in 2006. 
The main decline has been from the reduced  catches by UK vessels (from 1 935 t in 2003 to 
274 in 2006). Irish catches have also similarl y declined from 729 t to 104 t. The main MS 
catching these species, Portugal, has also reduced its catch but at a lower rate from 768 t in 
2003 to 481 t in 2006. The UK catches are mainly  in VIa and Vb (NW Scotland) whilst the 
Portuguese catches tend to be in area IX (sub-area not specified).  
Landings of the Leaf scale gulper shark Centrophorus squamosus  have shown a similar pattern 
to C. coelolepis, declining from just under 4 000 t in 2003 to 758 t in 2006. The 2006 catch 
was dominated by Portuguese landings of around 758 t.  
Incidental catch characteristics : In the early years of the fi shery, discarding was thought to 
be negligible in the majority  of trawl and longline fisher ies although some discarding may 
have occurred in the first years before mark ets were fully developed. However, with the 
quotas for deepwater sharks becoming restrictive,  it is likely that discarding has increased. 
Discarding can be expected to be greatest where there are relatively high TACs for other 
species caught along with deepwater sharks. In nor thern areas, discarding is considered to be 
lower, because shark abundance in mixed fisheries is much lower in recent years. In southern 
areas, where shark abundance is relatively stab le, it may be expected  that discarding has 
increased, due to restrictive quotas for sharks . Between 2001 and 2004, Irish trawlers have 
discarded their entire catch of leafscale gulper sharks. This wa s based on crew preferences, 
not market factors. Some discarding of rotten deepwater sharks, due to excessive soak times, 
has been recorded in gill net fisheries (STECF, 2006b). 
Status of the stocks
 
Both the leafscale gulper shark ( Centrophorus squamosus ) and Portuguese dogfish 
(Centroscymnus coelolepis ) have a wide distribution in the No rth East Atlantic. As there is no 
clear information on stock identit y, a single assessment unit of th e Northeast Atlantic has been 
adopted by ICES For both species the stock structure dynamics are poorly understood, 
although migratory patterns have  been observed. This does not consider that the biology and 
available information on distribution of these tw o species is different. However in the absence 
of better data, it has been put forward by ICES as the best approach possible given the data 
available. Limited catches of the two species  have been made outside of the Northeast 
Atlantic but these catches are so low that no stock assessment would be undertaken for these 
species.  
In 2006, ICES noted substantial dec lines in CPUE series for both C. coelolepis  and C. 
squamosus  in Subareas VI, VII and XII, suggesti ng that the stocks of both species are 
depleted. CPUE for both species  in the northern area have di splayed strong downward trends 
leading to the conclusion that the stocks were being exploite d at unsustainable levels. In 
Division IXa, CPUE series, although short, appear to be stable.  
 
EN 33   EN In 2006, ICES advised that no target fisheries should be permitted unless there are reliable 
estimates of current exploitation rates and stock productivity. ICES advised that the TAC 
should set at zero for the entire distribution ar ea of the stocks and additional measures should 
be taken to prevent bycatch of  Portuguese dogfish a nd leafscale gulper shark in fisheries 
targeting other species.  
The working group estimates of total landings of  mixed deep-water shar ks, believed to be 
mainly Portuguese dogfish and le afscale gulper shark but possi bly also containing a small 
component of other species. In 2006, WGEF produ ced estimates of landings of each of these 
species. This has not been updated for the most recent year, but will be  conducted again at the 
next benchmark assessment.  
It can be seen that landings have declined from around 10 0 00 t from 2001 to 2004, to about 
2 000 t in 2006 (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). The declin e is due partly to the quota restrictions. 
Another reason is the gillnet bans, and it can be seen that the proportion of international 
landings from the gillnet fishing countries ( UK and Germany) have declined. Recent landings 
are the lowest since the fisher y reached full development in the early 1990s and much lower 
than TACs available (7 100 t). 
There are no reliable estimates of levels of misr eporting of these species as much of the catch 
data in early years of the fi sheries were aggregated. Altho ugh recently many nations have 
improved species-specific reporting of landings in recent years, some of these data may contain mis-identification but it is believed to  be a minor problem. Immediately prior to the 
introduction of quotas for deepwater species in  2001, it is believed that some vessels may 
have logged deep-water sharks as other species in an effort to build up track record. It is also 
likely that, before the introduction of quotas for deep-water sharks, some gillnetters may have 
logged monkfish as sharks. Sinc e the introduction of quotas on deep-water sharks in 2005, it 
is likely that some under-reporting has occurred. It can be expected that some vessels with 
restrictive quotas for deepwater fish may mi sreport more valuable species as deepwater 
sharks.  
IUU fishing is also known to take place,  especially in international waters.  
Species-specific landings data is not available for either of th ese species over time, with the 
exceptions of Portugal. In most cases only estim ates of the proportions of these species based 
on catch ratios are used. These estimates suggest that there ha s been little difference in the 
landings of either species fr om 1990 to 1998, and since 2004. During the period from 1998 to 
2004, Portuguese dogfish predominated, which s uggests that the fleets  were fishing in 
progressively deeper waters. In addition the true  landings data is confused by the reporting of 
both live weight and livers by Member States. This  potentially can lead to duplication of data 
and an over estimation of landings. Detailed CP UE series for stock assessment purposes are 
not very long for either of these species but the CPUE of both species has shown a strong 
decline in northern areas (ICES sub-areas V, VI , VII and XII). In Subarea IX, the CPUE trend 
appears to be stable, and there is a relatively stable pattern over the entire history of the 
Portuguese fishery, since 1989.  
Reference points have been set for both these species along  the guidelines used n common 
with other deep-water stocks that based on th eir life-history paramete rs, are typically slow-
growing and late maturing, and ICES has set Ulim  is set at 0.2* virgin biomass and Upa is set 
at 0.5* virgin biomass (ICES, 1998). These two sp ecies are considered highly vulnerable to 
exploitation. The leafscale gulper shark is listed on the CITES Red List as “Vulnerable 
 
EN 34   EN (VU)”, and the Portuguese dogfish is listed as “Near Threatened (NT)”. IUU fishing is known 
to take place in international wate rs, and this may be continuing.  
Existing specific management measures  
In 2007, the TAC for deepwater sharks in Sub-ar eas V, VI, VII, VIII a nd IX is 2,472 t. In 
2008, the TAC for these species in these areas will be reduced to 1 646 t. In 2007 and 2008, 
the TAC for deepwater sharks is set at 20 t annu ally in Sub-area X, and 99 t in Sub-area XII. 
These TACs apply to the following lis t of species: Portuguese dogfish ( Centroscymnus 
coelolepis ), leafscale gulper shark ( Centrophorus squamosus ), birdbeak dogfish ( Deania 
calceus ), kitefin shark ( Dalatias licha ), greater lanternshark ( Etmopterus princeps ), velvet 
belly ( Etmopterus spinax ), black dogfish ( Centroscyllium fabricii ), gulper shark 
(Centrophorus granulosus ), blackmouth dogfish ( Galeus melastomus ), mouse catshark 
(Galeus murinus ), Iceland catshark ( Apristurus spp.). In Subarea X, Deania hystricosum and 
Deania profundorum are also on this list. 
ICES’ WGEF has found it difficult to quantify landings data when MS report data for both 
live weight and for livers. This potentially can lead to duplication of data and over estimation 
of landings. WGEF has aske d all MS to explain how landings of livers are raised to total live 
weight, and to report if dup lication could be happening. 
Recent management advice  
According to the STECF 2008 report, there is insu fficient information to separate the landings 
of Portuguese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis  and leafscale gulper shark Centrophorus 
squamosus. Total international landings of the combined species have steadily increased to 
around 11 000 t in 2003 and have rapidly declined  after 2003 to the lowe st levels since the 
fishery started. Substantial declines in cpue seri es for the two species in Subareas V, VI, and 
VII suggest that both species ar e severely depleted and that they have been exploited at 
unsustainable levels. In Division IXa, lpue series are stable for leafscale gulper shark and 
declining for Portuguese dogfish. 
Due to its very low productivity, Portuguese dogfish and leafscale gulper shark can only 
sustain very low rates of exploitation. The rate s of exploitation and stock sizes of deepwater 
sharks cannot be quantified. However, based on the cpue information, Portuguese dogfish and 
leafscale gulper shark are cons idered to be depleted. Given their very poor state, ICES 
recommends a zero catch of Portuguese  dogfish and leafscale gulper shark. 
 
