The Blotched Fantail Ray (Taeniurops meyeni) is a large (to 180 cm disc width (DW)) ray that is widespread in the Indo-Pacific Oceans from South Africa to French Polynesia and north to China and southern Japan, and it also occurs in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in the Galapagos Archipelago, Ecuador and Cocos Island, Costa Rica. It is demersal in inshore and coastal waters from the surface to a depth of 500 m. The species is targeted and taken as bycatch across much of its range with multiple fishing gears including trawl, gill nets, hook and line, and longlines and retained for the meat and, in some countries, high-value skins that are processed into leather. There is a long history of overfishing of inshore populations and fishing pressure remains high, and may be rising, across much of the species' range, with Australia and some Pacific Islands as exceptions. Stingrays larger than 100 cm DW have limited biological productivity and the Blotched Fantail Ray has an inferred generation length of 25 years. There are no species-specific time series, although population trends from whiprays, combined rays, and reconstructed landings data can be used to infer declines over the past three generation lengths (75 years) which are suspected to be high (>50%) across parts of Southeast Asia, and <50% declines elsewhere in its range with stable populations suspected in Australia and across the Pacific. Further, this species is still regularly encountered in parts of the Western Indian Ocean where they are discarded or have refuge in coral associated habitats. Overall, it is suspected that the Blotched Fantail Ray has undergone a population reduction of 30–49% over the past three generation lengths (75 years) due to actual levels of exploitation and habitat degradation, and it is assessed as Vulnerable A2cd.

The Blotched Fantail Ray is widespread in the Indo-West Pacific Oceans, and occurs from South Africa to French Polynesia and north to China and southern Japan (Last et al. 2016). It is also found in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in the Galapagos Archipelago, Ecuador and Cocos Island, Costa Rica (Arnes-Urgelles et al. 2018, Salinas-de-Leon et al. 2019). Since the previous assessment (Kyne et al. 2015), the distribution map has been refined to map this species to its known bathymetric range.

There is no information available on population size, structure, or trend for the Blotched Fantail Ray. Despite the lack of species-specific trend data, population trends can be inferred from information on whiprays, combined rays, and reconstructed landings data. Although landings data are not a direct measure of abundance, these can be used to infer population reduction where landings have decreased while fishing effort has remained stable or increased.

Targeted and unmanaged fisheries for whiprays in Kenya and Zanzibar (Tanzania) are likely to be leading to population reduction. Whiprays were considered at moderate risk from these fisheries (Temple et al. 2019). In Kenya, this species is taken as both target and bycatch in high numbers by the artisanal sector (Kiilu et al. 2022). Surveys of fishers in Zanzibar show that most considered shark and ray numbers in general to have decreased on their fishing grounds during the 1990s, concomitant with an increase in the sale value of meat (Jiddawi and Shehe 1999). In southern Mozambique, the Blotched Fantail Ray was among the most abundant rays observed in baited remote underwater video (BRUV) sampling and underwater visual surveys, including those completed by citizen scientists, seen in all seasons and both shallow and deeper survey sites (Keeping et al. 2021, O'Connor and Cullain 2021). In the waters surrounding Réunion Island, Blotched Fantail Ray is the most commonly encountered stingray in both the shark control program and recreational fishing (Jaquemet et al. 2023). This species has been recorded in artisanal landings data and was a minor component of overall catch in each of Mozambique, Tanzania, and Kenya (R. Bennett and D. Van Beuningen, unpub. data). In Mozambique, very few individuals were caught and landed with beach seine nets. In Tanzania there are records from the mainland and Zanzibar – both Unguja and Pemba Islands – where Blotched Fantail Ray is caught with handlines, spearguns, beach seine nets, gillnets, and ring nets. This species has also been recorded in BRUV surveys in Antongil Bay (Northeast Madagascar) and southern Mozambique (R. Bennett and D. Van Beuningen, unpub. data).

