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}
Date: 2009-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: conservation of fish stocks, environmental protection, fishery management, marine life, protected species, sea fish

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN 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 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
SHARK ASSESSMENT REPORT 

A. SHALLOW-WATER SHARKS AND DOGFISH 

Spurdog / Piked dogfish (Squalus acanthias) 

Squaliformes 

North-east Atlantic Spurdog Squalus acanthias  
Order: 
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 levels of fishing mortality. Population 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 the 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  over-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  intrinsic  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 strongly aggregated by age and sex, masking stock 
depletions  and  allowing  targeting  of  the  large  pregnant  females.  This  has  led  to  a  clear  sex 
bias in heavily exploited populations (becoming male biased) with an associated reduction in 
pup production (Fordham, 2007). The rate of natural 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  exploited,  principally  for  human  consumption,  but  markets  are 
limited  and  large  parts  of  the  catch  may  be  discarded.  Spurdog  fisheries  peaked  in  the  late 
1950’s  and  early  1960’s.  Several  species  of  small  dogfishes  and  sharks  occur  in  the  North 
Sea, and these have often been reported as ‘mixed dogfishes and hounds’, with no information 
on the species composition. 
Gear  types,  fishing  fleets  and  their  distribution:  It  is  mainly  caught  as  by-catch  in  trawl 
fisheries,  especially  otter-trawl  fisheries,  though  directed  fisheries  using  gillnets  and  long-
lines operate at certain times of year, especially in inshore waters. Spurdog are captured less 
frequently in beam trawl fisheries, 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 

2 

   EN 

 
 
because  most  beam  trawl  activity  occurs  in  the  southern  North  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  species.  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  Branstetter,  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 VII) 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 and 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.  The  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 landings were taken in line and net fisheries in 
2006,  with  most  landings  coming  from  Sub-area  VII  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 industry 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 there could be increased fishing effort on inshore 
aggregations.  Most  Scottish  landings  are  taken  from  the  northern  North  Sea  and  west  of 
Scotland. Effort in the Scottish demersal trawl fleet 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 demersal 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  smaller  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 discards 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  northern  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  fisheries  should  not  be  permitted  to  continue,  and 
bycatch  in  mixed  fisheries  should  be  reduced  to  the  lowest  possible  level.  A  TAC  should 
cover all areas where spurdog are caught in the northeast Atlantic. This TAC should be set at 
zero for 2007.” 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Estimates  of  total  amount  of  spurdog  discarded  are  not  routinely  provided  although  some 
discard sampling does take place. A recent study on the estimated short-term discard mortality 
of  otter  trawl  captured  spurdog  in  the  Northwest  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 estimates, indicating that as tows become more 
heavily  packed,  there  was  a  greater  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  various  commercial  gears  are  required,  under  various  deployment 
times.  

In addition to the problems associated with obtaining estimates of the historical total landings 
of  spurdog  due  to  the  use  of  some  generic  dogfish  landing  categories,  there  can  be  some 
misreporting (ICES, 2006). While there is no EU minimum landing 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 discards of juvenile spurdog is not known.  

Length compositions were presented in ICES (2006), and no new analyses of length data from 
either market sampling or discard trips were undertaken. WGEF examined length frequency 
data  collected  from  UK  fisheries  landings  (ICES,  2006),  and  future  studies  should  examine 
any data that may also available for other fisheries 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  examined  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 individual from commercial catches or surveys is not carried out. 

The last stock assessments of spurdog in the Northeast 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  during  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 assessment using a stock production model, with a prior 
for the intrinsic rate of increase set by demographic methods.  

The  WGEF  has  provided  estimates  of  total  landings  of  Northeast  Atlantic  spurdog  and  has 
used  these,  together  with  UK  length  frequency  distributions  in  the  assessment  described 
above. However, there are still concerns over the quality of these data due to:  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
•  uncertainty  in  the  historical  level  of  catches  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 information 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  important  indicators  of  abundance  trends  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  distribution  of  catch  per  unit  effort  due  to  the 
aggregation effect of the adult females. 

Currently no reference points have been proposed for the Northeast Atlantic stock of spurdog. 
The NE Atlantic stock of spurdog has been declining rapidly and is at its lowest ever level. 
Preliminary  assessments  making  use  of  the  long  time-series  of  commercial  landings  data 
suggest  that  this  decline  has  been  going  on  over  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  the  quality  of  the  assessment  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 are at between 2% and 
11% of initial biomass (B0). 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% relative to 1955 and warned 
that the stock was in a danger of collapse. The input data available are too limited to give an 
accurate estimate of current stock status in terms of absolute biomass and fishing mortality, 
but the trends that have been observed 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 assessments 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 exploited stock in the Black Sea rose until 
1981 where it peaked at 226 700t but had decreased 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 historic levels. In the 
US,  the  National  Marine  Fisheries  Service  (NMFS)  imposes  science-based  trip  limits  and 
quotas for spurdogs, but federal management measures 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  about  the  status  of  the 
Northwest Atlantic spurdog stock, including: 

•  Very low recruitment in recent years 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
•  Imbalance in the sex ratio of the 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 identified two periods of apparent change in spurdog abundance in the 
Northwest  Atlantic.  During  the  period  from  the  early  1970s  to  1992  to  abundance  and 
biomass  indices  from  the  research  surveys  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 spurdogs in the Northwest Atlantic (1997 to 2003) 
were  the  seven  lowest  recruitment  estimates  (NFSC  2003).  This  has  highlighted  the 
susceptibility of this species to potential collapse due to the slow growth and recruitment rates 
not being able to replenish the spawning stock 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  structured,  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 the abundance indices obtained from Canadian and 
United  States  research  surveys  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 are short and highly variable, 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  declining  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, declining 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 are a few available estimates for dogfish discarding mortality. 
Published  studies  report  discard  mortalities  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  calculated  as  per  the  following:  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 exact values are debatable, although all appear 
to be consistent with the experimental values reported above and observer observations of the 
manner  in  which  fishers  and  their  gear  treat  dogfish  catch.  Estimated  dogfish  discard 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
mortality has averaged about 850 mt annually since 1986. Discard mortality often exceeded 
reported catch prior to 1999, but recent landings have greatly exceeded discard mortality. 

Northeast Pacific stocks: the stock of spurdog in the Northeast 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 probably for the vitamin A market. 
The  stock  has  under  low  levels  of  commercial  exploitation  now  recovered  over  most  of  its 
original  range.  The  fishery  within  Canadian  waters  is  now  stable  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  (possibly  in  2007).  In  Washington  State,  spurdogs  are  loosely 
managed  within  bottom  fish  management  plans,  with  mesh  restrictions  and  closure  of  a 
pupping  ground.  Spurdogs  are  included  in  an  “other  species”  TAC  for  bycatch  in  Alaskan 
fisheries.  Canadian  quotas  for  allocated  catches  and  bycatch  were  capped  at  historic  levels. 
Investigations  are  pending  to  determine  current  sustainable  exploitation  levels.  Recent 
landings  are  only  30–50%  of  quotas.  In  Alaska,  direct  fishing  for  sharks  is  not  allowed, 
although  spurdogs  are  the  most  common  shark  species.  Currently  90%  of  spurdog  catches 
within the groundfish fishery is discarded, although the overall abundance 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 the live weight of the retained catch. New for 2007 is a TAC covering 
areas outside the EC waters of IIa and IV, covering 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, France 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 under 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 spurdog for many years (Shark Alliance, 2007). 
Germany, on behalf of the European 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  support  the  proposal  to 
include  Squalus  acanthias  under  CITES  Appendix  II,  (ii)  the  northeast  Atlantic  population 
meets the decline criterion for listing on Appendix II and (iii) that there are serious fisheries 
management  failures  for  some  individual  populations.  Catches  from  the  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 including (i) landings being 
reported  as  generic  dogfish  categories,  (ii)  mis-reporting  and  (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 

7 

   EN 

 
Spurdog  are  long-lived,  slow-growing,  have  a  high  age-at-maturity,  and  are  particularly 
vulnerable  to  fishing  mortality.  Population  productivity  is  low,  with  low  fecundity  and  a 
protracted gestation period. In the light of this, the risk of depletion of reproduction potential 
is high. 