EN 35   EN Kitefin Shark (Dalatias licha) 
 Kitefin shark Dalatias licha   
Order: Squaliformes 
Family: Dalatiidae 
English: Kitefin shark, black 
shark, darkie charlie and 
seal shark 
French: Squale liche 
Spanish: Carocho  
 
Overview  
Kitefin sharks, like all elasmobranchs, are suscep tible to exploitation due to their life history 
characteristics. The life history of Kitefin sharks is not well known, although it is believed 
that juveniles are located in deep non-exploite d waters. Whilst, they aren’t recruited to the 
stock until they are 5 years old (100 cm) fo r males, and 6 years old (120 cm) for females 
(ICES, 2007). 
The fishery  
The directed fishery on the Azor es stopped at the end of 1990s b ecause it was not profitable. 
Kitefin shark in the North Atlantic is current ly a bycatch in other fisheries. A detailed 
description of the fisheries can be found in Heessen (2003) and ICES (2003). 
EC directed catch trends and characteristics : EC MS Landings over the past six years have 
been variable, peaking at 738 t in 2003 and dropping to 62 in 2006. In 2003 the main landings were by the UK (518 t), mainly from VIIk
1. Historically, landings fr om the Azores began in 
the early seventies and increased rapidl y to over 947 tonnes in 1981. Since 1981 to 1991 
landings fluctuated considerably, following the market fluctuations, peaking at 937 tonnes in 
1984 and 896 tonnes in 1991. Since 1991 the repor ted landings have declined linearly, 
possibly as a result of economic problems relate d to markets. Since 1988 a bycatch has been 
reported from mainland Portugal with 282 tonnes in 2000 and 119 tonnes in 2003.  
Incidental catch characteristics : Kitefin from the Azores is now a bycatch from different 
deep-water fisheries, with landings in 2004–2006 less than about 15 t per annum. Otherwise 
three individuals were recorded as bycatch in Irish horse mackerel fisheries in ICES Subarea VIIc at 300m depth. 
Existing specific management measures
 
Deepwater sharks are subject to management  in Community waters and in certain non-
Community waters for stocks of deep-sea  species (EC no 2270/2004 article 1). Fishing 
opportunities (TAC) for stocks of deep-sea sh ark species for Community vessels were 
presented in an Annex (EC no 2270/2004 and EC no 2015/2006 annex part 2). A list of 
species was given to be considered in the group of ‘deep sea sharks’. 
                                                 
1 While the UK (E&W), France and Ireland have official reported landings of kitefin shark in these areas, 
it is considered by WGEF (ICES, 2007) that these ha ve been misidentified, and are more likely to be 
either Portuguese dogfish or  leafscale gulper shark. 
 
EN 36   EN Data quality issues : Data from observers or fishing logbooks are not av ailable. Species 
misidentification is a problem with deepwate r sharks. Official landings come exclusively 
from the commercial first sale of fresh fish on the auctions. Landings th at are not sold on the 
auctions, as frozen or processed fish, are no t taken in account on the statistics provided to 
ICES. In some areas it is known that some addi tional Azorean catches ar e not contained in the 
reported data. Therefore, data are likely to be an underestimat e of total landings. 
Status of the stocks  
Atlantic Ocean: historically the Kitefin stock has had highly vari able catches and landings 
(ICES, 2007). The NE Atlantic Kitefin shark fishery has been dominated since 1988 to 
present by Portuguese vessels, predominantly from  the Azores, with landings varying between 
40 tonnes in 2002 up to 908 tone s in 1991 (ICES, 2007). Since 2004 the landings of Kitefin 
shark have remained low even in  the light of other European c ountries such as France, the UK 
and Germany beginning to land  Kitefin since 2003. However, reported landings from other 
European countries excluding Portugal have been que stioned, as it’s believed these are in fact 
misidentifications of Gulper sharks or Portuguese dogfish. Catches and landings have 
remained low due to the directed  fishery ceasing to exist at th e end of the 1990s and as such 
all landings are now through by catches from other deepwa ter fisheries (ICES, 2007).  
The last stock assessment carried out on Kitefin sh ark in the 1980s consid ered the stock to be 
depleted. Supported by the fact that the shar k was intensively exploited as the observed 
average catches were 809 t onnes which was only 124 tonnes lower than the maximum 
sustainable yield for the stock (ICES, 2007). However, there have been no stock assessments 
since then, as no new data has b een available and the current stat us of the Nort heast Atlantic 
Kitefin shark stock is unknown.  
Although, no official stock assessment has been carri ed out, there have been  indications of the 
Kitefin stock showing that the Kitefin is most abundant in the south area of the Mid Atlantic 
Ridge. (ICES, 2007). Indications fo r the rest of the Northeast At lantic show th at records of 
Kitefin catches have been infrequent. 
Recent management advice  
According to ICES advice 2008,  the new information available for kitefin shark ( Dalatias 
licha ) in the North Atlantic is too sparse to re vise the advice from 2006. The advice for 2009 
and 2010 is therefore the same as the advice given in 2006: "This stock is m anaged as part of 
the deep-sea shark fisheries. No targeted fis heries should be permitted unless there are 
reliable estimates of current exploitation ra tes and sufficient data to assess productivity".  
 
EN 37   EN Other deepwater sharks 
The stock assessments of deepwater sharks other than Portuguese dogfish, leafscale gulper 
shark and kitefin shark are considered in this section. These species ar e of a lower commercial 
value and are not the targets of fisheries themse lves but a minor component of the bycatch of 
other trawl, longline and gillnet fisheries. Othe r than the landings data, little is known about 
these species and that landings data apart from  more recent years many of these species would 
have not been detailed in catch statistics. 
The species that could be considered deepwater sharks are as follows; 
Gulper shark ( Centrophorus granulosus ) 
Birdbeak dogfish ( Deania calceus ),  
Longnose velvet dogfish ( Centroscymnus crepidater ),  
Black dogfish ( Centroscyllium fabricii ),  
Velvet belly ( Etmopterus spinax ),  
Blackmouth catshark ( Galeus melastomus ),  
Greenland shark ( Somniosus microcephalus ),  
Lantern sharks “nei” ( Etmopterus spp .),  
‘Aiguillat noir’ (may include Centroscyllium fabricii , Centroscymnus crepidater  and 
Etmopterus spp ). 
ICES advice on deepwater sharks mainly rela tes to the other species mentioned in other 
sections of this report. No species specific stock assessment advice has been given for the 
shark and skate species considered here. In EC  waters, a combined TAC is set for a group of 
deep-water sharks. These in clude; Portuguese dogfish ( Centroscymnus coelolepis ), Leafscale 
gulper shark ( Centrophorus squamosus )), Kitefin shark ( Dalatias licha ), and the species listed 
here birdbeak dogfish ( Deania calceus ), greater lanternshark ( Etmopterus princeps ), velvet 
belly ( Etmopterus spinax ), black dogfish ( Centroscyllium fabricii ), gulper shark 
(Centrophorus granulosus ), blackmouth dogfish ( Galeus melastomus ), mouse catshark 
(Galeus murinus ), Iceland catshark ( Apristurus spp .). Specifically in ICES subarea XII, 
Deania hysticosum  and Deania profundorum  have been added to this list.  
As for many other shark species large quantit ies of deepwater species are landed in the 
grouped categories such as “Sharks nei” an d “Dogfish nei”. Therefore all catches and 
landings information are proba bly greatly underestimated.  
The most reliable estimates of abundance for th ese deepwater shark species within the ICES 
area are those obtained from the deepwate r surveys (depth ra nge 300–1900 m) by ICES 
Members. Since 1998, these surveys have been reasonably consistent in terms of survey 
design, gear and area covered which provides a good time series of CPUE (abundance) and 
species composition data. The most abundant shar k species in terms of catch rate in kg hr-1 are 
the longnose velvet dogfish ( C. crepidator)  and the birdbeak dogfish ( D. calceus) .  
In response to a request from NEAFC in 2007 a nd building on the response given to an EC 
request in 2006, WGDEEP made recommendati ons for the coordination of deep-water 
surveys in the NEAFC Convention Area (ICES, 2007). These surveys will it is hoped provide 
better information for the assessment of the deepwater shark stocks present. 
In summary due to the lack of good reliable data no assessments have been undertaken for 
any of the deepwater shark species listed he re, although no reference points have been 
 
EN 38   EN proposed for any of these species a precautionary  TAC for a number of species combined has 
been allocated. 
 