To date there have been no dedicated surveys or population estimates for this species in the Arabian Sea and adjacent waters region. The species is caught in fisheries across the region but is typically discarded, and thus catch data are unavailable. It is seen frequently inshore by SCUBA divers in Oman, the Mussandam Peninsula, and the Daymaniyat Islands (R.W. Jabado pers. obs). It is also seen frequently at Qeshm Island in the northern Gulf (T. Valinassab pers. comm. 2017). The species appears to have refuge in areas where coral is healthy and fishing pressure is lower including the northern Red Sea and the Maldives (J. L.Y. Spaet and K. Ali pers. comm. 2017). In Iranian waters of the Arabian/Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, catches of rays in general were around 5,000–6,000 t between 2013 and 2015. Research trawl surveys in the area have indicated an overall increase in the biomass of rays (Valinassab et al. 2006, Valinassab 2016). The population of Blotched Fantail Ray is inferred to have declined significantly off Pakistan and India due to intense and increasing fishing activities. In Pakistan, the species is among the rarest of stingrays caught in demersal gillnets targeting stingrays with catches of the species markedly decreased over the past 25 years (M. Khan pers. comm. 2023). The species is caught in Cochin, India relatively commonly but catch data are not reliable in some cases because rays are often aggregated (K.V. Akhilesh and K.K. Bineesh pers. comm. 2017). In India, for example, the annual average catch of rays landed by trawlers at New Ferry Wharf, Mumbai, between 1990–2004 was 502 t. During this period trawler hours doubled, and consequently, the catch rate declined by 60% from 0.65 kg/hr in 1990 to 0.24 kg/hr in 2004 (Raje and Zacharia 2009). This is a ~95% decline over a period of three generations of the Blotched Fantail Ray (75 years). It is therefore reasonable to assume that this decline is reflective of the situation for the Blotched Fantail Ray, and this decline is equivalent to a >99% decline over the past three generations (75 years). Combining available information, it is inferred that this species has declined by at least 30% over the past three generations (~75 years) across the Arabian Sea and its adjacent waters.

In Sri Lanka, overall marine fishes reconstructed landings have increased 4-fold from 150,000 t in 1950 to 500,000 t in the 2000s (O’Meara et al. 2011). Coastal fisheries still account for about 67% of the marine fishes caught, but these fisheries are likely to be increasingly overfished because, “it became clear that the coastal sector had limited capacity for further expansion” and many attempts were made to expand the fishing more towards the offshore areas (Dissanayake 2005). In Bangladesh, local fishers have indicated a steep decline in rays over their fishing careers (Haque et al. 2021a, Haque et al. 2022). Fishers reported that when fishing for larger rays in 2000s, a 7-day trip would yield over 1,000 individuals. Recent 7-day fishing trips now only yield 1–20 large ray individuals. This has led to fishers using other net types because of the large decline in ray catches (Haque et al. 2022). This species has been caught in artisanal fisheries in Bangladesh as both target and retained bycatch, as larger individuals are considered desirable and will sell quickly in markets (Haque et al. 2021a).

In Myanmar, reconstructed marine fisheries landings data are available from 1950 (Booth and Pauly 2011). In general fisheries catches (all species, not just rays) increased steadily from about 200,000 t in 1950 to about 700,000 t in the late 1990s. From the late 1990s a rapid increase in landings from offshore fishing saw an increase in annual landings to almost 1.5 million t. Estimates of shark and ray landings from 1950 to the late 1990s varied between 15,000 t to 35,000 t with no substantial trend. However, from the late 1990s landings increased to around 40,000 t per year. This increase in landings is assumed to reflect the increase in offshore fishing that occurred during this period. These are substantial catches (this level of catch places Myanmar in the top 20 shark fishing nations globally) for a nation with a relatively small Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Despite the increase in shark and ray landings during the period since 1950 there are significant concerns for the status of many species. Trawl surveys in Myanmar undertaken by the Norwegian research vessel Dr Fridtjof Nansen in 1978–1980 and 2013–2018 showed a 62% decline in catch rates of rays between surveys with a noted shift from larger long-lived species to smaller short-lived species (Krakstad et al. 2014, FAO 2020a). Declines in ray catch rates were greater than the decline of sharks. Surveys of local markets from 2006–2010 (San San Khine 2010) demonstrated that landings are dominated by small short-lived species, which is typical of over-exploited elasmobranch communities (Lam and Sadovy de Mitcheson 2011). These same surveys also reported a 49% decline in the landings during this period, despite no reduction in fishing effort.

In Thailand, combined ray species landings data showed an 89% reduction over 16 years from 2003 to 2018 (Krajangdara 2019), although inferring a population trend is difficult as the decline in catches from 2003 to 2018 coincided with a decline in fishing effort (Krajangdara 2019). In the Philippines, reconstructed catch data of all combined ray species from municipal and commercial fisheries shows that annual landings rose from 4,160 t in 1976 to a peak of 10,990 t in 1991, then declined to 2,600 t in 2006 (NFRDI 2017). This indicates a decrease of 76% in 16 years from 1991–2006.