Recent management advice 

According  to  ICES  advice  2008,  the  only  new  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 Atlantic and should be 
set at zero (...). 

In addition to the advice of 2006, ICES offers the following considerations: 

Simulation modelling has shown there are strong potential benefits to the stock by protecting 
mature  female  spurdog  in  this  long-lived  species.  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 where large females occur. 

The maximum landing length should initially be set at 100 cm. The length at 50% maturity for 
female  spurdog  is  just  over  80  cm  and  the  maximum  size  of  females  is  about  120  cm.  The 
maximum  size  of  males  is  about  90  cm.  Fecundity  of  spurdog  increases  with  length  and 
females  of  100  120  cm  length  generally  produce  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 

8 

   EN 

 
Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) 

Tope Galeorhinus galeus 
Order:  Carcharhiniformes 
Family:  Triakidae 
English:  School 

flake, 
shark, 
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 over-exploitation. The vulnerability of tope to 
fishery exploitation is emphasized by it being listed as globally vulnerable (IUCN  

Red List, 2006). 

Tope  are  taken  as  a  bycatch  in  trawl,  gillnet  and  longline  fisheries,  including  demersal  and 
pelagic set gears. Though tope are 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  fishing  in  several  areas,  with  most  anglers  and  angling  clubs 
following catch and release protocols. 

The fishery 

Gear types, fishing fleets 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 Sea (Galicia), where about 80% of the landings 
are  from  longline  vessels,  with  the  remainder  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 fisheries (Heessen, 2003; Morato et al., 2003). Tope are also caught 
in offshore long-line fisheries is this area (Pinho, 2005). 
EC  directed  catch  trends  and  characteristics:  Tope  are  often  landed  as  ‘dogfishes  and 
hounds’  and  thus  reported  species-specific  landings  are  probably  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. The 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 information is available for various 
nations,  data  are  limited  for  most  nations  and  fisheries.  Some  UK  discard  sampling  data 
indicates  that  juvenile  tope  tend  to  be  discarded  in  demersal  trawl  fisheries,  though  larger 
individuals  are  usually  retained,  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 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
Mediterranean Sea northwards to Scotland and Southern 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 English Channel, Celtic Sea and northern part of 
the Bay of Biscay and available from the UK and France fishing vessels. Data shows that the 
main EU country landing tope is France followed 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,  resulting  in  there  being 
limited data for most nations and fisheries. Although, once the data is aggregated across years 
it shows that juvenile specimens are discarded in demersal trawl fisheries, 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  their  catches  and  landings.  There  is  very  little 
information  prior  to  the  1970s  and  there  are  still  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 any recorded landings will be inaccurate (IOTC, 
2007).  

A  stock  assessment  for  tope  in  the  Indian  Ocean  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 species 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 biological data are not collected 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  considers  that  tope  is  highly  vulnerable  to  over-
exploitation, as they have low population productivity, relatively low fecundity and protracted 
reproductive  cycle.  Unmanaged,  targeted  fisheries  elsewhere  in  the  world  have  resulted  in 
stock collapse (e.g. off California and in South America). 

EN 

10 

   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  addition,  the  species  is  taken  as  a  bycatch  in 
mixed fisheries, mainly in UK, Ireland, France and Spain. Detailed descriptions of individual 
national fisheries were presented 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,  where  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  longliners,  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 (Mejuto, 1985). A reasonably recent analysis of bycatch in Spanish 
swordfish  fisheries  did  not  find  porbeagle  to  be  an  important  component.  (ICES,  2006a). 
Effort  has  increased  in  recent  years  in  pelagic  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-regions 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  fished  and  depleted  inshore  populations  and  redirection  of  effort  to 
previously lightly exploited offshore areas (CITES, 2007b). Since a catch 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 areas VIIj and g and VIIId whilst 
most of the Spanish catch is from IXa. The French 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 porbeagle catches were Denmark and Ireland of 3 and 2 t respectively. In 
the southern part of the stock’s distribution, the 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 constant number of vessels involved (CITES, 2007b). 
Most recent CPUE is the lowest since 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 

11 

   EN 

 
 
not  discarded.  Tuna  longliners  from  Japan,  the  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 ports near the fishing grounds. Stocks and catches 
are “under investigation” (Fishery 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  undertakes  extensive  migrations  between  southern 
Newfoundland  (Canada)  in  summer  to  at  least  Massachusetts  (USA)  in  the  winter,  and 
another in the Northeast Atlantic 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 population size. Different scenarios were used for 
different levels of assumed productivity. 

The  CPUE  data  indicate  a  declining  trend  in  porbeagle  numbers  from  1985  to  2004.  The 
model estimates the population size in 2005 at between 12% and 24 % of its level in 1961, 
with  the  female  spawner  abundance  at  about  12%  to  15%  of  its  1961  level.  A  management 
plan  was  introduced  to  allow  the  recovery  of  the  porbeagle  stock  in  2002.  The  estimated 
change in population size since the introduction of the plan has resulted in a current estimated 
population size of 99% to 103% of the 2002 level, indicating that the management plan has 
appeared to have been effective so far. 

Standard reference points to characterise the recovery have not been developed for porbeagle 
in  the  Northwest  Atlantic.  Instead  the  reference  points  based  on  the  number  of  female 
spawners have been used: 

SSN MSY 
SSN 20% 
levels (SSN0) 

Number of female spawners at MSY 

Number of female spawners at 20% of initial unexploited equilibrium 

The  model  uses  an  integrated  approach  combining  life  history  parameters  and  fisheries 
assessment.  A  number  of  different  scenarios  were  used,  giving  a 
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 and age structure over a 100 year time series with 
different levels of incidental mortality. The model suggests that the population of porbeagle in 
the  Northwest  Atlantic  can  recover  if  under  the  most  conservation  scenario  estimates  the 
incidental mortality rates are kept below 4% of the spawning stock numbers. 