EN 39   EN D. DEMERSAL ELASMOBRANCHS 
Overview : this group of species include s a large number of skate a nd ray species, as well as a 
number of demersal shark species. The catches  of demersal elasmobranchs by EC Member 
States in ICES waters over th e period 2001 – 2006 are provided in  the table overleaf, with the 
following six species being subjected to particular fishing pressure: 
Cuckoo ray Raja naevus  
Common skate Raja batis  
Thornback ray Raja clavata  
Spotted ray Raja montagui  
Longnose skate Raja (Dipturus) oxyrinchus  
Small-spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula  
It is important to note that the majority of EU vessels onl y report to genus level e.g. Raja  spp., 
which complicates stock management effo rts for the more vulnerable species.  
Fishing methods, directed catch trends and incidental catch characteristics  for demersal 
elasmobranchs in the NE Atlantic will  be described on an area by area basis. 
North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Eastern Channel fisheries : The thornback ray 
Raja clavata , is probably the most important ray in l ongline, gillnet and trawl fisheries, with 
the spotted ray R. montagui and R. brachyura of secondary importance. Demersal 
elasmobranchs are caught as a bycatch in th e mixed demersal fisheries for roundfish and 
flatfish. A few inshore vessels ta rget skates and rays with ta ngle nets and long-line. Due to 
effort restrictions, and high fuel  prices, effort may divert to small inshore fisheries that may 
target skates and rays. For a description of th e demersal fisheries see the Report of the North 
Sea Demersal Working Group (ICES, 2006b) and the report of the DE LASS project (Heessen, 
2003). Whilst France and Sweden pr ovide species-specific data, even these are considered 
unreliable and ICES is of the opinion that only direct market sampling over different regions, 
gears and seasons would be adequate, togeth er with more robust protocols for species 
identification (ICES, 2007a). Fi sheries independent surveys in  the North sea have mainly 
been based around the International Bottom Traw l Survey IBITS (in winter and summer) and 
from different beam trawl surveys (in summe r). An overview of North Sea elasmobranchs 
based on survey data was presented in Daan et al. (2005). The abundance of the four main 
skate species – R. clavata , R. montagui, Leucoraja naevus  and Amblyraja radiatia  – appears 
to have been maintained or even increas ed since 1980. However th e area occupied by R. 
clavata  is only 44% of the extent of the species in the 1980’s.  
Since a TAC was introduced for North Sea skates  and rays in 1999 it ha s always been higher 
than the landings. This TAC, however, has gr adually been reduced, for example from 2005 to 
2006 by 15% and from 2006 to 2007 by 20%. In 2008 the TAC is 1 643 t, mostly to the UK2. 
The TAC for rays and skates shoul d only apply to areas IIIa, IV and VIId and not to IIa since 
this only a part of IIa belongs to the presen t North Sea eco-region. ICES report that demersal 
elasmobranchs may be subject to area misrepor ting in order to permit the landing of high 
quantities of R. clavata  (rays and skates may comprise no more than 25% by live weight of 
                                                 
2 The catches of cuckoo ray ( Leucoraja naevus ), thornback ray ( Raja clavata ), blonde ray ( Raja 
brachyuran ), spotted ray ( Raja montagui ), starry ray ( Amblyraja radiate ) and the common skate 
(Dipturus batis ) must be reported separately. 
 
EN 40   EN the catch retained on board). Th ese fish may then be dumped when they have served their 
purpose. Additionally, if skates and rays are re tained at the start of a fishing trip, but 
subsequent fishing does not comprise large quan tities of other commercial species that can be 
landed; this can result in discarding of dead fish.   
Table 1: EU fleet catches of demersal elasmobranches in ICES waters 
Species Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
Angular roughshark Portugal 63 86 144 79 38 53
Birdbeak dogfish Portugal 50 90 75 160 154 80
 Spain . 12 43 81 63 30
 UK 1 0 22 84 47 21
Black dogfish France 278 27 53 56 4 2
Blackmouth catshark Portugal 34 50 30 64 50 31
 Spain . 230 184 86 119 190
Blonde ray Portugal . . . <0.5 120 378
Blue skate France 664 449 443 472 304 259
Bluntnose six-gill shark Portugal 1 7 2 30 12 15
Catsharks etc. nei Ireland . . 299 134 122 40
 Spain . . . 557 392 -
 UK 22 11 4 10 3 4
Catsharks nursehounds nei France 26 15 21 49 65 105
 Portugal 776 713 782 750 460 260
 Spain . . . 121 111 146
 UK 34 38 32 42 66 -
Common eagle ray France <0.5 <0.5 2 1 2 2
 Portugal . . 15 10 16 24
Common stingray France 8 10 11 14 20 13
Crest-tail catsharks nei Ireland . . 5 7 5 7
Cuckoo ray France 2 882 2 742 2 843 2 759 3 056 2 527
Deep-water catsharks Spain . . . . 8 1
Dogfish sharks nei France 3 476 1 992 860 700 845 598
 Germany 431 518 642 634 54 -
 Ireland 30 14 2 211 1 686 1 140 967
 Lithuania 14 40 22 56 6 6
 Spain 365 171 338 532 118 308
 UK 478 752 158 230 32 27
Dogfishes and hounds UK 1 388 1 747 153 198 215 311
 
EN 41   EN Species Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
Dogfishes nei Belgium 398 447 446 466 488 503
Eagle rays Portugal 9 12 - - - -
 Spain . . . 4 5 2
Electric rays nei Spain . . . 14 13 21
Guitarfishes nei Portugal 1 1 2 1 1 -
Hammerhead sharks Portugal 4 5 7 19 2 12
Portugal 81 77 45 - - - Houndsharks smoothhounds 
nei UK 76 56 86 75 171 130
Knifetooth dogfish Spain . . - 9 9 125
 UK . . <0.5 - 39 -
Lanternsharks nei Spain . 99 76 64 60 -
Longnose velvet dogfish France - 12 6 7 6 3
 Portugal 3 4 2 1 3 8
 UK 0 0 503 294 152 412
Longnosed skate France 92 210 198 43 50 48
France 183 168 171 178 195 158
Portugal . . 33 30 210 421Nursehound 
UK 85 39 62 - 9 -
Species Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Belgium 1 527 1 734 1 849 2 013 2 031 1 859
Denmark 122 59 69 156 90 54
France 3 152 3 153 3 430 3 021 3 095 2 680
Germany 28 26 42 66 68 26
Ireland 2 140 2 501 2 643 2 447 1 781 1 467
Lithuania - - - 2 12 8
Netherlands 749 792 677 558 565 606
Portugal 1 685 1 636 1 804 1 861 1 426 921
Spain 9 198 3 692 2 267 2 369 2 931 3 166
Sweden 12 8 13 20 8 16Raja rays nei 
UK 6 394 6 061 6 545 5 197 3 475 3 369
Rays and skates nei Estonia 56 6 - - 4 -
 France 76 43 32 38 33 32
 Ireland - - 110 84 46 22
 Spain . <0.5 12 529 737 816
Rays stingrays mantas nei Ireland . . 126 173 287 256
 
