Formerly a monotypic genus (containing only U. asperrimus), Last et al. (2016) added five more species to Urogymmus, including U. granulatus.

The Mangrove Whipray (Urogymnus granulatus) is a large (to 141 cm disc width (DW)) ray that is widespread in the Indo-West Pacific Oceans from Mozambique to the Solomon Islands and north to the Philippines. It is demersal in inshore and coastal waters, including mangroves, estuaries, sand flats, coral reefs, and broken rocky-sandy substrate from the surface to a depth of at least 85 m. The species is targeted and taken as bycatch across its range with multiple fishing gears including trawl, gill nets, hook and line, and longlines and retained for the meat and, in some countries, the high-value skins. There is a long history of overfishing of inshore populations and fishing pressure remains high, and may be rising, across the species’ entire range, except in Australia. Whiprays larger than 100 cm DW have limited biological productivity and the Mangrove Whipray has an inferred generation length of 20 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 of 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (60 years) of >50% across most of its range with stable populations suspected in Australia. This species has minimal refuge from fishing pressure, which is high and increasing across its range, likely resulting in severe declines. Extensive loss and degradation of coastal habitats have also contributed to population declines. It is suspected that the Mangrove Whipray has undergone a population reduction of 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (60 years) due to actual levels of exploitation and habitat degradation, and it is assessed as Endangered A2cd.

The Mangrove Whipray has a widespread but patchy distribution in the Indo-Pacific Oceans. It is found in Madagascar and the Seychelles, from Mozambiqu to Kenya (Kiilu et al. 2022, S. Sherman unpub. data, R. Bennett and D. Van Beuningen unpub. data), from the Red Sea to Sri Lanka (Jabado et al. 2017), Bangladesh (Haque et al. 2022), and from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands patchily to Palau, Solomon Islands, and Australia (Last et al. 2016, S. Sherman unpub. data). Since the previous assessment (Manjaji Matsumoto et al. 2020), 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 Mangrove Whipray. 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 Mozambique, Tanzania, and Kenya are likely to be leading to population reduction. Whiprays were considered at moderate risk from these fisheries (Temple et al. 2019). This species has been recorded in artisanal landings from Tanzania (one individual in Tanga region of mainland Tanzania) and Kenya, however, their presence in landings is rare, with only a handful of individuals recorded (R. Bennett and D. Van Beuningen unpub. data). The species is apparently rare in the Red Sea, Gulf, Sea of Oman and India (Moore 2012, Bineesh et al. 2014, Bogorodsky et al. 2014, Rastgoo et al. 2016). Moore (2012) reports on two specimens from the region including one from the Gulf of Aqaba in Jordan and one from the Gulf of Aden, Yemen. Bogorodsky et al. (2014) confirms the presence of this species in the Red Sea from a specimen observed off Al-Lith in Saudi Arabia. Rastgoo et al. (2016) also confirms this species from the Gulf from one specimen. It is relatively common off the north coast of Somalia and in the Maldives. In Iran, catches of rays in general have been 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 Mangrove Whipray has declined significantly off Pakistan and India due to intense and increasing fishing activities. In Pakistan, the species was occasionally observed at landing sites in the 1970s and 1980s but has not been observed for the past 40 years suggesting it is either extremely rare or locally extinct (Mozzam and Osmany 2021). 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 ~93% decline over a period of three generations of the Mangrove Whipray (60 years). Combining available information, it is inferred that this species has declined by at least 50% over the past three generations (~60 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.

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 37.5-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 Mangrove Whipray (60 years), this indicates a suspected population reduction 93–99%.

There are three lines of evidence throughout Indonesia that can be used to infer population trends, two catch reconstructions and a research survey trend: catch reconstruction for eastern Indonesia and central Indonesia, 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 decreased 45% since the early 2000s (Zeller and Pauly 2016). 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 Mangrove Whipray in Indonesia is 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (60 years).

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. In Australia, the Mangrove Whipray population is suspected to be stable based on limited catch rates, managed fisheries, and significant parts of its range that are unfished or with minimal fishing effort (Kyne et al. 2021).