range 

The conservation status of the porbeagle is of major concern because of the drastic decline in 
catches from targeted fisheries in the North Atlantic and continuing exposure of the species to 
intensive high-seas pelagic longline fisheries (with finning and capture trauma contributing to 
mortality)  wherever  it  occurs.  Recovery  is  possible  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  species  has  been  reported  (Green,  2007),  and  so 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
further tagging studies are required to better examine stock structure between the two North 
Atlantic  stocks.  The  North-eastern  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 for porbeagle from the Northeast Atlantic stock 
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 other species, 
particularly  in  the  depleted  northern  areas.  In  2006,  Germany  proposed  that  porbeagle  be 
added to Appendix II of CITES. This proposal did 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 fishery-independent survey 
data  are  available  for  the  NE  Atlantic,  although  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 assessment 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  catches  for  the  Indian  Ocean  are 
severely  limited  by  the  lack  of  species-specific  catch,  discard  and  landings  data  from  the 
major  fleets.  Due  to  the  lack  of  data  available  no  quantitative  stock  assessment  has  been 
undertaken by the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems 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  sharks  for  the  Pacific  Ocean  are 
limited to the Southeast Pacific Ocean. Due to the 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 other species, particularly in the depleted northern 
areas. In 2005, ICES advised that, given the apparent depleted state 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 fishing for porbeagle in 
the  NE  Atlantic  be  permitted  and  that  additional  measures  be  taken  to  prevent  bycatch  of 
porbeagles  in  fisheries  targeting  other  species.  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  support  the  proposal  to 
include  the  porbeagle  shark,  Lamna  nasus,  in  CITES  Appendix  II,  (ii)  porbeagles  in  the 
northeast  Atlantic  Ocean  may  meet  Appendix  II  criteria,  but  the  limited  data  that  were 
available  were  not  sufficient  to  assess  the  extent  of  the  decline  and  (iii)  though  adequate 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
management  measures  are  in  place  in  some  regions,  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 reported within “sharks nei”, and there 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-growing,  has  a  high  age-at-maturity,  and  is  particularly 
vulnerable  to  fishing  mortality.  Population  productivity  is  low,  with  low  fecundity  and  a 
protracted gestation period. In the light of this, risk of depletion of reproduction potential is 
high. 

Recent management advice 

According to ICES advice 2008, available information 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 stable at a lower level since then. 

Given the state of the stock, no targeted fishing for porbeagle should be permitted and bycatch 
should be limited. Landings of porbeagle should not be allowed. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Basking Shark (Cetorhinus maximus) 

Basking shark 
Cetorhinus maximus 
Lamniformes 
Order: 
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 covered by the Convention on 
Migratory  Species)  and  subsequently  included  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 fisheries also existed off the Irish west coast and 
Scotland, with the latter finishing in 1994. 

The fishery 

Gear types, fishing fleets 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 fisheries 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  sharks  have  been  primarily  caught  by  Norwegian 
fisherman.  The  Atlantic  North  East  had  a  sporadic  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  catches  ranged  from  1266  –  4266  sharks  /  year 
between 1959 – 1980. Whilst, off the coast of Ireland an average of 1475 sharks / year were 
caught  between  1951  –  1955  (ICES  Advisory  Committee  on  Fishery  Management,  2007).. 
The intensive exploitation of basking sharks primarily by Norwegian vessels can be shown by 

EN 

15 

   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 Basking 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 date stock assessments available for the basking 
shark  in  the  NE  Atlantic.  The  difficulty  in  producing  an  up  to  date  stock  assessment  is 
increased by the requirement of EU fishing vessels to discard all bycatch, therefore meaning 
no stock assessment can be carried out. Limited data however, is available from these discards 
of basking sharks from non-directed fisheries (ICES, 2007). 

Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  stocks:  the  Basking  shark  is  listed  on  Annex  II  associated 
with  the  protocol  ‘Endangered  or  Threatened  Species’  of  the  Barcelona  Convention  for  the 
Protection  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  (1976).  Consequently  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-operation  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,  transhipping  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 covered by the Convention on 
Migratory  Species)  and  subsequently  included  in  Annex  B  of  the  EU  Wildlife  Trade 
regulation (EC) No. 338/97. 

Basking  shark  was  listed  on  Appendix  II  of  the  Convention  on  International  Trade  in 
Endangered  Species  (CITES)  in  2002.  The  basking  shark  was  listed  on  the  OSPAR 
(Convention  on  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment  of  the  north-east  Atlantic)  list  of 
threatened and / or declining species in 2004. 
Official  live  weights  reported  prior  to  1990  probably  are  overestimations  (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  mortality.  Population  productivity  is  low,  with  low  fecundity  and  a 
protracted gestation period. In the light of this, the risk of depletion in reproduction potential 
is high. 

Recent management advice 

According  to  ICES  advice  2008,  the  only  new  information  available  for  basking  shark 
(Cetorhinus maximus) is landings data which gives no basis to revise the advice from 2006. 

EN 

16 

   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  permitted  and  additional  measures  should  be  taken  to 
prevent bycatch of basking shark in fisheries targeting other species. A TAC should cover all 
areas where basking sharks are caught in the northeast Atlantic. This TAC should be set at 
zero". 

ICES notes that from 2007 onwards the TAC covers all areas where basking sharks may be 
caught. 

EN 

17 

   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  directed  fisheries  at  this  species,  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 indicate 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  between  26  000  to  37  000  t.  Blue  sharks  are  also  caught  in 
considerable  numbers  in  recreational  fisheries,  including  in  the  ICES  area  (Campana  et  al., 
2005). 

The fishery 
Gear types, fishing fleets and their distribution: An examination of fishing effort in FAO 
Area 27 (NE Atlantic) shows that the Spanish Basque fleet is currently the predominant EC 
country catching around 400 t of blue shark per annum, although until 2003 Portugal caught 
up to 2 000 tonnes yearly. France also catches significant volumes at around 107 t in 2006. 
Taiwan,  Japan  and  China  also  catch  blue  shark,  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 their yearly activity targeting blue sharks in the Bay of Biscay 
VIIIa,b,c,d (Diez et al, 2007). Blue sharks are caught predominantly 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 bycatch in some fisheries are 
finned, although the USA, Canada and EC have taken measures to stop finning. If left intact, 
survival rates for discarded sharks can be high, the proportion of blue sharks alive at hauling 
longlines  is  given  between  80–90%  and  about  60%  of  these  sharks  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 

18 

   EN 

 
 
ICCAT started collecting data on shark by-catches from the Atlantic tuna fleets only in 1994, 
and catch reporting of sharks has not been good. 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 ratios 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 (applied to North Atlantic); 

•  Chinese Taipei longline series (applied 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  (SCRS/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  levels  of  harvest  are 
sustainable  for  blue  sharks.  The  greatest  source  of  uncertainty  in  the  model  results  was  the 
missing  catch  data  early  in  the  time  series.  For  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  analyses  including  alternative  catch  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 completed a preliminary stock assessment in 2004, but 
no management recommendations were made. Although 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, (iii) the initial state of the stock in 1971, and 
(iv)  various  life-history  parameters.  The  authors  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 

19 

   EN 

 
SCRS/2004/105 presented a detailed age-structured population dynamics model which could 
be used to describe the dynamics of shark populations and evaluate the effects of exploitation. 
Uncertainty  in  the  understanding  of  shark  dynamics  and  exploitation  patterns  was  again 
incorporated  using  Bayesian  methods.  The  model  failed  to  converge  when  the  complete 
CPUE series from Japanese longline for blue shark in the North Atlantic was used. However, 
convergence of the model was achieved when the model was run using the complete CPUE 
series from the USA longline fishery and the CPUE series from the Japanese longline without 
the CPUE values for years 1971-1973 (the first 3 points of the series). Thus, the different runs 
were  conducted  using  the  complete  USA  longline  CPUE  and  the  modified  CPUE  series  for 
the  Japanese  longline.  The  model  was  run  using  two  different  assumptions  about  the 
weighting of the CPUE series; equal weighting (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  considerable  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%. However, for all runs considered, the mode of 
the distribution supported values for 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  sensitivity  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  before  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, since 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 Working Party on Bycatch and 
Ecosystems), seven countries reported catches of blue sharks in the IOTC 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  biology  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  there  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 fishery) 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 encountered at 0.268 per 1000 hooks. Other studies 

EN 

20 

   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 and 5.38% by weight at a catch rate of 0.243 per 1000 hooks 
(MRAG,  2004)  The  results  from  the  analysis  indicate  a  relatively  stable  blue  shark  CPUE 
except  for  some  relatively  high  catch  rates  in  1998  and  1999.  Overall,  the  results  of  this 
analysis suggest that the stock status of blue sharks has not changed drastically over the past 
three decades in the high seas area of the Indian Ocean.  