EN 42   EN Species Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
 Spain . . . 12 1 709 999
Sailfin roughshark UK <0.5 - - - - -
Sandy ray France 328 302 281 258 295 222
 Portugal . . 18 24 56 80
Shagreen ray France 67 70 46 33 32 25
Small-eyed ray France - - 13 16 23 19
Small-spotted catshark France 6 320 5 714 5 477 5 574 5 792 5 465
 Ireland 633 564 . . . .
 Spain . 6 8 69 90 112
 UK 156 163 103 103 218 141
Smooth-hound Portugal 2 2 1 7 11 25
 Spain . . . 63 29 32
Smooth-hounds nei France 1 272 1 590 1 882 2 197 2 360 2 416
 Portugal 40 38 49 36 25 12
 Spain . . . 26 24 41
Spiny butterfly ray Portugal 2 4 6 4 6 9
Spotted ray France 1 563 1 451 1 434 1 312 1 155 1 017
 Portugal . . . . 64 81
Starry smooth-hound Portugal <0.5 2 5 8 10 22
Stingrays butterfly rays Portugal 2 2 5 2 1 3
Thornback ray France 1 215 1 163 1 329 1 081 958 827
 Portugal <0.5 2 48 87 220 363
Torpedo rays France 42 34 31 33 22 23
 Portugal 35 34 45 45 47 60
Velvet belly UK 0 0 5 10 51 0
TOTAL  48 779 41 702 41 459 40 353 38 868 35 573
Source: Eurostat/ICES database on ca tch statistics - ICES 2007 Copenhagen 
Barents Sea : the starry ray (or thorny skate) Amblyraja radiate  comprises 96% by total 
number and about 92% by weight of skates caught in surveys or  as bycatch. The next most 
abundant species are arctic ( A. hyperborean ) and round ( Rajella fyllae ) skates (3% and 2% by 
number respectively). The rest of the species are scarce (Dolgov et al., 2004; Drevetnyak et 
al., 2005). Much of this is bycatch from the bottom trawl and longlin e fisheries which is 
largely discarded and not landed. Catch data from  any EC fleet activity in the area appears to 
be extremely limited.  
Norwegian Sea : like the Barents Sea, the starry ray Amblyraja radiate  is the most abundant 
skate species. Long-nosed skate Dipturus oxyrinchus  is mainly distributed in the southern 
 
EN 43   EN section of coastline south of below latitude 65° N. There is no directed fishery on skates and 
rays in the Norwegian Sea, t hough they are caught in mixed fish eries targeting teleost species. 
Overall landings throughout time have been low and tota l around 200–300 t per year, with 
Russia and Norway the main countries landing skates and rays from the Norwegian Sea. 
Again catch data from any EC fleet activity in  the area appears to be extremely limited.  
Faroe Islands : The elasmobranch fauna off the Faroe Isla nds is little studied in the scientific 
literature, though it is likely to be somewhat similar to that occurring in the northern North 
Sea and off Iceland. Dipturus batis , Dipturus oxyrinchus , Leucoraja fullonica , Raja clavata  
and Amblyraja radiata  have all been recorded. Since 1973, nine countries (Denmark, Faroes, 
France, Germany (and Fed. Rep Germany), Ne therlands, Norway, Poland, UK and Russia) 
have reported catches of demersal elasmobr anchs from Division V b. UK vessels include a 
small number of large Scottish trawlers which ar e occasionally able to obtain quotas to fish in 
Faroese waters targeting gadoids and deepwater species. French vessels fishing in this area are probably from the same fleet that prosecut e the mixed deep-water and shelf fishery west 
of the UK. In all cases, it is likely that deme rsal elasmobranchs represent a minor to moderate 
bycatch in fisheries ta rgeting other species. 
Celtic Seas
3: Whilst the spurdog Squalus acanthias  (see above) and lesser-spotted dogfish 
Scyliorhinus canicula , are widespread thr oughout this region, ther e are some important 
regional differences in the dist ributions of other species. These include the tope, smooth-
hounds Mustelus  spp. and greater-spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus stellaris . Sixteen species of 
skate and ray are recorded  in the area, the most  abundant skates being Raja clavata , cuckoo 
ray Leucoraja. naevus , blonde ray R. brachyura , spotted ray R. montagui , undulate ray R. 
undulata , common skate Dipturus batis , shagreen ray L. fullonica  and small-eyed ray, R. 
microocellata . Other batoids (stingray Dasyatis pastinaca , marbled electric ray Torpedo 
marmorata  and electric ray T. nobiliana ) may be observed in this region, although they are 
more common in more southerly waters. Th ese are generally discarded if caught in 
commercial fisheries.  
Most skate and ray species in the Celtic Seas  are taken as a bycatch in mixed demersal 
fisheries, which are either direct ed at flatfish or gadoids. The ma in countries involved in these 
fisheries are Ireland, UK, France, Spain, with smaller catches by Belgium and Germany. The 
main gears used are otter trawls and bottom-set gillnets, with the Belgian fishery carried out by a beam-trawl fleet. There are also beam traw ls from Ireland, the UK and the Netherlands in 
this area. 
There are also some localised fisheries that target R. clavata  using longline and tangle nets. 
There is a small fishery off south-east Ireland ta rgeting various skate sp ecies in the southern 
Irish Sea (Area VIIa), using rockhopper otter tr awls and beam trawls, and some UK trawlers 
may target skates in the Bristo l Channel (VIIf) at some times of year. Most coastal dogfishes 
(e.g. tope, smooth-hounds and catsharks) are taken as a bycatch in various trawl and gillnet fisheries. Due to the low market value of th ese species, they tend to be discarded by some 
nations, though some of market able sizes are some times retained. A largely unknown quantity 
is retained for use as bait in the Irish S ea and Bristol Channel whelk fishery, and the 
northwest Ireland crab fishery, and these may not routinely be declared in the landings. 
                                                
 
3 The Celtic Seas eco-region covers west of Scotland  (VIa), Rockall (VIb), Irish Sea (VIIa), Bristol 
Channel (VIIf), the western Englis h Channel (VIIe), and the Celtic S ea and west of Ireland (VIIb-c, g-
k), although the south-western sector of ICES Division VIIk is contained in the oceanic northeast 
Atlantic eco-region. 
 
