In addition, proponents and land managers should refer to the Recovery Plan (where available) or the Conservation Advice (where available) for recovery, mitigation and conservation information.
|EPBC Act Listing Status||Listed as Conservation Dependent|
|Listing and Conservation Advices||
Commonwealth Listing Advice on Galeorhinus galeus (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2009b) [Listing Advice].
|Adopted/Made Recovery Plans|
|Policy Statements and Guidelines||
Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened fish. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.4
(Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC), 2011i) [Admin Guideline].
Marine bioregional plan for the South-west Marine Region (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC), 2012z) [Admin Guideline].
The School Shark Rebuilding Strategy 2008 (Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), 2009d) [Information Sheet].
Addendum to the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy 2008 (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2009d) [Information Sheet].
Federal Register of
Inclusion of species in the list of threatened species under section 178 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (75) (11/01/2009) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009o) [Legislative Instrument].
|Non-statutory Listing Status||
|Scientific name||Galeorhinus galeus |
|Species author||Linnaeus, 1758|
This is an indicative distribution map of the present distribution of the species based on best available knowledge. See map caveat for more information.
Scientific: Galeorhinus galeus
Common Name: School Shark
Other Names: Eastern School Shark, Snapper Shark, Tope, Soupfin Shark
Galeorhinus was previously thought to comprise several different species in different parts of the world, but was recognised as only a single species, Galeorhinus galeus, by Compagno (1984 cited in Stevens 2005).
The School Shark is a moderately slender, bronze-grey shark with a very large sub-terminal lobe on the caudal fin (giving it a double-tailed appearance); a small second dorsal fin; relatively long snout; very small anterior nasal flaps; and sub-triangular teeth with oblique cusps and lateral cusplets (Last & Stevens 1994; Stevens 2005).
The size of adults varies between regions. In Australia, pups are born 30 cm long and adults grow to 175 cm long (Last & Stevens 1994). In the North Atlantic, adults regularly grow to 195 cm long (Last & Stevens, 1994). The average weight of this species is 612 kg with a maximum weight of 33 kg (Daley et al. 2002a).
The School Shark often occur in small schools composed predominately of individuals of the same sex and age group (Last & Stevens 1994).
The School Shark occurs throughout the temperate coastal waters of southern Australia. They are found from Moreton Bay, in southern Queensland, to Perth, Western Australia, including offshore waters of Lord Howe Island and Tasmania (Pogonoski et al. 2002). The School Shark moves extensively throughout the waters of southern Australia (TSSC 2009b). This species is mainly found in demersal waters, over the continental and insular shelves, but also over the upper slopes, in depths from near shore to 550 m (Last & Stevens 1994). Inshore areas are particularly important as birthing and nursery sites (TSSC 2009b).
The School Shark is commercially fished and is primarily caught in the Gillnet, Hook and Trap (GHAT) sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF); however, the species is also caught in fisheries of Western Australia and the eastern states. Historically, the School Shark was taken predominantly on longlines, but the GHAT is now primarily a gillnet fishery that targets Gummy Shark (Mustelus antarcticus), with School Shark taken as bycatch (McLoughlin 2007). The School Shark is considered overfished in the SESSF. A stock rebuilding strategy has been developed in accordance with the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy which requires formal rebuilding strategies for all fishery species that are below their biomass limit reference point (AFMA 2009d).
The School Shark is distributed world-wide in temperate waters (Compagno et al. 2005). It is found in the western and eastern North Atlantic, western South Atlantic, eastern North and South Pacific, and off South Africa, New Zealand, Hawaii and southern Australia (Last & Stevens 1994; McLoughlin 2007).
Globally, School Shark numbers are declining. Intensive fishing by the Californian fishery caused stock collapse of this species. Global populations are estimated to have decreased by over 20% in the past 6075 years (three generations) (Stevens 2005).
The School Shark is threatened internationally by uncontrolled targeted fisheries, incidental and purposeful catch of pregnant females and juveniles around nursery grounds, habitat loss (especially of inshore pupping areas) and installation of high voltage direct current sub-sea cables across their migration lanes which disrupt the electric sensors sharks use to feed and navigate (Walker et al. 2005).
A number of tagged individuals have been tracked moving between Australia and New Zealand, in both directions (Stevens 2005). The relationship between Australian populations and those in other regions is not clear. Genetic studies using mitochondrial DNA have revealed restricted gene flow between eastern New Zealand and Australia (Ward & Gardner 1997). Australian and New Zealand School Shark populations are therefore regarded as separate stocks for management purposes (McLoughlin 2007; Ward & Gardner 1997).