Due to the lack of data available no quantitative stock assessment has been undertaken by the 
IOTC  Working  Party  on  Ecosystems  and  Bycatch.  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 the 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  their  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 shark is vulnerable to overfishing. 

Pacific Ocean: blue shark is not actively managed internationally within the Pacific and there 
are  no  quotas  set  by  any  of  the  RFMOs.  Recent  studies  indicate  the  species,  which  may 
comprise a single Pacific-wide stock, is abundant and healthy (F/FMSY < 0.5). There is some 
evidence for a decline of the stocks of blue shark in the central Pacific (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  BMSY  with  F/FMSY  <  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 incidentally 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 points have been recommended at this time.  

Existing specific management measures 

EC  Regulation  No.  1185/2003  prohibits  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 / ICCAT 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 assessments 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  all  landings  are  reported,  and  that  landings  are 
reported to species level, rather than generic nei categories. 

Recent management advice 

EN 

21 

   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 harvest levels below FMSY. Results from all 
models used were conditional 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 during 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 

22 

   EN 

 
Shortfin mako shark 

Lamniformes 

Shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus 
Order: 
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 migratory 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  this  species,  although  some  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).  The  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 surface and a depth of 500 m, however they have 
also  been  observed  in  shallower  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  sexually  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 and only produces 11 young every 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 them susceptible to exploitation 
are less apparent in the Shortfin Mako meaning it has a greater recovery potential than other 
elasmobranch species. The reason for this is due to the fact that the Shortfin Mako' has a rapid 
growth rate in comparison to other elasmobranchs (DFO Atlantic Fisheries, 1996). However, 
in comparison to the commercial teleost fisheries species the Shortfin Mako’s growth rate is 
still moderate (NAFO, 2007). 

The  susceptibility  of  the  Shortfin  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 supported by the DFO Atlantic Fisheries (1996) 
who found that the Shortfin Mako exhibited seasonal movements. 

EN 

23 

   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  Taiwanese  tuna  longliners  operating  in  the  Atlantic. 
Estimates given in Matsunaga and Nakano (2005) indicate bycatch levels in Japanese 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 billfish longline fisheries. It is a high 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  towards  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  vessels  only  began  in  2004.  The  UK  also  have 
reported  landings,  but  these  are  negligible  being  below  3  tonnes.  The  Portuguese  report  the 
largest landings with the maximum reported being 542 tonnes in 2003, which made up 50 % 
of  the  total  North  Atlantic  reported  landings  (ICES,  2007).  The  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 was taken not to undertake stock assessments as 
there was limited data all of which was considered poor quality. The lack of accurate precise 
data  is  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  NAFO  uses  commercial  and  recreational  fisheries  to 
provide them with abundance indices (NAFO, 2007). 

Mediterranean  stocks:  it  is  considered  that  there  are  two  stocks  of  Shortfin  Mako  in  the 
Mediterranean;  a  Northern  Stock  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  undertaken.  Increased  levels  of  data  recording  are  required  to 
enable stock assessment to be achieved. 

Indian Ocean stocks: historically there has been very little 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 representativeness. (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 fleets (IOTC, 2007). A lack of landings information 

EN 

24 

   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 been carried out enabling the suitable data to 
be obtained to produce the relevant CPUE information. 

Existing specific management measures 

EC  Regulation  No.  1185/2003  prohibits  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 are considered unreliable, as many sharks are not reported on a 
species-specific basis, and some fisheries may have only landed fins. 

Recent management advice 

According to the 2008 report of the SCRS of ICCAT, estimates of stock status for the North 
Atlantic  shortfin  mako  obtained  with  the  different  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 the biomass that would support MSY with current 
harvest levels above FMSY, whereas others estimated considerably lower 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 applied to the South Atlantic shortfin mako 
stock, which resulted in an estimate of unfished biomass which was biologically implausible, 
and thus the Committee can draw no conclusions about the status of the South stock 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) 

Common  thresher  Alopias  vulpinus  and 
bigeye thresher A. superciliosus 
Lamniformes 
Order: 
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;  although  they  are  taken  as  a  bycatch  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 mainly in longline fisheries for 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, whilst 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 occur 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  records  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 classified 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, discard 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 sharks are highly uncertain and CPUE trends 
are also not available as there are no surveys specifically designed to assess shark catch rates 
in the Indian Ocean.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
Observer  programme  estimates  conducted  in  the  Indian  Ocean  using  observer  data  have 
shown  that  pelagic  thresher  sharks  constitute  0.22%  of  all  species  caught  on  longlines  by 
number and up to 0.76% by weight, at a catch rate of 0.056kg per 1000 hooks (MRAG, 2004)  

Due to the lack of data available no quantitative stock assessment has been undertaken by the 
IOTC  Working  Party  on  Ecosystems  and  Bycatch.  There  is  a  clear  paucity  of  information 
available on thresher shark 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 thresher sharks in the Indian Ocean therefore the stock status of each species is 
highly uncertain. All three thresher 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-specific  catch,  discard  and  landings  data  from  the 
major fleets.  

Existing specific management measures 
EC  Regulation  No.  1185/2003  prohibits  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 rebound 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 vulnerable to overexploitation and in 
need of close monitoring because of its high vulnerability resulting from its low fecundity and 
relatively high age of sexual maturity. Precautionary 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  separately;  however  analysis  of  the  available  data 
seems to indicate that they are often mixed even when recorded under specific names. Also, 
some  discrepancies  are  observed  when  different  sources  of  data  are  available  (e.g.  FAO, 
ICCAT, national data). 

Other pelagic sharks 

Besides the species examined above, several other pelagic sharks and rays occur in the ICES 
areas, including: 

•  White shark, Carcharodon carcharias 

•  Night shark, Carcharhinus signatus 

•  Longfin mako, Isurus paucus 

•  Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier 

•  Spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna 

•  Scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini 

•  Silky shark, Carcarhinus falciformis 

•  Great hammerhead, Sphyrna mokarran 

•  Oceanic 

whitetip, 

Carcharhinus 

•  Smooth hammerhead, Sphyrna zygaena 

longimanus 

•  Dusky shark, Carcharhinus obscurus 

•  Sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus 

•  Pelagic stingray, Pteroplatytrygon violacea 

•  Devil ray, Mobula mobular 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
These pelagic sharks and rays are taken as bycatch 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 noticeable component of the bycatch and are landed, but other are 
only sporadically recorded (e.g. great white; tiger; 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  generic  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  ICCAT, bigeye threshers, longfin makos, and 
shortfin makos have the highest vulnerability (and 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, prohibition of landings could be effective for conservation. However, for 
other  species  which  can  be  easily  misidentified,  such  prohibitions  could  complicate 
compliance monitoring. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
Great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) 

Overview 

The  great  white  shark  inhabits  coastal  and  offshore  waters  from  the  subarctic  to  tropical 
regions,  but  do  not  enter  brackish  or  freshwaters.  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 above the ambient water temperature. 