There are four lines of evidence throughout Malaysia that can be used to infer population trends including catch reconstructions for eastern Peninsular Malaysia, western Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak. In eastern Peninsular Malaysia, whipray catches increased starting in the late 1960s reaching a peak of over 13,000 t in 1999. Catch since decreased and was ~7,700 t in 2014, a 53% decrease in 15 years, a time-span of less than one generation length, despite a still increasing fishing effort. In western Peninsular Malaysia, whipray catches increased throughout the 1960s. Catch oscillated between 7,000 and 13,000 t until 2009 where it stabilized at ~6,500 t for five years, a decrease of ~65%. In Sabah, whipray catches steadily increased from 1950 to 1994. In 1995, whipray catch peaked at ~11,550 t. It has since decreased to just over 6,000 t, despite constant effort. This correlated to an inferred population decrease of ~60% over 19 years (Zeller and Pauly 2016). In Sarawak, there was a 38-fold increase from ~200 t per year in the mid-1960s to ~7,500 t per year in the mid-1970s. The catch remained high for less than a decade before declining to under 3,000 t per year for 10 years, despite increasing effort. A population reduction of at least 50% can be inferred through this time. Catch then increased again to over 6,000 t per year, coinciding with a steep increase in effort, before decreasing to ~4,500 t per year since 2004. Since the initial peak of whipray catch in Sarawak in 1997 at 7,700 t, there has been a 52% decrease (Zeller and Pauly 2016). Overall, in Malaysia, whiprays are suspected to have been reduced by over 50% across all regions in the past 10–20 years. When scaled to three generation lengths of the Blotched Fantail Ray (75 years), this indicates a suspected population reduction 94–99%.

There are four lines of evidence throughout Indonesia that can be used to infer population trends, three catch reconstructions and a research survey trend: catch reconstruction for eastern Indonesia, central Indonesia, and the Indian Ocean portion of Indonesian EEZ specifically western Sumatra and Java (hereafter ‘Indian Ocean’), and research survey data in 1976 and 1997 in the Java Sea that can be used to show changes in relative abundance. Catch of whiprays increased throughout Indonesia starting in the 1960s. In eastern Indonesia, catch has since decreased 45% between 1998 at 300 t and the early 2000s to the most recent catch estimate of 167 t in 2014 (Zeller and Pauly 2016). In central Indonesia, whipray catch increased by 550% throughout the early-1970s to 2000, from 30 t to >200 t per year (Zeller and Pauly 2016). Catch has decreased by 45% since the early 2000s (Zeller and Pauly 2016). Catches are still increasing in the Indian Ocean; however, this increase may be related to increasing fishing effort and demand for rays in the area and likely does not reflect the actual population trend (Blaber et al. 2009). These rising catches are unsustainable and instead arise from shifts in fishing effort into deeper waters due to decreased catch closer to shore (Dharmadi pers. comm. 18 May 2020). Finally, research surveys from 1976 to 1997 shows more than a 90% decline in ray catch-per-unit-effort throughout the Java Sea in 20 years (Blaber et al. 2009). With the increased catch through parts of Indonesia there has also been increased effort and therefore, catch-per-unit-effort is likely decreasing, suggesting an overall decrease in the population of sharks, rays, and chimaeras (White and Dharmadi 2007). Considering these catch trends, the suspected population reduction of Blotched Fantail Ray in Indonesia is 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (75 years).

In Australia, Blotched Fantail Ray population is suspected to be stable based on limited catch rates, well-managed fisheries, and significant parts of its range that are unfished or subject to minimal fishing effort (Kyne et al. 2021). Similarly, it is frequently encountered in Pacific Island nations, where fishing pressure is lower. Actual levels of exploitation are high across much of the range of this species and declines in whiprays or rays can be considered representative of population reduction of the Blotched Fantail Ray. Furthermore, the extensive loss and degradation of habitats such as coastal mangroves are another key threat to this coastal and inshore species. While population declines over the past three generation lengths (75 years) of the Blotched Fantail Ray are suspected to be high (>50%) across parts of Southeast Asia, declines elsewhere in its range are suspected to be <50% with stable populations suspected in Australia and across the Pacific. Further, this species is still regularly encountered in parts of the Western Indian Ocean where they are discarded or have refuge in coral associated habitats. Overall, it is suspected that the Blotched Fantail Ray has undergone a 30–49% population reduction over the past three generation lengths (75 years) due to levels of exploitation and habitat degradation, and it is assessed as Vulnerable A2cd.