Actual levels of exploitation are high across most of the range of this species and declines in whiprays or rays can be considered representative of population reduction of the Mangrove Whipray. Furthermore, the extensive loss and degradation of habitats such as coastal mangroves are another key threat to this coastal and inshore species contributing to declines. Population declines over the past three generation lengths (60 years) of the Mangrove Whipray are suspected to be high (>50%) across most of its range with stable populations suspected in Australia. Overall, it is suspected that the Mangrove Whipray has undergone a 50–79% population reduction over the past three generation lengths (60 years) due to levels of exploitation and habitat degradation, and it is assessed as Endangered A2cd.

The Mangrove Whipray is demersal and prefers shallow inshore waters, including mangroves, estuaries, sand flats, coral reefs, and broken rocky-sandy substrate, although adults may move offshore to depths of at least 85 m (White et al. 2006; B.M. Manjaji-Matsumoto and W. White pers. obs. 2007). It reaches a maximum size of at least 141 cm disc width (DW), males mature at 55–65 cm DW and female size-at-maturity is unknown (Last et al. 2016). Reproduction is viviparous and size-at-birth is ~14 cm DW (White et al. 2006, Last et al. 2016). As there is no information on this species’ age-at-maturity and maximum age, generation length was inferred as 20 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 Mangrove Whipray is considerably larger (~140 cm DW) than that of the Blackspotted Whipray (80 cm DW) so it is possible the generation length of the Mangrove Whipray could be greater than 20 years.

The Mangrove Whipray 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). Whiprays dominated the small-scale fisheries across northern Madagascar, Zanzibar, and Kenya 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, but fishing takes place mostly in 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). There are over 1,150,000 fishing vessels operating in Indonesia, more than 1 million of which are powered vessels (SEAFDEC 2023). 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). These patterns of stingrays comprising higher numbers of chondrichthyan landings still persists (Fahmi pers. comm. 15 May 2020). 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), but has since been reduced to 5,557 vessels in 2020 (SEAFDEC 2023). ‘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 whiprays by >95%, although juveniles may not be effectively excluded (Griffiths et al. 2006). This species' preference for shallow inshore waters makes it particularly sensitive to extensive and intensive artisanal and industrial fisheries operating throughout large areas of its range, as well as habitat destruction and pollution (Vidthayanon 1997, Davy et al. 2015; B.M. Manjaji-Matsumoto and W. White pers. obs. 2007). Juveniles and sub-adults are targeted in mangrove areas and destruction of mangrove forests are having a significant effect on this species (W. White pers. obs. 2007). Mangrove forests throughout Southeast Asia and large areas of the Eastern Indian Ocean have been deforested and degraded (FAO 2007). In this region, ~1.9 million hectares of mangroves have been logged during the last 25 years (FAO 2007). More than 90% of this loss has been caused by destruction of mangrove area in Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia, (areas where this species occurs) through conversion of land for shrimp farms, excessive logging, conversion of land for agriculture or salt pans and degradation through oil spills and pollution (FAO 2007, Polidoro et al. 2010). Even in well-managed mangrove areas that are protected from destruction, for example, the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in Ranong, Thailand (designated in 1997), this species may still face threats from local fisheries on which the people living in the reserve primarily depend (FAO 2007).

The Mangrove Whipray is used mainly for its meat, but also for its highly-valued skin and cartilage (White et al. 2006, Last et al. 2010). 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 and skin (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. 2021b, Haque et al. 2022). The skins from large rays are exported from Bangladesh to Myanmar and from Indonesia to Thailand and Malaysia to be made into accessories (e.g., handbags) (Haque et al. 2022, D'Alberto et al. 2022). Smaller rays' skins are too small to be utilized.

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 seven of the eight nations assessed, Australia being the only one with sufficient management (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). 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.

To conserve the population and to permit recovery, a suite of measures will be required which may include species protection, spatial management, bycatch mitigation, and harvest and trade management measures (including international trade measures). Effective enforcement of measures will require ongoing training and capacity-building (including in the area of species identification). Catch monitoring is needed to help understand population trends and inform management.