The biology of the great white shark is poorly understood. The life 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  years  old  at  a  length  of 
between 4 and 5 m (DFO, 2006). The 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 North 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 designated as endangered in April 
2006  by  the  Committee  on  the  Status  of  Endangered  Wildlife  in  Canada  (COSEWIC).  The 
decline  in  stocks  is  emphasized  by  the  rarity  of  great  white  shark  sightings  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  North  Atlantic  is  indicative  of  the  global  situation 
with  all  available  data  suggesting  that  great  white  shark  numbers  are  declining  worldwide. 
The  great  white  shark  doesn’t  have  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  stock  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 stock should therefore be conservative and 
work  towards  enhancing  the  recovery  of  the  stock,  which  would  involve  the  live  release  of 
captures (DFO, 2006). The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
(ICCAT) (2005) have previously proposed an approach for managing great white shark stocks 
involving  setting  the  recovery  target  as  an  approximation  of  maximum  sustainable  yield 
(MSY)  for  shortfin  mako:  one  half  the  virgin  spawning  stock  biomass  (SSB0).  This  is 
consistent with the Cautious-Healthy boundary of Precautionary Approach Framework being 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
established  by  DFO  (DFO,  2005).  Most  importantly  the  current  shortcomings  apparent  in 
monitoring, control and surveillance systems will have to be overcome for the recovery of the 
great white shark to occur (DFO, 2006). 

Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) 

Overview: the tiger shark is found throughout 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.  Reports  of  individuals  from  as  far  north  as 
Iceland and the United Kingdom have been confirmed 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 fishing catch rates for this species 
in the mid-Atlantic region have declined since the mid-1980's, indicating that fishing pressure 
has  adversely  affected  the  size  of  the  population.  In  contrast,  relative  abundance  and  catch 
rates  for  this  species  noted  by  commercial  fisheries  observers,  especially  for  juveniles,  are 
much higher than in previous fishery-independent and fishery-dependent surveys. The World 
Conservation Union (IUCN) presently lists the 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 fisheries. Tiger sharks are also caught as part 
of shark control programs introduced around the cost of Australia (QDPI, 2001). 

Hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp) 

Status of the stocks 

Pacific  Ocean  stocks:  there  are  no  directed  fisheries  for  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  introduced  around  the  cost  of  Australia  (QDPI, 
2001). 

Indian Ocean stocks: there is a lack of catch and bycatch 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). Subsequently 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 lack of knowledge we have about their biology 
and critical habitats (IOTC, 2005). This is emphasized by the level of misidentifications with 
regards  to  Hammerhead  species.  Appropriate  steps  should  be  introduce  to  allow  stock 
assessments to be carried out in the future utilizing scientific data (IOTC, 2005). 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
C. DEEPWATER SHARKS 

Siki sharks 

Deepwater ‘siki’ sharks: 

Leafscale gulper shark Centrophorus 
squamosus & Portuguese shark 
Centroscymnus coelolepis 
Order: 
Family:  Centrophoridae / 

Squaliformes 

Somniosidae  

English:  Portuguese 

shark, 
Portuguese  dogfish  and  siki 
shark 
French:  Squale-chagrin 

de 
pailona 

l'Atlantique  & 
commun  

Spanish:  Quelvacho negro & pailona 

Overview: The term “siki” is used to describe the combination of leafscale gulper shark and 
Portuguese shark. Although these species have very 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  for  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 commercially 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.  Norwegian  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  landings  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  gillnets  by  1998.  The  UK  and  German  longline/gillnet 
fishery  retained  only  livers  before  1998  and  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  developed  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 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
EC  directed  catch  trends  and  characteristics:  Landings  began  in  1988  (although  an 
unknown quantity is likely to have been discarded prior to this) and increased rapidly to over 
8  000  tonnes  in  1997.  Since  1997  landings  have  fluctuated  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 subsequent 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  similarly  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 Leafscale 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 fishery, discarding was thought to 
be  negligible  in  the  majority  of  trawl  and  longline  fisheries  although  some  discarding  may 
have  occurred  in  the  first  years  before  markets  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 northern 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  stable,  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  was  based  on  crew  preferences, 
not market factors. Some discarding of rotten deepwater sharks, due to excessive soak times, 
has been recorded in gillnet 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 North East Atlantic. As there is no 
clear information on stock identity, a single assessment unit of the 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 two 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  declines  in  CPUE  series  for  both  C.  coelolepis  and  C. 
squamosus  in  Subareas  VI,  VII  and  XII,  suggesting  that  the  stocks  of  both  species  are 
depleted. CPUE for both species in the northern area have displayed strong downward trends 
leading  to  the  conclusion  that  the  stocks  were  being  exploited  at  unsustainable  levels.  In 
Division IXa, CPUE series, although short, appear to be stable.  

EN 

32 

   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 area of the stocks and additional measures should 
be  taken  to  prevent  bycatch  of  Portuguese  dogfish  and  leafscale  gulper  shark  in  fisheries 
targeting other species.  

The  working  group  estimates  of  total  landings  of  mixed  deep-water  sharks,  believed  to  be 
mainly  Portuguese  dogfish  and  leafscale  gulper  shark  but  possibly  also  containing  a  small 
component of other species. In 2006, WGEF produced 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 10 000 t from 2001 to 2004, to about 
2 000  t  in  2006  (Figures  3.1  and  3.2).  The  decline  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 fishery reached full development in the early 1990s and much lower 
than TACs available (7 100 t). 

There are no reliable estimates of levels of misreporting of these species as much of the catch 
data  in  early  years  of  the  fisheries  were  aggregated.  Although  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. Since 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  misreport  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 these species over time, with the 
exceptions of Portugal. In most cases only estimates of the proportions of these species based 
on  catch  ratios  are  used.  These  estimates  suggest  that  there  has  been  little  difference  in  the 
landings of either species from 1990 to 1998, and since 2004. During the period from 1998 to 
2004,  Portuguese  dogfish  predominated,  which  suggests  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 CPUE 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  their  life-history  parameters,  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 species are considered highly vulnerable to 
exploitation.  The  leafscale  gulper  shark  is  listed  on  the  CITES  Red  List  as  “Vulnerable 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
(VU)”, and the Portuguese dogfish is listed as “Near Threatened (NT)”. IUU fishing is known 
to take place in international waters, and this may be continuing.  

Existing specific management measures 

In  2007,  the  TAC  for  deepwater  sharks  in  Sub-areas  V,  VI,  VII,  VIII  and  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 annually in Sub-area X, and 99 t in Sub-area XII. 
These  TACs  apply  to  the  following  list  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 
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. 

(Etmopterus  spinax),  black  dogfish 

(Centroscyllium 

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 asked all MS to explain how landings of livers are raised to total live 
weight, and to report if duplication could be happening. 
Recent management advice 

According to the STECF 2008 report, there is insufficient 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 lowest levels since the 
fishery started. Substantial declines in cpue series for the two species in Subareas V, VI, and 
VII  suggest  that  both  species  are  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 rates of exploitation and stock sizes of deepwater 
sharks cannot be quantified. However, based on the cpue information, Portuguese dogfish and 
leafscale  gulper  shark  are  considered  to  be  depleted.  Given  their  very  poor  state,  ICES 
recommends a zero catch of Portuguese dogfish and leafscale gulper shark. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
Kitefin Shark (Dalatias licha) 

Squaliformes 

Kitefin shark Dalatias licha  
Order: 
Family:  Dalatiidae 
English:  Kitefin shark, black 

shark, darkie charlie and 
seal shark 

French:  Squale liche 
Spanish:  Carocho 

Overview 

Kitefin sharks, like all elasmobranchs, are susceptible 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-exploited  waters.  Whilst,  they  aren’t  recruited  to  the 
stock  until  they  are  5  years  old  (100  cm)  for  males,  and  6  years  old  (120  cm)  for  females 
(ICES, 2007). 

