Tub gurnard

This stock is data limited. There is concern for the biomass and no concern for fishing pressure.The stock status of tub gurnard is unknown. Relatively little data are collected for gurnards, and even less data are collected for tub gurnard as they are often misidentified with the red gurnard. There is concern for the biomass, as there is no available biomass data, and no concern for fishing pressure. Tub gurnard has a low resilience to fishing pressure.Yellow gurnards represent a very small proportion of landings in each of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England (<1%) and are normally caught as bycatch in mixed demersal fisheries for flatfish and roundfish. Recent landings data for tub gurnard is not reliable as species misidentification continues to be a major problem in estimating the landings of all gurnards and subsequently, they are just recorded as gurnards in the landings data. In 2020, landings of yellow gurnard (tub gurnard) were 476 tonnes, and landings of unidentified 'gurnards' were 833 tonnes. Over the last 5 years (2016-2020), there has been an average of 379 tonnes of yellow gurnard landed per year, and 1042 tonnes of unidentified 'gurnards'.

There is no management plan in place for yellow gurnard and management requires considerable improvement.There is currently no management for any of the gurnard species in the EU, e.g. no minimum conservation reference size (MCRS), no regulation on effort, gear or closed seasons (e.g. for spawning). No Total Allowable Catch (TAC) has been set for yellow gurnard in this area, and the EU Landings Obligation doesn't apply to this stock, as it is not subject to catch limits.Yellow gurnard is a very data limited species, with poor understanding of stock distribution and trends. ICES does not provided advice on yellow gurnard in this area. It is not a targeted stock, but is mainly caught as bycatch by the industrial fisheries, although when landed it is for human consumption. It is also caught in demersal fisheries for species such as cod and haddock. MCS would like to see bycatch species monitored and taken into account once fisheries management plans are implemented.Reporting at a species level has improved since 2012, allowing estimations of landings, but some are still reported as 'mixed gurnards' (e.g. Germany and England). Species misidentification continues to be a major problem in estimating the landings of all gurnards, including yellow gurnard.Both the EU and UK have fishery management measures in place, which can include catch limits, targets for population sizes and fishing mortality, and controls on what fishing gear can be used and where. In the EU, compliance with regulations has been variable, and there are ongoing challenges with implementing some of them. There was a target for fishing to be at Maximum Sustainable Yield by 2020, but this was not achieved. The Landing Obligation (LO), an EU law that the UK has kept after Brexit, requires all quota fish to be landed, even if they are unwanted (over-quota or below minimum size). It aims to promote more selective fishing methods, reduce bycatch, and improve recording of everything that is caught, not just what is wanted. Compliance with the LO is generally poor and actual levels of discards are difficult to quantify using the current fisheries observer programme. UK administrations are in the process of replacing the landing obligation with country-specific Catching Policies.In the UK, it is too early to tell how effective management is, as the Fisheries Act only came into force in January 2021. The Act requires the development of Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) (replacing EU Multi-Annual Plans). FMPs are currently in development, but the scope of them remains unclear. They have the potential to be very important tools for managing UK fisheries, although data limitations may delay them for some stocks. MCS is keen to see publicly available FMPs for all commercially exploited stocks, especially where stocks are depleted, that include:Targets for fishing pressure and biomass, and additional management when those targets are not being met, based on the best available scientific evidenceTimeframes for stock recovery Improved data collection, transparency and accountability, supported by technologies such as Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM)Consideration of wider environmental impacts of the fishery

Otter trawlers are likely to cause some damage to the seabed. Bycatch in otter trawling is moderate and may include some vulnerable species.Yellow gurnard is mainly discarded in the bottom trawl fishery for roundfish and flatfish and taken as bycatch in the industrial fishery for sandeel and sprat.Demersal otter trawls have the potential to take relatively high quantities of bycatch. In the North East Atlantic there are reported catches of demersal elasmobranchs and endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species, such as sharks, rays and marine mammals. Bycatch data is limited in many UK and EU fisheries as they are generally not well monitored.Demersal trawls have contact with the seabed, resulting in penetration and abrasion of habitat features. The impact of trawling on the seabed depends on the location and scale in which trawling occurs. For example, areas that are used to natural disturbance through tides and waves, are less sensitive to habitat impacts. Areas not used to mobile towed gears are typically more sensitive to trawling. Trawl gears are known to have some of the greatest impacts on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs).There are Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in this area, some of which are designated to protect seabed features from damaging activities. This fishery overlaps with parts of these MPAs, but the proportion of the catch coming from these areas is expected to be relatively low in relation to the unit of assessment (i.e. less than 20% of the catch or effort), and so these impacts have not been assessed within the scale of this rating. Given the important role that MPAs have in recovering the health and function of our seas, MCS encourages the supply chain to identify if their specific sources are being caught from within MPAs. If sources are suspected of coming from within designated and managed MPAs, MCS advises businesses to establish if the fishing activity is operating legally inside a designated and managed MPA, and request evidence from the fishery or managing authority to demonstrate that the activity is not damaging to protected features or a threat to the conservation objectives of the site(s).To improve monitoring and reporting of fishing activity, MCS would like to see remote electronic monitoring (REM) with cameras implemented, used and enforced. To reduce the impacts of fishing on the marine environment we would like to see a just transition to the complete removal of bottom towed gear from offshore Marine Protected Areas designated to protect the seabed. We also want to see reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts including emissions and blue carbon habitat damage.