EN 44   EN There are Nephrops fisheries in the Irish Sea (V IIa), Celtic Sea (VIIg), Porcupine Seabight 
(VIIj) and at the Aran Islands, (VIIb) which may catch various elasmobranchs as a bycatch. In 
the deep waters of Area VI an d VII there is a skate bycatch in fisheries for anglerfish, 
megrim, and hake, and these species include L. fullonica , L. circularis  and Dipturus  spp.. 
There is also a large recreationa l fishery for skates, rays and dogf ishes, particularly for those 
species close to shore, with some ports havi ng locally important charter boat fisheries. 
There are no TACs for any of the relevant sp ecies in this region. La ndings have been highly 
variable over the past ten year s and between the different areas  in this region, but the overall 
trend is downward. Reported landings from divisi ons VIIb,c,j,k increased dramatically in the 
late 1990s, to more than 4 000 t, but have subs equently declined to approximately 1 000 t per 
year. The lack of species-specific landings da ta for the demersal sharks – and the many 
categories under which these are reported – is a particular issue in improving fisheries management.  
Discard levels from elasmobranch fisheries in this area are also variable. Irish discard 
observer records show that most lesser-spot ted dogfish caught are di scarded, with discard 
rates generally over 60%. These species are kn own to have a high survivorship (Revill et al, 
2005). UK discard surveys indicate  that skates below a certain  size tend to be discarded, 
regardless of species. While this size varies fr om vessel to vessel, in  general, it is around 47 
cm, though UK demersal fisheries land R. clavata  of a smaller size (UK (E&W) Discard 
Surveys). 
Bay of Biscay and Iberian Waters : three species in this area are considered by ICES for 
detailed assessment, including Scyliorhinus canicula , Leucoraja naevus  and Raja clavata . 
Most landings come from the bycatch of fisher ies targeting teleost demersals such as hake, 
anglerfish and megrim. The main gear in subare a VIIIc is the bottom trawl fleet that targets a 
mixture of gadoids and flatfish  at depths of 100–300 m over the continental shel f and catches 
skates (R. clavata, L. naevus , R. montagui , R. brachyura , R. undulata  and R. microocellata ) 
and dogfish. In 1994, a total of 7 089 t of elasmobranchs were caught by trawl fleet in the 
Cantabrian Sea, of which 87% were discarded (Perez et al ., 1996). S. canicula  is usually 
discarded in the Spanish fishery in the Cant abrian Sea (VIIIc) and only 10–25% is actually 
landed (ICES, 2002). In the case of skates, the hi ghest landings are those from bottom trawls 
(75%) followed by longline (21%) and gillnet (3 %). Occasionally there have been landings 
from purse seine or traps (Fernández et al., 2002). 
The main fishing gear taking demersal elasm obranchs in sub-areas VIIIa,b,d is the Basque 
otter trawlers targeting hake, anglerfish a nd megrim. The most important elasmobranch 
species landed by this fleet is Scyliorhinus canicula , on average 299 t/year since 1996. The 
most abundant skates are L. naevus  and R. clavata , which accounted for 77% and 17% 
respectively of the skate cat ch composition in the period 2000–2006. In these subdivisions 
small quantities of other skates (including L. fullonica , R. montagui , D. batis , and D. 
oxyrinchuis ) are also landed. 
Off mainland Portugal (IXa), lesser-spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula  is caught mainly by 
coastal trawlers and by the artisanal fishing fleet. This species, along  with greater-spotted 
dogfish S. stellaris , are landed in the major ports of Di vision IXa under the generic name of 
Scyliorhinus  spp. Skates and rays are captured mainly  by the artisanal polyvalent fleet, which 
uses primarily trammel nets. The artisanal fleet also use different types of fishing gear, such 
as longline and gillnet, and account for the high est landing records (75% of the annual skate 
and ray landings). 
 
EN 45   EN Landings of skates since 1973 show  no clear pattern, although there was a remarkable peak in 
landings in the earlier y ears (1973–1974) and from 1982–1991. The reduction in observed 
landings from 1992–1995 coincides with a misrepor ting period of Spanish landings, but since 
1996 the landings seem to have stab ilized between 4 000 and 5 000 t/year. 
Mediterranean : The commercial value of demersal elasmobranchs is low in the 
Mediterranean, with catches of under 5 000 t repo rted by EC vessels in  2005 (GFCM FishStat 
database, 2007). There are no Me diterranean pelagic fisheries th at target migratory oceanic 
sharks (Cavanagh and Gibson, 2007). However, longline fisheries targ eting swordfish and 
tunas (which have increased in  effort over the past three d ecades) pose a great threat to 
susceptible chondrichthyans take n as bycatch in this fish ery (ICCAT, 2001). Bycatch is 
poorly documented and data are rarely incorporated  into national and international (FAO) 
statistics, therefore numbers of sharks caugh t as bycatch can only be crudely estimated 
(Camhi et al. 1998). IUCN state that bycatch in nets (g illnets, purse seines  and driftnets) is 
considered a possible threat to 67 (94%) of Med iterranean chondrichthyans and bycatch in 
longlines fisheries is a potent ial threat to 48 (67 %) of species (Cavanagh and Gibson, 2007).  
Unfortunately, data collected are incomplete and some of the most important landings are not 
recorded due to severa l species being reported under one group. For example, only thornback 
ray Raja clavata  has separate records data among the Rajids. Additionally, FAO data only 
report official landings and ther efore bycatch returned to th e sea is not included (Walker et al. 
2005). 
Table 2: EC fleet catches of demersal el asmobranchs in the Me diterranean (2000 – 2005) 
Fleet Species 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Cyprus Sharks, rays, 
skates, etc. 
nei 22 28 22 13 13 21
Dogfish sharks nei 12 17 14 6 5 1
Rays, 
stingrays, 
mantas nei 70 64 75 71 78 65
Small-spotted 
catshark 30 31 33 32 37 28
Thornback 
ray 29 17 19 27 25 15France 
Sub-total 163 157 163 149 158 130
Dogfish 
sharks nei 270 224 143 171 169 140
Guitarfishes, 
etc.nei 94 89 52 32 41 24
Raja rays nei 746 579 536 150 162 165
Smooth-hounds nei 578 351 383 281 241 205
Thornback 
ray - - - 351 298 315Greece 
Sub-total 1 688 1 243 1 114 985 911 849
Dogfish 
sharks nei -  ----  1 5 7 Italy 
Rays, 
stingrays, 
mantas nei 507 543 498 541 577 1 481
 
EN 46   EN Sharks, rays, 
skates, etc. 
nei -  ----  4 3 2
Smooth-hounds nei 462 369 325 423 483 882
Sub-total 969 912 823 964 1 060 2 952
Angelsharks, sand devils 
nei <0.5 <0.5 - - - -
Dogfish 
sharks nei 2 3 2 <0.5 <0.5 1
Rays, stingrays, 
mantas nei 7 <0.5 - 5 6 7Malta 
Sub-total 9  3256  8
Portugal Sharks, rays, 
skates, etc. 
nei 3 1 1 - 4 3
Romania Rays, 
stingrays, 
mantas nei -  ----  -
Common eagle ray -  ----  < 0 . 5
Smoth-
hounds nei 2  4254  2Slovenia 
Sub-total 2  4255  2
Catsharks, 
nursehounds 
nei 331 379 185 274 316 240
Dogfish sharks nei 11 20 19 16 12 10
Eagle rays 
nei - - - - 9 45
Rays, 
stingrays, mantas nei 536 375 835 206 315 287
Sharks, rays, 
skates, etc. 
nei 397 369 28 28 29 21
Smoth-
hounds nei 15 19 12 21 18 22
Stingrays, 
butterfly rays nei -  --- 2  2Spain 
Sub-total 1 290 1 162 1 079 545 701 627
TOTAL 4 146 3 510 3 206 2 666 2 858 4 592
Source: GFCM catch database (v ia FAO FishStat metadatabase) 
Azores and Mid-Atlantic Ridge: The main species of demersal elasmobranchs observed in 
this eco-region are deepwater elasmobranch species ( Centrophorus  spp., Centroscymnus spp.,  
Deania  spp., Etmopterus  spp., Hexanchus  griseus , Galeus marinus , Somniosus 
microcephalus , Pseudotriakis microdon , Scymnodon obscurus , Centroscyllium fabricii . Raja  
spp. etc.), particularly whenever  the gear fishes deeper than 600 m, yet most of these may be 
discarded due to their low commercial valu e (ICES, 2005). In the Azores area the kitefin 
shark ( Dalatias licha ) and tope ( G. galeus ) are the most important commercial demersal 
elasmobranchs (see earlier sections). 
 
