Lesser spotted dogfish

Lesser spotted dogfish in this area are data limited, with low resilience to fishing pressure. While there is no concern for biomass, there is concern for fishing pressure.Route 2 (data limited) scoring has been applied to this rating due to the lack of reference points. The most recent assessment was published in 2025 by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). This species is also known as the small-spotted catshark. All catsharks are primarily taken as bycatch in trawl fisheries. Larger individuals may be used for human consumption, while smaller individuals are often used as bait in potting fisheries.The lesser spotted dogfish has low resilience to fishing pressure. Although landings have steadily declined since 2016, dropping from 2,968 tonnes to 1,835 tonnes in 2024, fishing pressure remains above FMSY proxy. As a result, there is still a concern for fishing pressure.Stock size is monitored using a biomass index – Itrigger. Although biomass has fluctuated since the start of the timeseries in 2005, it has surpassed and remained above Itrigger (0.61) since 2012. Stock size continued on a general upward trend until 2023, but has since fallen from 1.83 to 1.52 in 2024. However, as Index A (mean of 2023-2024 = 1.67), is above Index B (mean of 2020-2022 = 1.46), and stock size is above Itrigger, there is currently no concern for biomass. ICES advice on landings follows the MSY approach. It is determined from the most recent advised landings (from 2025), adjusted by several factors: the ratio of Index A to Index B, the ratio of observed mean catch length to target mean catch length, a biomass safeguard, and a precautionary multiplier. As a result, advised landings rose from 2,680 tonnes in 2024-2025 to 2,765 tonnes for both 2026 and 2027. Discard rates remain unquantified.

Lesser spotted dogfish is a vulnerable species and management must be precautionary. There is currently no total allowable catch (TAC) or minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) in place in this area.Demersal elasmobranchs in this area are usually caught as bycatch in the mixed demersal fisheries for roundfish and flatfish. Lesser spotted dogfish are bycaught in trawls and gillnets.There are no management measures in place and no TAC set. They are often returned to the sea because of their low market value and some that are landed are utilised as bait in pot fisheries, particularly whelk and brown crab. As there is no TAC in place, they are exempt from the landing obligation and can be discarded. That said, catches of lesser spotted dogfish has generally remained below ICES advice, particularly since the precautionary approach was implemented in 2018. There is also no official MCRS in place, so juveniles may also be landed.The EU and UK both have fishery management measures, which can include catch limits, population targets, and gear restrictions. However, compliance in the EU and UK has been inconsistent, with ongoing challenges in implementing some regulations. The goal of reaching Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2020 was missed, with less than half of UK TACs in 2024 following ICES advice. In 2024, the EU and UK reaffirmed their commitment to sustainable fisheries by aligning management with scientific advice to gradually approach MSY. However, no new target date has been set for achieving MSY across all fisheries. The Landing Obligation (LO), an EU law retained by the UK post-Brexit, requires all quota fish to be landed, even if unwanted (over-quota or below minimum size). It aims to encourage more selective fishing methods, reduce bycatch, and improve catch reporting. However, compliance is poor, and accurate discard levels are hard to quantify with current monitoring programmes. The UK is in the process of replacing the LO with country-specific Catching Policies.The Marine Conservation Society views Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with cameras is one of the most cost-effective tools for providing reliable fisheries data and aiding informed management decisions. Fully monitored fisheries enhance collaboration, data accuracy, stock recovery, and reduce impacts on marine wildlife and habitats. However, the full potential of REM may only be achieved when it tracks fishing location and documents catch and bycatch, particularly where vulnerable species and habitats are at risk. As of January 2024, the EU is introducing a Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) mandate for EU vessels, including CCTV cameras on vessels 18m or more that pose a potential risk of non-compliance, within the next 4 years. Across the UK, different approaches to REM are being taken and legislation is expected to be in place across all 4 countries within the next few years.The Fisheries Act (2020) requires the development of Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) (replacing EU Multi-Annual Plans) in the UK. 43 FMPs have been proposed and are at various stages of development and implementation, these should all be published by the end of 2028. FMPs have the potential to be very important tools for managing UK fisheries, although data limitations may delay them for some stocks. It is also essential the UK governments define and adopt a standardised approach or model across the four nations to a universally defined FMP design, to ensure the consistence, quality and coherence of all the proposal FMPs.The Marine Conservation Society is keen to see publicly available Fishery Management Plans for all commercially exploited stocks, especially where stocks are depleted, that include:An overview of the fishery including current stock status, spatial coverage, current fishing methods and impactsTargets for fishing pressure and biomass, and additional management when those targets are not being met, based on the best scientific evidenceTimeframes for stock recoveryImproved data collection, transparency, and accountability, supported by technologies such as Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM)Consideration of wider environmental impacts of the fishery, including habitat impacts and minimising bycatchStakeholder engagementLesser spotted dogfish is included in the Channel demersal non-quota species FMP, coordinated by Defra. At the time of writing, it is too soon to know whether proposed management measures will be effective in managing the stock. For more information about this FMP and expected progress and timelines, see [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-fisheries-statement-jfs/list-of-fisheries-management-plans].