The 2001 stock assessment estimated that there were 1.1 million School Sharks in Australia in 1999, excluding pups. It is known that more than 80% of pups do not survive their first year (Punt & Pribac 2001 cited in AFMA 2009d). While there are insufficient data at present to determine whether current stocks are declining, stable or rebuilding, management measures implemented progressively since 2001 to protect the species may have been effective (AFMA 2009d).
The size of the Australian population of the School Shark has decreased significantly over the last 50 years (Stevens 2005). Pup production is considered to be the most appropriate indicator for shark abundance and the 2001 assessment indicated that pup production was between 914% of unexploited levels (McLoughlin 2007), indicating a decline in the species of at least 86% between 1927 and 1999. Consequently, lower catch levels have reduced the confidence in Catch Per Unit Effort data that has previously been used to assess the abundance of School Shark stocks. However, an assessment by SharkRAG in 2007 concluded that while School Shark stocks were still very low, decline in abundance had halted and the stock was showing some signs of stabilising (SharkRAG 2007).
The Commonwealth Government Harvest Strategy Policy (DAFF 2007) allows that declines of up to 60% are acceptable for a commercially harvested species where depletion is a managed outcome, depending on the biology of the species. Given the life history characteristics of the School Shark, in particular its low reproductive rate and slow growth compared to the high fecundity and moderate growth of most commercially harvested bony fish species, the decline of this species numbers is severe (TSSC 2009b).
The number of School Sharks caught during surveys conducted between Sydney (NSW) and Gabo Island (north-east Victoria) by a NSW Fisheries Research vessel in 197677 and again in 199697 illustrate population trend for this species (Graham et al. 1997, 2001). In the years 19761977, the catch rate of the survey vessel was 3.4 kg/h with this species common off Ulladulla and Eden. In contrast, no School Shark were caught when the vessel returned to survey the same waters in 199697 (Graham et al. 1997, 2001).
The generation length of the School Shark may be between 2025 years (Stevens 2005).
The School Shark is most abundant in cold to temperate continental seas, from the surfline and very shallow water to well offshore (Compagno et al. 2005). It is primarily a deep water demersal (bottom-dwelling) species, although individuals have been recorded undertaking daily vertical migrations, remaining at depths of around 500 metres during the day and moving up to around 100 metres at night (McLoughlin 2007). Females and juveniles utilise inshore coastal areas around Victoria, Tasmania and parts of South Australia for nursery areas (Pogonoski et al. 2002).
Similar to most shark species, the School Shark has low fecundity compared to most bony fish species (TSSC 2009b). Males attain sexual maturity at 125135 cm, and females at between 134140 cm (Stevens 2005). Maturity is estimated to occur at 10 years with reproduction occurring every 23 years (Fenton 2001; Stevens 2005; TSSC 2009b). Life expectancy is estimated to be more than 55 years (Fenton 2001; Stevens 2005). In the absence of fishing, mortality is expected to be low, with a natural mortality rate of about 0.100.26 (Stevens 2005).
Female School Sharks give birth to 15–43 pups (average 26, maximum 54) at 30–35 cm in length (Stevens 2005; TSSC 2009b). The young develop within eggs that remain within the mother's body until they hatch, when they emerge as live young (ovoviviparous). Pups are born in spring or summer (in December and January off southern Australia), after a gestation period of 12 months (McLoughlin 2007; Pogonoski et al. 2002; Stevens 2005). In Australia, females are reported to breed every second year.
School Sharks depend on inshore nursery areas (shallow sheltered bays, estuaries and inlets) as habitat for females giving birth and for juveniles. Pups in such habitat feed on a variety of mainly seagrass associated fauna in the sediment (Olsen 1954; Walker et al. 2005). The most important pupping areas identified were around Tasmania, particularly in the south-east, and in Victoria, including Port Phillip Bay, Western Port Bay and Corner Inlet (AFMA 2009d). This preferred birthing habitat makes this species vulnerable to predation, fishing, habitat destruction and pollution (Olsen 1954; Walker et al. 2005).
Adult School Sharks are predatory and feed mainly on teleost (ray-finned) fish and bottom-associated species, but may also feed on pelagic species (Stevens 2005). Squid and octopus, as well as other cephalopods are also important constituents of their diet. The diet of juvenile School Shark may include a higher proportion of crustaceans, annelids and gastropods (Stevens 2005).
The School Shark undertakes long migrations of up to 2500 km in the north-east Atlantic and 1400 km in southern Australia. These migrations are thought to be associated with reproduction (Last & Stevens 1994). Movements and mixing across the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand have been recorded from tagged individuals (Stevens 2005). Despite extensive migrations within regions, studies of different global populations indicate that each region hosts a genetically distinct population. Within regions it is suspected that there may be localised subpopulations (TSSC 2009b).