EN 47   EN Of the skates, the most abundant speci es in sub-area X are thornback ray Raja clavata . Other 
species also observed include Dipturus batis , D. oxyrinchus , Leucoraja fullonica , Rajella 
bathyphila , Raja brachyura , Raja maderensis  and Rostroraja alba  (Pinho, 2005, 2006). Other 
species of batoid, like stingray Dasyatis pastinaca , marbled electric ray Torpedo marmorata  
and electric ray T. nobiliana , are also observed in this eco- region. These species are generally 
discarded if caught in commercial fisheries. 
Demersal elasmobranches are caught in the Azores EEZ by a multispecies demersal fishery, 
using hand-lines and bottom longlines, and by th e black scabbard fish fishery using bottom 
longlines (ICES, 2005). The most commercially  important elasmobranchs caught and landed 
from these fisheries are Raja clavata  and G. galeus  (Pinho, 2005, 2006; ICES, 2005). 
Table 3: Demersal elasmobranchs in the Azores and Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  
Landings of demersal elasmobranchs (t) from ICES Subarea X 
Fleet Species 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
Azores Rajidae 103 83 68 70 89 72 50 62
France Rajidae  2 - - - - -
Spain Rajidae  24 29  - -
Azores Bluntnose n.a. n.a. n.a. 7 2 1 1 n.a.
Azores Sharks 6 18 22 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3 n.a.
TOTAL 109 125 121 77 91 73 53 62
Status of the stocks  
Ray species are an important component of mi xed demersal fisheries for most European 
countries such as Portugal. The ma in ray species are the Cuckoo ray ( Raja naevus ), Common 
skate ( Raja batis ), Thornback ray ( Raja clavata ), Spotted ray ( Raja montagui ), and the 
Longnose skate Raja ( Dipturus rhina ) (ICES, 2005). 
Atlantic Ocean:  historically ray catches in the No rth Atlantic have shown temporal 
variability in both the relative status of the species and its vulnerab ility. Trawls in the 
Northwest Atlantic have indicat ed that since 1971 the biomass and abundance of mature rays 
have declined (ICES, 2005). A lthough, a trend has been identified for immature rays 
suggesting that there has been  an increase in bi omass and abundance from the mid 1980s to 
the mid 1990s.  
Currently there are few directed fishery for ray species in the Atlantic Ocean, with all catches 
through bycatch from commercial groundfish fish eries. Ray bycatch has decreased since the 
early 1990s which is associated with the decl ine in groundfish fisher ies in the Atlantic 
(Government of Canada, 2007). Historically ra ys have been viewed as commercially 
undesirable, however more recently Rays have b een harvested for their wings, which are used 
in food preparation (Government of Canada, 2007). The recreational landings of Rays are 
negligible. 
Misidentification of ray species is common du e to the difficulty in identifying between 
species because of their similar morphology. As a result, records of bycatch for Ray species 
are commonly reported under the generic classification of rays, apart from those common 
species that can be readily identified. 
 
EN 48   EN As a consequence of a lack of bycatch data and the misidentification of ray species there have 
been no stock assessments carried out on ray species in the Atlantic. To enable stock 
assessments to be carried out there needs to be increased le vels of training on less common 
species, in addition to identif ication cards for these species  (Government of Canada, 2007). 
Recent management advice  
Skates (Rajidae)  
According to ICES advice 2008, repor ted landings of skates (the  groups as a whole) in the 
area seem stable or slightly declining in recent years. 
Analyses of lpue from the Basque trawl fleet  since 1996 indicate th at there has been a 
decrease in skate abund ance (mainly cuckoo ray Leucoraja naevus and thornback ray Raja 
clavata ) in Divisions VIIIa,b,d since the 1998 peak. Landings have also decreased since 1996, 
but have been more stable in recent years. 
In Division VIIIc, results obtai ned from groundfish surveys indicate an increase in thornback 
ray biomass since 1996. Survey data for the cuc koo ray seems to indicate  an increasing trend 
in biomass although there is consid erable year-to-year variability. 
Surveys in Subarea IX were judged to be inadequate for estimating abundance trends. In this 
subarea, skate landings have been stable since 1996, averaging 1800 t year. 
The status of the less common skate species is unknown due to the lack of species information 
in landings and their low frequencies in surveys.  
Lesser-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula)  
According to ICES advice 2008, re ported landings of  lesser-spotted dogfish in the area seem 
stable or slightly decr easing in recent years. 
Analyses of lpue from the Basque trawler fleet  indicate that the lpue of lesser-spotted dogfish 
in Divisions VIIIa,b,d has increased from 1994 to  2006. In 2007 a slight decrease in lpue was 
observed (Table 9.4.12.2). Estimates from ground-fi sh surveys indicate an increase in the 
biomass of this species in Division VIIIc since 2002. Overall the popu lation of lesser-spotted 
dogfish in Subarea VIII appears to be stable or slightly increasing. 
Landings from Subarea IX decreased since 2004 by more than a factor of two. However, in 
this area lesser-spotted dog-fish is  essentially a bycatch from othe r fisheries, so the decrease 
in landings during the last fe w years may be related to cha nges in the effort distribution 
targeting different species, and/or better spec ies identification at Portuguese landing ports. 
Other demersal elasmobranch species  
 
EN 49   EN According to ICES advice 2008, the state of other elasmobranch species (e.g. smooth hounds 
Mustelus spp.) is unknown due to a lack of species differ-entiation in landings and the short 
and discontinous nature of relative abundance indices.  
The available landing data of smoothhounds show ed that landings in Subarea VIII have 
increased sharply since 1996, from 151 t to a peak of 500 t in 2006. In Subarea IX Mustelus 
spp. landings have declined since 1999.  
ICES advises that landings of demersal elasmobranchs in 2009 should not exceed recent 
average landings (2002–2006), treating skates an d rays, and lesser-spotted dogfish separately. 
Species-specific landings data should be coll ected for the major skate species (including 
cuckoo ray, blonde ray, thornback ray, spo tted ray, undulate ray, and smalleyed ray). 
 
EN 50   EN Longnose skate (Raja rhina)  
Overview: the Longnose skate is primarily caught in  trawl and hook-and-line fisheries and 
mainly as bycatch from groundfish directed fisheries. The average annual catches of 
Longnose skate from the trawl ﬂeet are between 300-400 tonnes, 54 per cent of which is 
retained (Government of Canada, 2007). There is limited information on the hook and line 
fleets bycatch and discard mort ality, however it has been estimated that over 300 tonnes per 
year are caught in the halibut directed  fishery (Government of Canada, 2007).  
Atlantic Ocean stocks : the longnose skate distribution extends across the entire Canadian 
Pacific coast, southward to the Gulf of California and northward to the Bering Sea 
(Government of Canada, 2007). However, little  is still known about  the longnose skate’s 
population and whether this population actually constitutes a distinguishable unit. Management of the longnose skate is in the form  of a TAC in place for trawlers in the Hecate 
Strait off the Canadian coast,  which was set to 47 tonnes in  2002. There are no restrictions 
identified in other areas (G overnment of Canada, 2007).  
Although, there is data on the catches of longnose skate there is  no stock assessment 
identified although the Hecate Trawl Survey and West Coast Triennial Survey indicate that 
the abundance of longnose skates  within the survey area is stable and perhaps increasing 
(Government of Canada, 2007). 
Pacific Ocean stocks:  Pacific catches of rays were fi rst recorded in 1954 under a generic 
code and in the 1990s they began to be r ecorded according to species (Government of 
Canada, 2007). Ray species in the Pacific are caught as bycatch with the exception of the 
Longnose skate ( Raja rhina ) which is caught by a directed fishery (Government of Canada, 
2007).  
Rays are managed through the Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan 
Groundfish, which under consultation, annually sets  TACs for ray catches and specifically the 
longnose skate within designate d areas (Government of Cana da, 2007). Since 2006 there has 
been full coverage of the hook and line vessels by sea and video monitoring, with monitoring of landings and discards consider ed to be accurate as there is 100 per cent coverage on trawl 
vessels (Government of Canada, 2007).
  