Otter trawling is likely to cause some damage to the seabed. Bycatch is moderate and may include vulnerable species.In 2024, the majority of landings (61%) came from ‘all other bottom trawls’, including otter trawls, while 17% were taken by beam trawls and 22% by other gear types. Although the exact volume of discards remains uncertain, survival rates are estimated at around 90% across most gear types.Elasmobranchs generally show relatively high survival rates because they lack swim bladders and are therefore less affected by changes in water pressure. Their thick, abrasive skin also provides additional protection. Inshore and coastal fisheries using trawls, longlines, gillnets, and tangle nets typically report low at-vessel mortality. However, it is widely considered that discard levels are several times higher than the quantities landed.Demersal trawls have the potential to take relatively high quantities of bycatch. In the Greater North Sea ecoregion, bycatch from otter trawls can include endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species, such as the common skate complex, deep-water sharks, and the harbour porpoise. 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).In the North Sea area, impacts from bottom trawling are variable. Fishing grounds vary, but the habitat is generally mud and sand, which are less vulnerable to trawling than features such as reefs and seagrass. Data from 2024 indicates an estimated 70% of the 0-200m zone, and 27% of the 200-800m zone, has been at least partially trawled. Average fishing mortality in the areas has reduced since the late 1990s for pelagic, demersal, and shellfish stocks. However, fishing in the North Sea in general has reduced the number of large fish in the ecosystem (mostly cod, saithe, ling, sturgeon, and some elasmobranchs). There are also concerns about the impact of North Sea trawling on sea pens.Mitigation measures include a ban on bottom trawling below 800m, and restrictions from 400-600m – the areas where most VMEs are found. There remains some uncertainty about the location of some sensitive seabed habitats, so these remain at risk.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.

Eigaard, O.R., Bastardie, F., Breen, M., Dinesen, G.E., Hintzen, N.T., Laffargue, P., Mortensen, L.O., Nielsen, J.R., Nilsson, H.C., O'Neill, F.G., Polet, H., Reid, D.G., Sala, A., Sköld, M., Smith, C., Sorensen, T.K., Tully, O., Zengin, M., Rijnsdorp, A.D., 2016. Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and dimensions. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 73, Issue suppl 1. Pages i27-i43. Available at https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/suppl_1/i27/2573989 [Accessed on 18.12.2025]Froese, R. and D. Pauly, 2025. FishBase: Scyliorhinus canicula Lesser spotted dogfish. Available at: Scyliorhinus canicula, Lesser spotted dogfish : fisheries, gamefish [Accessed on 18.12.2025]Hiddink, J., Jennings, S., Sciberras, M., Szostek, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Mazor, T., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O., Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P. and Kaiser, M.J. 2017. Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. PNAS. 114:31, pp. 8301-8306. Available at https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618858114 [Accessed on 18.12.2025]ICES. 2025. Lesser spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, eastern English Channel). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2025. ICES Advice 2025, syc.27.3a47d. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.27202905 ICES. 2025. Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Scientific Reports. 7:92. 943 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.30137623ICES. 2025. Greater North Sea ecoregion – fisheries overview In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2025. ICES Advice 2025, section 9.2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.30710897 ICES. 2024. Greater North Sea ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2024. ICES Advice 2024, Section 7.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25714239 Kennelly, S. J. & Broadhurst, M. K., 2021. A review of bycatch reduction in demersal fish trawls. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 31, 289–318. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09644-0. [Accessed on 18.12.2025]Kynoch, R., Fryer, R. & Neat, F., 2015. A simple technical measure to reduce bycatch and discard of skates and sharks in mixed-species bottom-trawl fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci,72(6):1861. Available at https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/72/6/1861/921176 [Accessed on 18.12.2025]Serena, F., Ellis, J., Abella, A., Mancusi, C., Haka, F., Guallart, J., Ungaro, N., Coelho, R.P., Schembri, T. & Kirsteen, M. 2015. Scyliorhinus canicula (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T161307554A201955962. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-1.RLTS.T161307554A201955962.en. [Accessed on 18.12.2025]Shark Trust, 2025. Fisheries Advisories. Available at: Fisheries Advisories | The Shark Trust [Accessed on 18.12.2025]Silva, J. F. and Ellis, J. R. 2019. Bycatch and discarding patterns of dogfish and sharks taken in English and Welsh commercial fisheries. Journal of Fish Biology. 94 (6). Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13899 [Accessed on 18.12.2025]van Denderen, P. Bolam, S., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Kenny, A., Rijnsdorp, A., and van Kooten, T., 2015. Similar effects of bottom trawling and natural disturbance on composition and function of benthic communities across habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2015;541:31–43. Available at https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/119579329/Post_print.pdf [Accessed on 18.12.2025]