The Blotched Fantail Ray is demersal on soft substrates around coral reef habitats. It occurs on the continental shelf to ~500 m depth, though is more common in shallower waters (Last et al. 2016, Weigmann 2016). It reaches a maximum size of 180 cm disc width (DW) (Last et al. 2016). Males mature at 100–110 cm DW and female size-at-maturity is unknown (Last et al. 2016). Reproduction is viviparous with a litter size of up to seven pups (Compagno et al. 1989, Last et al. 2016), and size-at-birth is 30–35 cm DW (Last et al. 2016). As there is no information on this species’ age-at-maturity and maximum age, generation length was inferred as 25 years based on data for the Blackspotted Whipray (Maculabatis astra). Female Blackspotted Whiprays have an age-at-maturity of nine years and maximum age of 29 years (Jacobsen and Bennett 2011), resulting in a generation length of 19 years. The maximum size of the Blotched Fantail Ray is considerably larger than that of the Blackspotted Whipray (80 cm DW), therefore, generation length has been scaled and estimated to be 25 years.

The Blotched Fantail Ray is caught across its range as target and incidental catch by a wide range of coastal fisheries that include demersal trawl, Danish seine, gillnet, dropline and longline, and handline gears (White et al. 2006, Blaber et al. 2009). It is retained in some parts of its range for the meat and high-value skin. Its preference for inshore coastal waters increases its susceptibility to capture with much of its range outside of Australia intensively fished.

Marine fisheries catches reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in the Western Indian Ocean (FAO region 51), have increased over the past 30 years but have levelled off since 1999 suggesting stocks are fully fished. There is concern for serial depletion with the number of species landed near-doubling from only 85 in 1971 to 152 reported in 2000 (van der Elst et al. 2005). More than 60 million people reside within 100 km of the coast of the Western Indian Ocean and there is great dependence on marine resources for food and employment (Obura et al. 2017). In contrast to many other regions of the world, where industrial fisheries with high-technical gear predominate, fishers in the Western Indian Ocean operate primarily at the subsistence and artisanal level. For example, in Tanzania, no more than 5% of fishers are active in industrial fishing, the other 95% being artisanal (van der Elst et al. 2005). Artisanal catches are underreported and most small-scale, artisanal, and subsistence coastal fisheries within the Western Indian Ocean are considered to be fully- or overexploited, especially where they are found close to population centres. The number of underexploited fisheries in the coastal zone has tended to decline and such fisheries are now an exception (e.g., Pierce et al. 2008). Stingrays, including Blotched Fantail Ray, dominated the small-scale fisheries across Kenya, Zanzibar, and northern Madagascar from 2016–2017 and were captured by handline, longline, bottom-set, and drift gillnet gear (Temple et al. 2019).

In Pakistan waters, about 2,000 trawlers operate in shelf waters, targeting shrimp in shallow waters and fish in outer shelf waters (M. Khan pers. comm. 2017). Since 2011, there was an increase in fishing pressure on large stingrays, like this species, due to increased demand for export of frozen wings to Thailand and Malaysia (M. Khan pers. comm. 2023). In Iran, there is increasing fishing effort with the number of fishers increasing from 70,729 in 1993 to 109,601 in 2002 (Valinassab et al. 2006).

In India, juvenile rays are found in estuaries and high fishing effort, particularly with stake and doll nets, occurs in this habitat. The majority of the geographic distribution of this species in the region overlaps with intense coastal fisheries. The shallow depth distribution means this species is unlikely to have a depth refuge. There has been a significant increase in coastal fishing effort and power over the past 30 years. There were about 6,600 trawlers operating in the Indian state of Gujarat in the early 2000s that increased to 11,582 trawlers by 2010 (Zynudheen et al. 2004, CMFRI 2010). Furthermore, there were over 13,400 gill netters operating along the west coast (CMFRI 2010). Though the number of gill netters has decreased slightly to 6,548, the number of trawlers has almost tripled in 10 years to 30,772, in addition to other types of net gear deployed in coastal areas (CMFRI-FSI-DoF 2020).