 
EN 51   EN References 
Aasen, O. (1964).  The exploitation of the spiny dogfish ( Squalus acanthias L.) in European waters. Fiskeridir. 
Skr. Ser. Havunders ., 13(7): 5–16. 
Anon (2003).  Report of the subgroup on resource status (SGRST) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic for 
Fisheries (STECF): Elasmobranch Fisheries. Brussels 22–25 July 2003. 
Baum, J.K., R.A. Myers, D.G. Kehler, B. Worm, S.J. Harley, and P.A. Doherty (2003).  Collapse and 
conservation of shark populations  in the Northwest Atlantic. Science  299:389–392. 
Baum, J. K., Kehler, D. and Myers, R. A. (2005).  Robust estimates of decline for pelagic shark populations in 
the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries , 30: 27–30. 
Biseau, A. (2006).  Chapter Taupe Catch data of porbeagle in  French artisanal fishery on porbeagle. WGEF 
Working Document . 
Bonfil, R. (1994).  Overview of world el asmobranch fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper , No. 341. FAO, 
Rome, 119 pp. 
Buencuerpo V., Rios S., and Moron J. (1998).  Pelagic sharks associat ed with the swordfish, Xiphias gladius , 
fishery in the eastern North Atlantic  Ocean and the Strait of Gibraltar . Fishery Bulletin , 96(4): 667–685. 
Burgess, G. H., Beerkircher, L. R., Cailliet, G. M., Ca rlson, J. K., Cortes, E., Goldman, K. J.; Grubbs, R. 
D., Musick, J. A., Musyl, M. K. and Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2005a).  Is the collapse of shark populations in the 
Northwest Atlantic Ocean a nd Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries , 30: 19–26. 
Burgess, G. H., Beerkircher, L. R., Cailliet, G. M., Ca rlson, J. K., Cortes, E., Goldman, K. J.; Grubbs, R. 
D., Musick, J. A., Musyl, M. K. and Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2005b).  Reply to “Robust estimates of decline for 
pelagic shark populations in the Northw est Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico”. Fisheries , 30: 30–31. 
Cailliet G.M., Martin L.K., Harvey J.T., Kusher, D. and Welden B.A. (1983).  Preliminary studies on the age 
and growth of blue Prionace glauca,  common thresher Alopias vulpinus  and shortfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus  
sharks from California waters. In: Proceedings of the International workshop on age determination of oceanic 
pelagic fishes: Tunas, billfishes and sh arks (E.D.Prince & L.M.Pulos, eds.) NOAA Technical Report NMFS , 8: 
179–188. 
Camhi, M., Fowler, S.L., Musick, J.A., Bräutigam, A. and Fordham, S.V. (1998). Sharks and their Relatives 
– Ecology and Conservation. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. iv + 39 pp.  
Campana, S. E., Joyce, W., Mark s, L. and Harl ey, S. (2001).  Analytical Assessment of the porbeagle shark 
(Lamna nasus ) population in the Northwest Atlantic, with estim ates of long-term sustainable yield. Canadian 
Stock Assessment, Research Document , 2001/067, Ottawa. 
Campana, S. E., Marks, L., Jo yce, W. Kohler, N. (2005).  Catch, by-catch, and indices of population status of 
blue shark ( Prionace glauca ) in the Canadian Atlantic. International Commission for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas, Collective Volume of Scientific Papers. ICCAT 58(3): 891–934. 
Campana, S. E., Marks, L., Joyce, W., Hurl ey, P., Showell, M., and Kulka, D. (1999).  An analytical 
assessment of the porbeagle shark ( Lamna nasus ) population in the Northwest Atlantic. Canadian Stock 
Assessment, Research Document 1999/158, Ottawa. 
Cavanagh, R. D. and C. Gibson (2007).  Overview of the Conservation St atus of Cartilaginous Fishes 
(Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain. vi + 42 pp. 
CEC (2006).  Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated 
conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required. Brussels, 5.12.2006 COM(2006 ) 774 final, 212 pp. 
 
EN 52   EN CITES (2007a).  Consideration of Proposals for Amendment of Appendices I and II (Proposal for the inclusion 
of Squalus acanthias Linnaeus, 1758 in Appendix II  in accordance with Article II  2(a). Fourteenth meeting of 
the Conference of the Parties. CoP14 Prop. 16. The Hague (Netherlands), 3-15 June 2007. 
CITES (2007b).  Consideration of Proposals for Amendment of Appendices I and II (Proposal for the inclusion 
of Lamna nasus  (Bonnaterre, 1788) in Appendix II in accordance with Article II 2(a). Fourteenth meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties. CoP14 Prop. 15. The Hague (Netherlands), 3-15 June 2007. 
Compagno, L.J.V. (1984).  FAO Species Catalogue. Sharks of the Worl d: an annotated and illustrated catalogue 
of shark species known to date. Part 2: Carcharhiniformes. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Vol. 4(2): 251–655. 
Daan, N., Heessen, H.J.L., and ter Hofstede, R. (2005).  North Sea Elasmobranchs: distribution, abundance 
and biodiversity. ICES CM 2005 /N:06.  
DFO Atlantic Fisheries (1996).  Shortfin Mako Shark. Maritimes Region DFO Atlantic Fisheries, Stock Status 
Report 96/32 E. pp 2. 
DFO (2006). Recovery Potential Assessment Report on White Sharks in Atlantic Canada. DFO Can. Sci. 
Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/052. 
Diez, G., Santurtún, M., Ruiz, J., Iriondo, A., Gonzalez, I. and Artetxe, I. (2007).  The longline Basque 
Fishery on blue shark ( Prionace glauca ) in the Bay of Biscay (1998–2006) Working Document for ICES 
Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes, Galway 22–28 June 2007. 
Dolgov, A.V., Drevetnyak, K.V. and Gusev, E.V. (2004). Skate Stocks in Barents Sea. Journal of Northwest 
Atlantic Fisheries Science  35, 249–260. 
Drevetnyak, K. V. Dolgov, A. V., Sokolov, K. M., Gusev, E. V. and Grekov, A. A. (2005).  Skates in the 
Barents Sea: stock status and catch by fishing fleet. ICES CM  2005/ N:11, 14 pp. 
FAO (2007).  Second FAO ad hoc expert advisory panel for the assessment of proposals to amend appendices I 
and II of CITES concerning commercially-exploited aquatic species FAO Fisheries Report  No. 833. Rome. 140 
pp. 
Fernández, A., Rodriguez-Cabello, C., Gancedo, R., Punzón, A., Olaso, I., and Cendrero, O. (2002).  
Overview of continental shelf elasmobranch fish eries in the Cantabrian Sea. NAFO Symposium on 
Elasmobranch Fisheries. Santiago de Compostela (Spain), 11–13 September 2002. NAFO, SCR Doc. 02/115. 
Figueiredo, I. and Machado, P. (2006).  Standardized CPUE for deep-water sharks captured in the Portuguese 
continental slope. WGEF Working document. 
Fishery Agency of Japan (2004).  Salmon Shark Lamna ditropis ; Porbeagle Shark Lamna nasus , Pacific, 
Atlantic and Indian Oceans. In: The current status of international fi shery stocks (summarised edition). Pp. 82–
83. Fishery Agency, Japan. 
Fitzmaurice, P, Green, P., Keirse, G ., Kenny, M. and Clarke, M. (2005).  Stock discrimination of blue shark, 
based on Irish tagging data SCRS/2004/124 Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT,  58(3): 1171–1178. 
Gauld J. A. (1989).  Records of porbeagles landed in Scotland, with observations on the biology, distribution and 
exploitation of the species, Scottish Fisheries Research Report 45. Dept. Ag., Edinburgh, Scotland: 1–15. 
Government of Canada (2007).  National Plan of Action for the conservation and Management of Sharks. 
Government of Canada, Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E6. pp 31. 
Green, P. (2007).  Central Fisheries Board marine sportfish tagging programme 1970 to 2006. Working 
document to WGEF , 2007. 
Hanan D.A., Holts D.B., and Coan A.L. Jr. (1993).  The California drift gillnet fishery for sharks and 
swordfish, 1981–1982 through 1990–91. California Department of Fish Game, Fishery Bulletin , 175: 95 pp. 
 