The fishery 
The directed fishery on the Azores stopped at the end of 1990s because it was not profitable. 
Kitefin  shark  in  the  North  Atlantic  is  currently  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 VIIk1. Historically, landings from the Azores began in 
the  early  seventies  and  increased  rapidly  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  reported  landings  have  declined  linearly, 
possibly as a result of economic problems related 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  shark  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 have been misidentified, and are more likely to be 
either Portuguese dogfish or leafscale gulper shark. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Data  quality  issues:  Data  from  observers  or  fishing  logbooks  are  not  available.  Species 
misidentification  is  a  problem  with  deepwater  sharks.  Official  landings  come  exclusively 
from the commercial first sale of fresh fish on the auctions. Landings that are not sold on the 
auctions,  as  frozen  or  processed  fish,  are  not  taken  in  account  on  the  statistics  provided  to 
ICES. In some areas it is known that some additional Azorean catches are not contained in the 
reported data. Therefore, data are likely to be an underestimate of total landings. 

Status of the stocks 

Atlantic  Ocean:  historically  the  Kitefin  stock  has  had  highly  variable  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 tones in 1991 (ICES, 2007). Since 2004 the landings of Kitefin 
shark have remained low even in the light of other European countries such as France, the UK 
and  Germany  beginning  to  land  Kitefin  since  2003.  However,  reported  landings  from  other 
European countries excluding Portugal have been questioned, 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 the end of the 1990s and as such 
all landings are now through bycatches from other deepwater fisheries (ICES, 2007).  

The last stock assessment carried out on Kitefin shark in the 1980s considered the stock to be 
depleted.  Supported  by  the  fact  that  the  shark  was  intensively  exploited  as  the  observed 
average  catches  were  809  tonnes  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 been available and the current status of the Northeast Atlantic 
Kitefin shark stock is unknown.  

Although, no official stock assessment has been carried 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  for  the  rest  of  the  Northeast  Atlantic  show  that  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 revise the advice from 2006. The advice for 2009 
and 2010 is therefore the same as the advice given in 2006: "This stock is managed as part of 
the  deep-sea  shark  fisheries.  No  targeted  fisheries  should  be  permitted  unless  there  are 
reliable estimates of current exploitation rates and sufficient data to assess productivity". 

EN 

36 

   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 are of a lower commercial 
value and are not the targets of fisheries themselves but a minor component of the bycatch of 
other trawl, longline and gillnet fisheries. Other 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  relates  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 include; 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 
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.  

(Etmopterus  spinax),  black  dogfish 

(Centroscyllium 

As  for  many  other  shark  species  large  quantities  of  deepwater  species  are  landed  in  the 
grouped  categories  such  as  “Sharks  nei”  and  “Dogfish  nei”.  Therefore  all  catches  and 
landings information are probably greatly underestimated.  

The most reliable estimates of abundance for these deepwater shark species within the ICES 
area  are  those  obtained  from  the  deepwater  surveys  (depth  range  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 shark 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 and building on the response given to an EC 
request  in  2006,  WGDEEP  made  recommendations  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  here,  although  no  reference  points  have  been 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
proposed for any of these species a precautionary TAC for a number of species combined has 
been allocated. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
D. DEMERSAL ELASMOBRANCHS 

Overview: this group of species includes a large number of skate and ray species, as well as a 
number  of  demersal  shark  species.  The  catches  of  demersal  elasmobranchs  by  EC  Member 
States in ICES waters over the 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 only report to genus level e.g. Raja spp., 
which complicates stock management efforts 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 longline, gillnet and trawl fisheries, with 
the  spotted  ray  R.  montagui  and  R.  brachyura  of  secondary  importance.  Demersal 
elasmobranchs  are  caught  as  a  bycatch  in  the  mixed  demersal  fisheries  for  roundfish  and 
flatfish.  A  few  inshore  vessels  target  skates  and  rays  with  tangle  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 the demersal fisheries see the Report of the North 
Sea Demersal Working Group (ICES, 2006b) and the report of the DELASS project (Heessen, 
2003).  Whilst  France  and  Sweden  provide  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,  together  with  more  robust  protocols  for  species 
identification  (ICES,  2007a).  Fisheries  independent  surveys  in  the  North  sea  have  mainly 
been based around the International Bottom Trawl Survey IBITS (in winter and summer) and 
from  different  beam  trawl  surveys  (in  summer).  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  increased  since  1980.  However  the  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 has always been higher 
than the landings. This TAC, however, has gradually 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 should only apply to areas IIIa, IV and VIId and not to IIa since 
this only a part of IIa belongs to the present North Sea eco-region. ICES report that demersal 
elasmobranchs  may  be  subject  to  area  misreporting  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 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  catch  retained  on  board).  These  fish  may  then  be  dumped  when  they  have  served  their 
purpose.  Additionally,  if  skates  and  rays  are  retained  at  the  start  of  a  fishing  trip,  but 
subsequent fishing does not comprise large quantities 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 

Birdbeak dogfish 

Black dogfish 

Blackmouth catshark 

Blonde ray 

Blue skate 

Portugal 

Portugal 

  Spain 

  UK 

France 

Portugal 

  Spain 

Portugal 

France 

Bluntnose six-gill shark 

Portugal 

Catsharks etc. nei 

Ireland 

  Spain 

  UK 

Catsharks nursehounds nei 

France 

  Portugal 

776

713

  Spain 

  UK 

.

34

.

38

Common eagle ray 

France 

<0.5

<0.5

Common stingray 

Crest-tail catsharks nei 

Cuckoo ray 

Deep-water catsharks 

Dogfish sharks nei 

  Portugal 

France 

Ireland 

France 

Spain 

France 

.

8

.

.

10

.

.

.

3 476

1 992

  Germany 

431

518

Ireland 

  Lithuania 

  Spain 

  UK 

UK 

30

14

365

478

14

40

171

752

1 388

1 747

Dogfishes and hounds 

63

50

.

1

278

34

.

.

86

90

12

0

27

50

144

75

43

22

53

30

230

184

79 

160 

81 

84 

56 

64 

86 

.

.

<0.5 

664

449

1

.

.

22

26

7

.

.

11

15

443

2

299

.

4

21

782

.

32

2

15

11

5

472 

30 

134 

557 

10 

49 

750 

121 

42 

1 

10 

14 

7 

38 

154 

63 

47 

4 

50 

119 

120 

304 

12 

122 

392 

3 

65 

460 

111 

66 

2 

16 

20 

5 

53

80

30

21

2

31

190

378

259

15

40

-

4

105

260

146

-

2

24

13

7

2 882

2 742

2 843

2 759 

3 056 

2 527

.

860

642

. 

700 

634 

8 

845 

54 

1

598

-

2 211

1 686 

1 140 

967

22

338

158

153

56 

532 

230 

198 

6 

118 

32 

215 

6

308

27

311

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
Country 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Species 

Dogfishes nei 

Eagle rays 

Electric rays nei 

Guitarfishes nei 

Hammerhead sharks 

Houndsharks smoothhounds 
nei 

Knifetooth dogfish 

Lanternsharks nei 

Belgium 

Portugal 

  Spain 

Spain 

Portugal 

Portugal 

Portugal 

UK 

Spain 

  UK 

Spain 

Longnose velvet dogfish 

France 

Longnosed skate 

Nursehound 

Species 

Raja rays nei 

  Portugal 

  UK 

France 

France 

Portugal 

UK 

Country 

Belgium 

Denmark 

398

9

.

.

1

4

81

76

.

.

.