In Sri Lanka, there are ~65,000 vessels operating with most fishing occurring on the coast (~93%) (MFARD 2015). There is a heavy reliance on fisheries, both direct and indirect, through the employment of ~550,000 people and supply of ~67% of animal protein in the diet of Sri Lankans (Herath et al. 2019). Per capita fish consumption in Sri Lanka is increasing, and ranged from 12–15 kg per annum in 2016 (Herath et al. 2019). In Bangladesh, the marine capture fisheries can be subdivided into subsistence (small-scale, non-commercial), artisanal (small-scale, commercial), and industrial (large-scale, commercial) fisheries sectors. Among the commercial catch, more than 90% is landed by artisanal fishing vessels, while industrial fisheries contribute around 6% to the total landed catch (Ahmad 2004). Each trawling vessel is equipped with trawl gear as well as demersal set longline gear to target shark and rays. There has been an increase in fishing vessels over the past 10 years. Many trawlers in the southwest region of the country will go out to sea for 5–10 days and sometimes more than 15 days and return with greater landings of larger ray species (Haque et al. 2022). Bangladesh has a substantial artisanal fishing fleet that operates throughout the coastal regions. In 2017–2018 there were 67,669 vessels reported to be operating (DoF 2018). All benthic rays in Bangladesh are targeted with non-baited demersal longlines (1–10 km) with 10,000–30,000 hooks that operate in 5–40 m depth (Haque et al. 2022). Anecdotal reports indicate a steep decline in rays since 2004 (Ullah et al. 2014, Haque et al. 2022). This decline is concurrent with steep increases in artisanal and subsistence fisheries effort (Pauly et al. 2020).

In Myanmar, since 2004, sharks and rays are largely taken as incidental catch (Howard et al. 2015, Mizrahi et al. 2020). These inshore fisheries are relatively small-scale and include many subsistence level fishers. At times since 1950, significant numbers of foreign vessels have operated in Myanmar waters targeting fish and shrimp. These vessels have operated in both inshore and offshore areas. International Labour Organisation (2015) estimated the number of vessels participating in the small-scale inshore fishery to be about 26,000 in 2013, with about 50% of them unpowered. The number of locally operated larger offshore vessels numbered 2,846 in 2013, having increased nearly 30% since 2009. Foreign fishing vessels numbered 153 in 2013, but had historically been much higher. Foreign vessels were banned in 2014.

In Thailand, the gulf coast is considered one of the most overfished regions of the world due to the rapid industrialization of their fishing fleet (Sylwester 2014). The number of Thai trawlers peaked in 1989 at ~13,100 boats (Poonnachit-Korsieporn 2000), which was reflected in the catch-per-unit-effort which declined from >300 kg per hour in 1963 to 20–30 kg per hour in the 1990s (Poonnachit-Korsieporn 2000). As of 2020, the number of trawlers operating in Thailand is 3,555 vessels, with ~4,000 net operators, >8,000 hook and line operators, and >4,000 other vessels (SEAFDEC 2023). In Malaysia, fishing effort has been increasing since 1950 (Pauly et al. 2020). The number of vessels across all sectors has more than doubled from 22,800 vessels in 1950 to 50,150 vessels in 2014 and fisheries were fully exploited by the late 1970s (Teh and Teh 2014, Zeller and Pauly 2016). Yet, the fleet in Malaysia remains large with almost 49,000 vessels operating in 2020 (SEAFDEC 2023). Small-scale inshore fisheries provide the main supply for local consumption (Teh et al. 2009).

In Indonesia, small-scale fisheries comprise most (~90%) of fisheries production (Tull 2014). In some regions, effort by these small-scale fisheries has tripled when taking population growth into account (Ramenzoni 2017). Sharks and rays are an important resource in Indonesia and are the main livelihood for some communities (Sadili et al. 2020). Indonesia catches the highest number of chondrichthyans in the world with the catch of rays rising as shark fisheries collapse. In 2003, rays comprised over 50% of chondrichthyan landings, up from 32% in 1981 (White et al. 2006). Stingrays contribute the most (more than 95%) to elasmobranch catch by Danish seines (cantrang) operating in the Java Sea (Fahmi et al. 2008). Intensive longline and gillnetting occurs throughout the Malacca Strait, with some mini-trawl operations and Danish seines operating throughout Kalimantan and the Java Sea (Fahmi pers. comm. 15 May 2020). Thus, the actual level of exploitation of this species could be extremely high throughout the Indonesian portion of its range.

In the Philippines, all incidental catch appears to be retained as discards are virtually non-existent (Palomares and Pauly 2014). The fishing fleet in the Philippines rapidly expanded in the 1960s and 1970s as small-scale artisanal fisheries became motorized and evolved into commercial fisheries. By the 1980s, overfishing was apparent throughout the Philippines, but government and foreign aid continued to subsidize motorizing of artisanal vessels into the late 1990s (Palomares et al. 2014). The commercial fleet operating in the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone tripled from the 1960s (2,100 vessels) to 2014 (6,400 vessels) (Palomares et al. 2014). ‘Baby trawlers’ operate intensively in inshore waters and in waters less than 13 m deep, waters traditionally reserved for small-scale artisanal fishers (Palomares et al. 2014). The small-scale fleet increased ten-fold from 1950 (~30,500 vessels) to the mid-1990s (~ 338,700 vessels) and while the fleet size has since remained relatively stable, the effort in terms of engine power has continued to rise, as has the number of subsistence vessels (Pauly et al. 2020).