EN 53   EN Hareide, N-.R., Rihan, D., Mulligan, M., McMullen, P ., Garnes, G., Clark, M., Connolly, P., Tyndall, P., 
Misund, R., Furevik, D., Newton, A., Høydal, K., Blasdale, T. and Humborstad, O-.B. (2005).  A 
preliminary investigation on shelf edge and deepwater fixe d net fisheries to the west and north of Great Britain, 
Ireland, around Rockall and Hatton bank. ICES CM 2005/N:07. 
Heessen, H.J.L. (2003).  Development of elasmobranch assessments DELASS. Final report of DG Fish Study 
Contract 99/055, 605 p. 
Henderson, A.C., Flannery, K., Dunne, J. (2001).  Growth and reproduction in spiny dogfish Squalus 
acanthias L. (Elasmobranchii: Squalidae), from the west  coast of Ireland. Sarsia, 87(5): 350–261. 
Holden, M. J. and Meadows, P. S. (1962 ). The structure of the spine of the spurdog fish ( Squalus acanthias L.) 
and its use for age determination. Journal of the Marine  Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 42: 179–
197. 
Holden, M. J. (1968).  The rational exploitation of the Sco ttish-Norwegian stock of spurdogs ( Squalus acanthias 
L.). Fishery Investigations, Series II, 25(8), MAFF, London, 27 pp. 
ICCAT (2005a).  Report on the 2004 Inter-Sessional Mee ting of the ICCAT Sub-Committee on By-Catches 
Shark Stock Assessment. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT , 58(3): 799 – 890. 
ICCAT (2005b). Report of the 2004 inter-sessional meeting of the ICCAT sub-comm ittee on bycatches: shark 
stock assessment. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT , 58: 891-934. 
ICCAT (2006a). Recommandation supplémentaire de l’ICCAT concernant la conservation des requins capturés 
en association avec les pêcheries gérées par l’ICCAT.- Rec. 06-10 BYC, 1 p.  
ICCAT (2006b).  Chapter 8.12 SHK-Sharks Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics 
(SCRS) ICCAT. PLE-014/2006 Madrid, Spain, October 2-6, 2006 106–113. 
ICES (2006a).  Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF), 14–21 June 2006, ICES 
Headquarters. ICES CM  2006/ACFM:31. 291 pp. 
ICES (2006b).  Working Group on the assessment of demersal stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak 
(WGNSSK). 6–15 September 2005, ICES Headquarters Copenhagen. ICES CM  2006/ACFM:09. 
ICES (2007a).  Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). 22-28 June 2007, Galway 
Ireland. ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management  ICES CM 2007/ACFM:27 318 pp 
ICES (2007b).  Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fish Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 
23–27 April 2007, Dublin, Ireland. ICES CM 2007/FTC:06, 197 pp. 
IOTC (2005). WPBy-06 Incidental mortality of seabirds, turtles and sharks: A review of data collected east of 
20 degrees by South African observers Compiled by Samantha Petersen First Meeting of the IOTC Bycatch 
working party Phuket, 20 July 2005 
IOTC (2007).  Report of the Third Session of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch. Indian 
Ocean Tuna Commission . Seychelles, 11 – 13 July. pp 39. 
Johnston, G., Clarke, M., Blasdale, T., Ellis, J., Figueiredo, I., Hareide , N. R., and Machado, P. (2005).  
Separation of Species Data from National Landings Figures. ICES CM 2005/N:22, 16 pp. 
Jones, E., Clarke, M., Dobby, H., Beare, D., Trinkler, N., Burns, F., Neat, F., Fernandes, P. and Peach, K. 
(2005).  The potential impact of commercial fishing activity on the ecology of deepwater chondrichthyans from 
the west of Scotland. ICES CM 2005 /N:16. 
Liu K.-M., Chang Y.-T., Ni I.-H., and Jin C.-B. (2006).  Spawning per recruit analysis of the pelagic thresher 
shark, Alopias pelagicus , in the eastern Taiwan waters. Fisheries Research , 82: 56–64. 
 
EN 54   EN Macias D., Gomez-Vives M.J., and de la Serna J.M. (2003).  Desembarcos de especies asociadas a la 
pesqueria de palangre de superficie dirigido al pez espada ( Xiphias gladius ) en el Mediterraneao durante 2001 y 
2002. ICCAT SCRS/2003/137. In: Collection ICCAT Scientific Papers 56(3): 981–986 (2004). 
Mandelman, J. W., and Farrington, M. A. (2006).  The estimated short-term discard mortality of a trawled 
elasmobranch, the spiny dogfish ( Squalus acanthias ). Fisheries Research  83: 238–245. 
McEachran, J.D. and Br anstetter, S. (1986).  Squalidae. In Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the 
Mediterranean Volume 1 (P.J.P.Whitehead, M.-L.Bauchot, J.-C.Hureau, J.Nielsen and E.Tortonese, Eds.), 
UNESCO, Paris, 128–147. 
Mejuto J., Garcias-Cortes B. and de la Serna J.M. (2001).  Preliminary scientific es timations of by-catches 
landed by the Spanish surface longline fleet in 1999 in the Atlantic O cean and Mediterranean Sea. ICCAT 
SCRS/2001/049. In: Collection ICCAT Scientific Papers 54(4): 1150–1163 (2002). 
Mejuto, J. (1985).  Associated catches of sharks, Pr ionace glauca, Isurus oxyrinchus and Lamna nasus , with NW 
and N Spanish swordfish fishery in 1984. ICES C.M . 1985/H:42, 16 pp. 
Morato, T., Sola, E., Gros, M. P. and Menezes, G. (2003).  Diets of thornback ray ( Raja clavata ) and tope 
(Galeorhinus galeus ) in the bottom longline fishery of the Azores, northeastern Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin , 101: 
590–602. 
MRAG (2004).  Report of the 2003 / 2004 British Indian O cean Territory Observer Progarmme. MRAG Ltd, 
50pp. 
NAFO (2007).  Recovery Potential Assessment Report of Shortfin Mako Sharks in Atlantic Canada. Canadian 
Science Advisory Secretariat, Science Advisory Report  2006. pp 9. 
NFSC (2006).  43rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW). 2006. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 
Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc . 06-14: 46p. 
NMFS (2006).  Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 
Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. pp. 1600. 
Pérez, N., Pereda, P., Uriarte, A., Truj illo, V., Olaso, I., and Lens, S. (1996).  Descartes de la flota española 
en el área del ICES. Datos y Resúmenes. Inst. Esp. de Oceanogr ., 2: 142 pp. 
Pinho, M. R. (2005).  Elasmobranches of the Azores (ICES Area X). ICES WGEF 2005 Working Document, 20 
pp. 
Pinho, M. R. (2006).  Elasmobranch statistics from the Azor es (ICES Area X).Working Document ( WGEF , 
2006). 
Revill, A., Dulvy, N. K.  and Holst, R. (2005).  The survival of discarded lesser-spotted dogfish ( Scyliorhinus 
canicula ) in the western English Channel beam trawl fishery. Fisheries Research , 71: 121–124. 
Shark Alliance (2007).  Fact sheet: spurdog. Pp 2 
Sibert, J., Hampton, J., Kleiber, P., and Maunder, M. (2006).  Biomass, size, and trophic status of top 
predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science 314: 1773-76. 
Sosinski, J. (1977).  Polish investigations on the Scottish Norwegian spurdog ( Squalus acanthias ) in 1974. Ann. 
Biol., Copenhagen, 32: 178 –179. 
STECF (2006a).  22nd Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. Brussels, 3–7 
April, 50pp. 
 
EN 55   EN Tudela, S., Kai, A., Maynou, F., El Andalossi, M. and Guglielmi, P. (2005).  Driftnet fishing and biodiversity 
conservation: the case study of the large-scale Moroccan driftnet fleet  operating in the Alboran Sea (SW 
Mediterranean). Biological Conservation , 121: 65–78. 
Walker, P., Cavanagh, R.D., Ducrocq, M. and Fowler, S.L. (2005). Chapter 7 – Regional Overviews: Northeast 
Atlantic (including Mediterranean and Black Sea). P86. In: Fowler, S.L., Cavanagh, R.D., Camhi, M., Burgess, 
G.H., Cailliet, G.M., Fordham, S.V., Simpfendorfer, C.A.  and Musick, J.A. (comp. and ed.). (2005). Sharks, 
Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of  the Chondrichthyan Fishes. IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, 
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.