Nursehound

Nursehound in this area are data limited, with low resilience to fishing pressure. However, there is currently no concern for fishing pressure or biomass.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 greater-spotted dogfish, which is a catshark species. All catsharks are primarily taken as bycatch, but larger individuals may be used for human consumption, while smaller individuals are often used as bait in potting fisheries.Nursehound has a low resilience to fishing pressure. Despite landings showing an upward trend since 2012, increasing 225 tonnes to 694 tonnes in 2024, fishing pressure remains below the FMSY proxy. As such, there is currently no concern for fishing pressure.Stock size is monitored using a biomass index – Itrigger. Although biomass has fluctuated since the start of the timeseries in 1997, it surpassed Itrigger (0.54) in 2003 and has remained above this threshold since. Since 2008, stock size has shown a general upward trend. This trend is shown in biomass indices: Index A (mean of 2023-2024) is 1.47, compared with Index B (mean of 2021-2022) at 1.35. As the stock is increasing and remains above Itrigger, there is 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 increased by 11% from 682 tonnes in 2025 to 758 tonnes for both 2026 and 2027. Discard rates remain unquantified.

Nursehound 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. Nursehound is bycaught in trawls and gillnets.There are no management measures in place and no TAC set. As there is no TAC in place, they are exempt from the landing obligation and can be discarded. It is assumed that survival of this shallow water species may be similar to lesser spotted dogfish which has been shown to have a survival rate as high as 90% across different gear types. There is also no official MCRS in place, so juveniles may also be landed.Nursehound is listed as ‘Near Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List for Europe, with populations showing a declining trend. This decline is believed to result from low connectivity between discrete populations across its range, which limits reproduction and reduces the species’ capacity for recovery. As such, effective management of this fishery is essential. However, quotas alone may be insufficient due to issues such as discarding and the lack of comprehensive data on the species.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 engagement

Beam trawls have significant impact on the seabed, including damage to benthic communities and vulnerable marine habitats. Bycatch can be high and may include vulnerable species.In 2024, around 5% of landings were sourced from beam trawls. Although the exact volume of discards remains uncertain, survival rates are estimated to be similar to lesser-spotted dogfish, 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 Celtic Seas ecoregion, bycatch from beam trawls can include marine mammals, seabirds, fish, elasmobranchs, and endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species. Bycatch data is limited in many UK and EU fisheries as they are generally not well monitored.Beyond bycatch concerns, beam trawling (particularly with chain-mat gear) can significantly impact benthic communities. Demersal trawls make direct contact with the seabed, causing penetration and abrasion of habitat features. The extent of seabed impact depends on gear type, sediment composition, and the area's natural resilience. For instance, regions that are used to tidal and wave disturbances are less sensitive, whereas areas untrawled areas may be more vulnerable. Beam trawls typically penetrate the seabed between 1cm and 8cm, with heavier gear causing greater disruption than otter trawls. Trawl gears are known to have some of the greatest impacts on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs).In the Celtic Seas region, an estimated 66% of the 0-200m zone, and 59% of the 200-800m zone, has been at least partially trawled. Fishing effort in the area has been decreasing since the early 2000s. This has reduced the spatial fishing footprint and the average number of times the seabed is trawled per year. Most habitats are mud and sand, which are less vulnerable to trawling. However, in the Celtic Seas, 95% of areas where VMEs such as cold-water corals and sponges occur or are likely were found to have been fished between 2009 and 2011.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]Ellis, J., Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Haka, F., Morey, G., Guallart, J. & Schembri, T. 2015. Scyliorhinus stellaris (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T161484A48923567. Accessed on 18 December 2025. [Accessed on 18.12.2025]Froese, R. and D. Pauly, 2025. FishBase: Scyliorhinus stellaris Nursehound. Available at: Scyliorhinus stellaris, Nursehound : fisheries, aquarium [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. Greater-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus stellaris) in subareas 6 and 7 (West of Scotland, southern Celtic Sea, and the English Channel). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2025. ICES Advice 2025, syt.27.67. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.27202914ICES. 2025. Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Scientific Reports. 7:92. 943 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.30137623ICES. 2025 Celtic Seas Ecosystem – fisheries Overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2025. ICES Advice 2025, section 7.2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.30710879ICES. 2024. Celtic Seas Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2024. ICES Advice 2024, Section 7.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25713033Kennelly, 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]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]