This species has some refuge from fishing pressure in northern Australia where fishing pressure is relatively limited and managed, and trawl fisheries mandate the use of bycatch reduction devices that have reduced the catch of large rays by >95%, although juveniles may not be effectively excluded (Griffiths et al. 2006). This species’ preference for inshore coastal waters means it is also threatened by extensive habitat degradation, including pollution and clearing, and destructive fishing practices. Large coastal areas, in particular mangroves, have been lost in Indonesia and Malaysia through land conversion for urban development, shrimp farms, and agriculture. Across Indonesia and Malaysia from 1980 to 2005, the area of mangroves was reduced by >30% (FAO 2007, Polidoro et al. 2010).

The Blotched Fantail Ray is used for mainly for its meat, but also for its highly-valued skin and cartilage (White et al. 2006, Last et al. 2010, A. Haque pers. obs). Throughout the Southeast Asian portion of its range, the meat is consumed fresh or dried and salted for human consumption. In Indonesia and Malaysia, the meat is considered good quality and is consumed locally and traded internationally (Dharmadi et al. 2020). Larger rays, like this species, are very desirable in Bangladesh and Indonesia for their meat (Haque and Spaet 2021, Fahmi, unpub. data). There has been some increase in the demand of ray meat in cosmopolitan areas in Bangladesh and some anecdotal information suggests in restaurants as well (Haque et al. 2022). Skins from this species do not tend to be exported from Bangladesh as part of the leather trade (A. Haque pers. obs).

No species-specific measures are in place. In a management risk assessment, this species was found to not be sufficiently managed and at high risk of overfishing in all 15 nations assessed (S. Sherman unpub. data). The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman have banned trawling in their waters while Iran, Pakistan, and India have seasonal trawl bans that might benefit the species. In India, the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park and Sunderbans Biosphere Reserve could protect this species (Sherman et al. 2020). Kuwait is the only country across the range of this species with regulations specifically banning catches of rays. There has been limited management of shark and rays in Myanmar. In 2004, two shark reserves were designated in the Myeik Archipelago where targeting sharks and rays is prohibited (Notification 2/2004) (Howard et al. 2015). In 2008, a nationwide ban on the targeting of sharks was announced. Despite the nationwide ban sharks and rays continue to be captured in large numbers, partly because there is little or no enforcement, and little knowledge of it in fishing communities (MacKeracher et al. 2020).

In the Philippines in 1981, there were 5-year closures of the trawl and purse seine fisheries in the waters of Bohol, Cebu, and Negros Oriental and in 1983 in Batangas (Palomares and Pauly 2014, FAO 2020b). In 1998, active fishing gears, including trawlers, ‘baby trawlers’, purse seines, and tuna longlines, were prohibited within municipal marine waters (<3 nautical miles (nm) from shore). In 1998, a ban was also legislated on muro ami gear (an encircling net and pounding devices) and other gear destructive to coral reefs and marine habitats (FAO 2020b). Trawlers within commercial waters have been required since 2010 to use Juvenile and Trashfish Excluder Devices under the Fisheries Administrative Order 237 series of 2010 (Sherman et al. 2020), which may reduce the retention of larger sharks and rays (Brewer et al. 2006). In the Philippines, there are ~>1,800 MPAs (NFRDI 2017, CTI 2020). Some of these MPAs are known to provide shark and ray protection including Donsol, Malapascua, Cagayancillo MPAs, and Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (NFRDI 2017, Murray et al. 2018). Throughout Indonesia there are 196 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and in Malaysia, there are 51 MPAs (CTI 2020). Although the species may occur in these MPAs, most MPAs in the region are not well enforced and unlikely to provide any tangible relief from fishing pressure. Australia mandates the use of bycatch reduction devices in trawl fisheries and across most of the Australian range, there is a prohibition on retention of sharks and rays. The recreational line fishery in South Africa is managed by a bag limit of one species per person per day for unspecified chondrichthyans, which includes Blotched Fantail Ray. Further research is needed on population size and trends, and life history, and catch rates should be monitored.