Starry smoothhound

Starry smoothhound in this area are data limited, with very low resilience to fishing pressure. However, there is currently no concern for fishing pressure or biomass.Three smoothhound species occur in the Northeast Atlantic, primarily within subareas 4 and 6–9. Starry smoothhound (Mustelus asterias) is the dominant species in subareas 4 and 6–8, while common smoothhound (Mustelus mustelus) and, to a lesser extent, blackspotted smoothhound (Mustelus punctulatus), are found mainly in subarea 9. Data for the latter two species are limited, and their distributions extend into the Mediterranean Sea and waters off Northwest Africa, where species‑specific landings in FAO areas 37 and 34 are negligible.As ICES is unable to assess common or blackspotted smoothhound, this evaluation relies on survey trends for starry smoothhound and commercial data for the smoothhound genus across the broader Northeast Atlantic. This rating applies specifically to starry smoothhound within the UK EEZ.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). All smoothhounds are primarily taken as bycatch, but may be landed for human consumption or use as bait in the potting fisheries. They are also an important sport angling fish, but are often returned, and may be tagged.The starry smoothhound has a very low resilience to fishing pressure, and is listed as ‘Near Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List. Despite landings showing an upward trend since 2020, increasing 3268 tonnes to 4688 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. Biomass has gradually increased since the start of the timeseries in 2005, and it surpassed and remained above Itrigger (0.43) since 2011. Despite a steep increase in biomass from1.65 to 3.0 between 2022 and 2023, biomass declined again to 2.3 in 2024. However, as Index A (mean of 2023-2024 = 2.7), is above Index B (mean of 2020-2022 = 1.43), 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 increased by 20% (the maximum stability clause), increasing from 5329 tonnes in 2025 to 6395 tonnes for both 2026 and 2027. Discard rates remain unquantified.

Starry smoothhound 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.There is no management plan in place for starry smoothhound, or any smoothhound species. Demersal elasmobranchs in this area are usually caught as bycatch in the mixed demersal fisheries for roundfish and flatfish.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. The recent increase in landings is thought to be for supplying market demand for ‘dogfish’, given the current restrictions on spurdog. Bycatch and discard data, including survival rates, remains largely unknown. There is also no official Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) in place, so juveniles may also be landed.Starry smoothhound is listed as ‘Near Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List, with populations showing a declining trend. 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 engagementStarry smoothhound 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].

Gillnets can encounter bycatch of non-target fish, mammals and birds, including ETP species. However, this gear type has minimal impact on the seabed.In 2024, around 11% of landings came from ‘other gear’, including nets. However, discard rates and post-release survival remains unknown. That said, 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.Bycatch data for many UK and EU fisheries remains limited due to poor monitoring. However, fixed and drift nets can have high levels of bycatch, including endangered, threatened, and protected (ETP) species. This includes marine mammals, seabirds, and elasmobranchs.One notable bycatch species is the harbour porpoise, which is included on OSPAR’s List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats for the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas, due to documented population declines and the ongoing threat of being bycaught. They are also considered a priority species under UK and EU law, under which there are explicit bycatch requirements. In the Celtic Seas ecoregion, annual bycatch rates of harbour porpoise are estimated at around 27 individuals annually in trammel nets. Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), such as pingers, have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing harbour porpoise bycatch in gillnets. However, their deployment is inconsistent, and their efficacy is unknown for other species.In UK waters, mesh size regulations for gill, trammel, and drift nets (maximum 110 mm) are intended to allow juvenile roundfish and flatfish to escape capture. However, smoothhound is not a common commercial target and reaches maturity at around 80-90 cm. As a result, these mesh requirements are not designed for conservation of this species, and the meshes are likely too small to prevent the capture of juvenile starry smoothhound. This poses a risk to reproductive capacity and long‑term stock stability.Contact between nets and the seabed is limited to very light contact from the footrope and minimal contact from the small anchors at each end. As the gear is not towed over the seabed there should be very little abrasion.Nylon nets, if lost, can continue to fish for several weeks before becoming tangled and bundled up, a phenomenon known as 'ghost fishing'. However, static nets, as with all gear, represent an investment by fishermen, and therefore there are incentives to avoid losing or damaging gear.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: Mustelus asterias Starry smooth-hound . Available at: Mustelus asterias, Starry smooth-hound : fisheries, gamefish [Accessed on 22.12.2025]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. Smooth-hound (Mustelus spp.) in subareas 1-10, 12, and 14 (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2025. ICES Advice 2025, sdv.27.nea. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.27203022 ICES. 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.25713033Jabado, R.W., Ellis, J.R., McCully-Phillips, S.R., Dulvy, N.K., Farrell, E.D., Mancusi, C. & Derrick, D. 2021. Mustelus asterias. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T39357A124405496. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T39357A124405496.en. [Accessed on 22.12.2025]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]OSPAR, 2025. List of Threatened and/or Declining Species & Habitats. Available at: List of Threatened and/or Declining Species & Habitats | OSPAR Commission [Accessed on 05.12.2025]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]