-

3

0

92

183

.

85

447

12

.

.

1

5

77

56

.

.

99

12

4

0

210

168

.

39

446

466 

488 

503

-

.

.

2

7

45

86

-

<0.5

76

6

2

503

198

171

33

62

- 

4 

14 

1 

19 

- 

75 

9 

- 

64 

7 

1 

294 

43 

178 

30 

- 

- 

5 

13 

1 

2 

- 

171 

9 

39 

60 

6 

3 

152 

50 

195 

210 

9 

-

2

21

-

12

-

130

125

-

-

3

8

412

48

158

421

-

2001

2002

2003

2004 

2005 

2006

1 527

1 734

1 849

2 013 

2 031 

1 859

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 

Netherlands 

749

792

677

558 

12 

565 

Portugal 

1 685

1 636

1 804

1 861 

1 426 

8

606

921

Rays and skates nei 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Estonia 

  France 

Ireland 

  Spain 

Rays stingrays mantas nei 

Ireland 

9 198

3 692

2 267

2 369 

2 931 

3 166

12

8

13

20 

8 

16

6 394

6 061

6 545

5 197 

3 475 

3 369

56

76

-

.

.

6

43

-

<0.5

.

-

32

110

12

126

- 

38 

84 

529 

173 

4 

33 

46 

737 

287 

-

32

22

816

256

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
Species 

Country 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Sailfin roughshark 

Sandy ray 

Shagreen ray 

Small-eyed ray 

Small-spotted catshark 

Smooth-hound 

  Spain 

UK 

France 

  Portugal 

France 

France 

France 

Ireland 

  Spain 

  UK 

Portugal 

  Spain 

.

<0.5

328

.

67

-

.

-

.

-

12 

1 709 

999

- 

- 

-

302

281

258 

295 

222

.

70

-

18

46

13

24 

33 

16 

56 

32 

23 

80

25

19

6 320

5 714

5 477

5 574 

5 792 

5 465

633

.

156

2

.

564

6

163

2

.

.

8

. 

69 

. 

90 

103

103 

218 

1

.

7 

63 

11 

29 

.

112

141

25

32

Smooth-hounds nei 

France 

1 272

1 590

1 882

2 197 

2 360 

2 416

  Portugal 

  Spain 

Portugal 

France 

  Portugal 

Portugal 

Portugal 

France 

40

.

2

38

.

4

49

.

6

36 

26 

4 

25 

24 

6 

12

41

9

1 563

1 451

1 434

1 312 

1 155 

1 017

.

<0.5

2

.

2

2

.

5

5

. 

8 

2 

1 215

1 163

1 329

1 081 

  Portugal 

<0.5

France 

  Portugal 

UK 

42

35

0

2

34

34

0

48

31

45

5

87 

33 

45 

10 

64 

10 

1 

958 

220 

22 

47 

51 

81

22

3

827

363

23

60

0

Spiny butterfly ray 

Spotted ray 

Starry smooth-hound 

Stingrays butterfly rays 

Thornback ray 

Torpedo rays 

Velvet belly 

TOTAL  

48 779

41 702

41 459

40 353  38 868  35 573

Source: Eurostat/ICES database on catch 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  longline  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 

42 

   EN 

 
 
section of coastline south of below latitude 65°N. There is no directed fishery on skates and 
rays in the Norwegian Sea, though they are caught in mixed fisheries targeting teleost species. 
Overall  landings  throughout  time  have  been  low  and  total  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 Islands 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),  Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland,  UK  and  Russia) 
have  reported  catches  of  demersal  elasmobranchs  from  Division  Vb.  UK  vessels  include  a 
small number of large Scottish trawlers which are 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 prosecute the mixed deep-water and shelf fishery west 
of the UK. In all cases, it is likely that demersal elasmobranchs represent a minor to moderate 
bycatch in fisheries targeting other species. 

Celtic  Seas3:  Whilst  the  spurdog  Squalus  acanthias  (see  above)  and  lesser-spotted  dogfish 
Scyliorhinus  canicula,  are  widespread  throughout  this  region,  there  are  some  important 
regional  differences  in  the  distributions  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.  These  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 directed at flatfish or gadoids. The main 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 trawls 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 targeting various skate species in the southern 
Irish Sea (Area VIIa), using rockhopper otter trawls and beam trawls, and some UK trawlers 
may target skates in the Bristol 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  these  species,  they  tend  to  be  discarded  by  some 
nations, though some of marketable sizes are sometimes retained. A largely unknown quantity 
is  retained  for  use  as  bait  in  the  Irish  Sea  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 English Channel (VIIe), and the Celtic Sea 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 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There  are  Nephrops  fisheries  in  the  Irish  Sea  (VIIa),  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  and  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 recreational fishery for skates, rays and dogfishes, particularly for those 
species close to shore, with some ports having locally important charter boat fisheries. 

There are no TACs for any of the relevant species in this region. Landings have been highly 
variable over the past ten years and between the different areas in this region, but the overall 
trend is downward. Reported landings from divisions VIIb,c,j,k increased dramatically in the 
late 1990s, to more than 4 000 t, but have subsequently declined to approximately 1 000 t per 
year.  The  lack  of  species-specific  landings  data  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-spotted  dogfish  caught  are  discarded,  with  discard 
rates generally over 60%. These species are known 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 from 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  fisheries  targeting  teleost  demersals  such  as  hake, 
anglerfish and megrim. The main gear in subarea VIIIc is the bottom trawl fleet that targets a 
mixture of gadoids and flatfish at depths of 100–300 m over the continental shelf 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  Cantabrian  Sea  (VIIIc)  and  only  10–25%  is  actually 
landed (ICES, 2002). In the case of skates, the highest 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  elasmobranchs  in  sub-areas  VIIIa,b,d  is  the  Basque 
otter  trawlers  targeting  hake,  anglerfish  and  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  catch  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 Division 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 highest landing records (75% of the annual skate 
and ray landings). 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Landings of skates since 1973 show no clear pattern, although there was a remarkable peak in 
landings  in  the  earlier  years  (1973–1974)  and  from  1982–1991.  The  reduction  in  observed 
landings from 1992–1995 coincides with a misreporting period of Spanish landings, but since 
1996 the landings seem to have stabilized between 4 000 and 5 000 t/year. 

is 

low 

Mediterranean:  The  commercial  value  of  demersal  elasmobranchs 
the 
Mediterranean, with catches of under 5 000 t reported by EC vessels in 2005 (GFCM FishStat 
database,  2007).  There  are  no  Mediterranean  pelagic  fisheries  that  target  migratory  oceanic 
sharks  (Cavanagh  and  Gibson,  2007).  However,  longline  fisheries  targeting  swordfish  and 
tunas  (which  have  increased  in  effort  over  the  past  three  decades)  pose  a  great  threat  to 
susceptible  chondrichthyans  taken  as  bycatch  in  this  fishery  (ICCAT,  2001).  Bycatch  is 
poorly  documented  and  data  are  rarely  incorporated  into  national  and  international  (FAO) 
statistics,  therefore  numbers  of  sharks  caught  as  bycatch  can  only  be  crudely  estimated 
(Camhi et al. 1998). IUCN  state that bycatch in nets (gillnets, purse  seines and  driftnets) is 
considered  a  possible  threat  to  67  (94%)  of  Mediterranean  chondrichthyans  and  bycatch  in 
longlines fisheries is a potential threat to 48 (67%) of species (Cavanagh and Gibson, 2007).  

in 

Unfortunately, data collected are incomplete and some of the most important landings are not 
recorded due to several 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 therefore bycatch returned to the sea is not included (Walker et al. 
2005). 