In an effort to study migrations, CSIRO marine researchers are tagging School Sharks with data-logging tags that can record depth, water temperature and light levels for up to two years (Johnson 1999). Individuals have been recorded undertaking daily vertical migrations, remaining at depths of around 500 m during the day and moving to around 100 m at night (McLoughlin 2007).
The current mature biomass of the School Shark has been estimated to be below 20% of the pre-fishing level (Walker et al. 2005).
Australian fishing pressure
The main threat identified for school shark is fishing pressure. Fishing for the School Shark in Australia began in 1927 in eastern Bass Strait using hooks, with catches reaching 400 t/year to 500 t/year by the mid 1930s (AFMA 2009d). The fishery continued to grow throughout the 1940s, spreading to eastern South Australia and Tasmania as demand for both meat and shark liver oil grew. Demand for shark liver oil fell in the 1950s and catches declined until demand for meat grew again in the 1960s (AFMA 2009d).
Gillnets were introduced to the fishery in 1964 and catches grew rapidly, peaking in 1969 at over 2500 t/year. The landing of large School Shark was banned in 1972 due to concerns about mercury levels which saw a large shift in effort to Gummy Shark. Once the mercury ban was lifted catches of School Shark again increased, mainly based on catches from Tasmania and South Australia (AFMA 2009d). Targeted fishing does not currently affect the School Shark, however this species is taken as Gummy Shark bycatch in Australian fisheries (Stevens 2005).
Global fishing pressure
The School Shark has long been the target of directed fisheries in most parts of its range. School Shark are harvested for meat, liver oil (squalene) and fins (Stevens 2005). An intensive fishery operating in California between 19371945 took over 24 million tonnes of School Shark, resulting in a rapid population crash and closure of the fishery (Stevens 2005). In the Southwest Atlantic, School Shark have suffered intense declines yet continue to be fished. In the Brazilian and Uruguayan Fisheries, the catch per unit energy rate of the School Shark has declined to almost zero (Walker et al. 2005).
The School Shark population in southern Australia appears to have been affected by historic fishing pressure and ongoing habitat degradation to inshore nursery areas (TSSC 2009b). Some pupping areas in southern Australia have been closed to targeted shark fishing (including all large mesh netting), however degraded habitat is restricting recruitment and recovery.
Declines in abundance of neonatal and juvenile School Sharks have been documented in inshore and coastal waters off Victoria and southern Tasmania, although the causes for the decline are difficult to conclusively identify (TSSC 2009b).
The condition of, and threats to, School Shark nursery grounds have not been assessed across the species' Australian distribution, making it difficult to determine the extent of the impact of nursery habitat degradation on the species as a whole (TSSC 2009b).
Fishing at nursery sites
Fisheries (commercial and recreational) operating in and around nursery areas threaten the School Shark populations by intercepting gravid females during their pupping migration, and by increasing mortality of juveniles (Stevens 2005).
Intensive fishing of juvenile School Sharks in Port Phillip Bay in the 1940s (60 000 juveniles were caught annually between 1943 and 1945) caused rapid localised declines (Stevens 2005). Since the 1950s, only small numbers of School Shark have been caught anywhere in Port Phillip Bay. However, it must be noted that stock collapse in Port Phillip Bay may be the result of heavy industry development, especially near Geelong. Nevertheless, declines in abundance of juveniles in two Tasmanian nursery areas was attributed to intensified fishing of juveniles in inshore areas such as Port Phillip Bay. A continuation of this nursery area survey during the 1990s showed a substantial further reduction in abundance of School Shark pups and small juveniles in Tasmanian and Victorian embayments and estuaries (Olsen 1959; Stevens 2005; Walker et al. 2005).
Overfishing of nursery grounds in Argentina are expected to cause stock collapse within the next 510 years if the current intensity levels continue (Walker et al. 2005).
Nursery degradation is limiting the recruitment and recovery of the School Shark (AFMA 2009d). Since nursery areas are often located in inshore bays and estuaries they are vulnerable to the effects of habitat destruction (for example, loss of seagrass habitat), coastal development and pollution (sediment and chemical run-off) caused by increasing human populations in coastal areas (Stevens 2005). Moreover, changes to coastal habitats, such as the draining of swamps and the clearing of mangroves, is reducing the value of some pupping sites for the School Shark.
The Geelong Arm in the western region of Port Phillip Bay was identified as an important nursery area for the species, and this area has been subject to pollution from heavy industrial activity (Walker 1998).
As a key commercial species caught within a Commonwealth fishery, the management of the School Shark falls under the Commonwealth Government Harvest Strategy Policy, an overarching policy for sustainable commercial fisheries management that is based on a series of biological reference points (DAFF 2007). While the School Shark is no longer targeted within the SESSF, the Harvest Strategy Policy considers that it is a key commercial species because it has previously been targeted and was then considered a significant component of the fishery (TSSC 2009b).