Table 2: EC fleet catches of demersal elasmobranchs in the Mediterranean (2000 – 2005) 

Fleet 
Cyprus 

France 

Greece 

Italy 

Species 
Sharks,  rays, 
skates,  etc. 
nei 
Dogfish 
sharks nei 
Rays, 
stingrays, 
mantas nei 
Small-
spotted 
catshark 
Thornback 
ray 
Sub-total 
Dogfish 
sharks nei 
Guitarfishes, 
etc.nei 
Raja rays nei 
Smooth-
hounds nei 
Thornback 
ray 
Sub-total 
Dogfish 
sharks nei 
Rays, 
stingrays, 
mantas nei 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

22 

12 

70 

30 

29 

163 
270 

94 

746 
578 

- 

28

17

64

31

17

157
224

89

579
351

-

22

14

75

33

19

163
143

52

536
383

-

1 688 
- 

507 

1 243
-

543

1 114
-

498

13

6

71

32

27

149
171

32

150
281

351

985
-

541

13 

5 

78 

37 

25 

158 
169 

41 

162 
241 

298 

911 
- 

577 

21

1

65

28

15

130
140

24

165
205

315

849
157

1 481

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
Sharks,  rays, 
skates,  etc. 
nei 
Smooth-
hounds nei 
Sub-total 
Angelsharks, 
sand  devils 
nei 
Dogfish 
sharks nei 
Rays, 
stingrays, 
mantas nei 
Sub-total 
Sharks,  rays, 
skates,  etc. 
nei 
Rays, 
stingrays, 
mantas nei 
Common 
eagle ray 
Smoth-
hounds nei 
Sub-total 
Catsharks, 
nursehounds 
nei 
Dogfish 
sharks nei 
Eagle 
nei 
Rays, 
stingrays, 
mantas nei 
Sharks,  rays, 
skates,  etc. 
nei 
Smoth-
hounds nei 
Stingrays, 
butterfly 
rays nei 
Sub-total 

rays 

Malta 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

TOTAL 

- 

-

462 

969 
<0.5 

2 

7 

9 
3 

- 

- 

2 

2 
331 

11 

- 

536 

397 

15 

- 

369

912
<0.5

3

<0.5

3
1

-

-

4

4
379

20

-

375

369

19

-

-

325

823
-

2

-

2
1

-

-

2

2
185

19

-

835

28

12

-

-

423

964
-

- 

483 

1 060 
- 

432

882

2 952
-

<0.5

<0.5 

5

5
-

-

-

5

5
274

16

-

206

28

21

-

6 

6 
4 

- 

- 

4 

5 
316 

12 

9 

315 

29 

18 

2 

1

7

8
3

-

<0.5

2

2
240

10

45

287

21

22

2

1 290 
4 146 

1 162
3 510

1 079
3 206

545
2 666

701 
2 858 

627
4 592

Source: GFCM catch database (via FAO FishStat metadatabase) 

spp.,  Etmopterus 

Azores and Mid-Atlantic Ridge: The main species of demersal elasmobranchs observed in 
this eco-region are deepwater elasmobranch species (Centrophorus spp., Centroscymnus spp., 
spp.,  Hexanchus  griseus,  Galeus  marinus,  Somniosus 
Deania 
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  value  (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 

46 

   EN 

 
Of the skates, the most abundant species 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  the  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 

Species 
Fleet 
Azores  Rajidae 
France  Rajidae 
Spain  Rajidae 
Azores  Bluntnose 
Azores  Sharks 
TOTAL 

Status of the stocks 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

103 

83

n.a. 
6 
109 

24
n.a.
18
125

68
2
29
n.a.
22
121

70
-

7
n.a.
77

89
-

2
n.a.
91

72 
- 

1 
n.a. 
73 

50 
- 
- 
1 
3 
53 

62
-
-
n.a.
n.a.
62

Ray  species  are  an  important  component  of  mixed  demersal  fisheries  for  most  European 
countries such as Portugal. The main 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  North  Atlantic  have  shown  temporal 
variability  in  both  the  relative  status  of  the  species  and  its  vulnerability.  Trawls  in  the 
Northwest Atlantic have indicated that since 1971 the biomass and abundance of mature rays 
have  declined  (ICES,  2005).  Although,  a  trend  has  been  identified  for  immature  rays 
suggesting that there has been an increase in biomass 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 fisheries. Ray bycatch has decreased since the 
early  1990s  which  is  associated  with  the  decline  in  groundfish  fisheries  in  the  Atlantic 
(Government  of  Canada,  2007).  Historically  rays  have  been  viewed  as  commercially 
undesirable, however more recently Rays have been 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  due  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 

47 

   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 levels of training on less common 
species, in addition to identification cards for these species (Government of Canada, 2007). 

Recent management advice 

Skates (Rajidae)  

According  to  ICES  advice  2008,  reported  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  that  there  has  been  a 
decrease  in  skate  abundance  (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 obtained from groundfish surveys indicate an increase in thornback 
ray biomass since 1996. Survey data for the cuckoo ray seems to indicate an increasing trend 
in biomass although there is considerable 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, reported landings of lesser-spotted dogfish in the area seem 
stable or slightly decreasing 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-fish  surveys  indicate  an  increase  in  the 
biomass of this species in Division VIIIc since 2002. Overall the population 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 other fisheries, so the decrease 
in  landings  during  the  last  few  years  may  be  related  to  changes  in  the  effort  distribution 
targeting different species, and/or better species identification at Portuguese landing ports. 

Other demersal elasmobranch species  

EN 

48 

   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  showed  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 and rays, and lesser-spotted dogfish separately. 
Species-specific  landings  data  should  be  collected  for  the  major  skate  species  (including 
cuckoo ray, blonde ray, thornback ray, spotted ray, undulate ray, and smalleyed ray). 

EN 

49 

   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 mortality, 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 (Government 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  first  recorded  in  1954  under  a  generic 
code  and  in  the  1990s  they  began  to  be  recorded  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 designated areas (Government of Canada, 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 considered to be accurate as there is 100 per cent coverage on trawl 
vessels (Government of Canada, 2007).  

EN 

50 

   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 elasmobranch fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 341. FAO, 
Rome, 119 pp. 

Buencuerpo V., Rios S., and Moron J. (1998). Pelagic sharks associated 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., Carlson, 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 and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries, 30: 19–26. 

Burgess, G. H., Beerkircher, L. R., Cailliet, G. M., Carlson, 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 Northwest 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 sharks (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., Marks, L. and Harley, S. (2001). Analytical Assessment of the porbeagle shark 
(Lamna  nasus)  population  in  the  Northwest  Atlantic,  with  estimates  of  long-term  sustainable  yield.  Canadian 
Stock Assessment, Research Document, 2001/067, Ottawa. 

Campana, S. E., Marks, L., Joyce, 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.,  Hurley,  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  Status  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 

51 

   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 World: 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  fisheries  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 fishery 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 

52 

   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 fixed 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 Scottish-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  Meeting  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-committee 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 

53 

   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  Branstetter,  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  estimations  of  by-catches 
landed  by  the  Spanish  surface  longline  fleet  in  1999  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  Mediterranean  Sea.  ICCAT 
SCRS/2001/049. In: Collection ICCAT Scientific Papers 54(4): 1150–1163 (2002). 

Mejuto, J. (1985). Associated catches of sharks, Prionace 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  Ocean  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., Trujillo, 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  Azores  (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 

54 

   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. 

EN 

55 

   EN