The School Shark is accepted to be below their minimum limit reference point under the Harvest Strategy Policy and are therefore the subject of a Rebuilding Strategy developed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA 2009d). The School Shark Rebuilding Strategy describes a series of management measures and responses designed to recover School Shark to a prescribed target biomass within a biologically reasonable timeframe (AFMA 2009d; TSSC 2009b).
The School Shark Rebuilding Strategy
The School Shark Rebuilding Strategy is a major policy to rebuild School Shark stocks and to implement a sustainable maximum harvest yield. A number of management actions are highlighted in the strategy and include (AFMA 2009d):
- Area closures: protection of important aggregation areas including pupping and nursery grounds, and migration areas. An area already closed includes the head of the Great Australian Bight; further closes include automatic longline closure in waters shallower that 183 m.
- Gear restrictions and selectivity: aimed at targeting medium sized sharks and allowing escape of small and large sized individuals.
- Catch limits: currently 240 t as unavoidable by catch from Gummy Shark operations, will be reviewed and adjusted (if necessary) annually.
- Compliance: compulsory use of the Vessel Monitoring System, 510% observer coverage and targeted reporting scrutiny.
- Other measures: minimum length (450 mm), precessing standards for landing sharks, limited entry (limited to current number of concession holders) and structural adjustments (reduction in Statutory Fishing Rights from affected fisheries (for example, the SESSF).
- Future options: further pupping ground closure (dependent on research), identify high risk elevated incidental catch activity and reduction in Gummy Shark, Pink Ling (Genypterus blacodes) and Blue-eye Trevalla (Hyperoglyphe antarctica) total allowable catchs to reduce incidental catch.
Conditions upon listing under the EPBC Act
The Threatened Species Scientific Committee applied performance conditions to the management of School Shark at the time of listing (TSSC 2009d). These conditions aim to assess the impact that the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy (AFMA 2009d) is having on the recovery of this species and include:
- Annual reporting of the performance of the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy (AFMA 2009d) to be evaluated by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.
- New information on the status of the School Shark stock given to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, for evaluation by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.
- Commonwealth negotiations with relevant State agencies to protect the nursery areas of School Shark, as outlined in the Addendum to the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy (TSSC 2009d).
- The listing of School Shark as Conservation Dependent will be subject to five-yearly reviews.
The Addendum to the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy
The Addendum to the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy (TSSC 2009d) provides a framework to assess the impact of recovery implemented by the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy (AFMA 2009d). It has been identified that the Rebuilding Strategy (AFMA 2009d) is insufficient in providing habitat protection measures (TSSC 2009b). Key actions in this statement include (TSSC 2009d):
- Locate and assess condition of historic and current critical nursery habitat; identify previous sites and survey potential sites.
- Identification of causes of degraded nursery habitat; assess impact of turbidity, nutrient loads and changing freshwater flows.
- Development and implementation of plan to improve critical nursery areas; protect nursery habitat and improve seagrass beds.
Paul and Saunders (2001) suggest this species can be recovered by limiting or prohibiting fishing in grounds where critical sizes (juveniles and the largest sharks, particularly females) predominate, using appropriate mesh sizes for setnets and encouraging longline fishers to release caught individuals
Limits and gear restrictions
Management of fishing effort was introduced in 1984 through limiting entry to the Southern Shark Fishery (restricting the number of fishing licences issued). Other action in place and directed at the School Shark include limited permits for the use of gillnets and longlines (since 1984), minimum legal lengths (by early 1950s), gear controls restricting effort in net and hook sectors (since 1988), closure of nursery areas and some inshore waters (195367 and 199394), and restrictions on mesh size (since 1975) (Stevens 2005; Walker et al. 2005).
In 1988, a Management Plan was introduced to control effort through prescribing net lengths; at this time the annual catch of school shark was around 12001500 t/year. Since this time catches have fell to 7501000 t/year (decrease in net lengths in 1991), to 400 t/year (gillnet mesh reduction in 1997) to 240 t/year (total allowable catch in 2007, an estimate of unavoidable incidental catch for Gummy Sharks) (AFMA 2009d). Since then, focus has been on reducing effort per catch unit of Gummy Shark while reducing incidental catch of School Shark (AFMA 2009d). A catch of 240 t is equivalent to 25 000 school shark per annum, or 1.1 % of the total population (AFMA 2009d). SharkRAG estimates the total maximum sustainable yield to be approximately 45% (AFMA 2009d).
The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA 2009d) stipulate that the reduced mesh size policy focuses catch on sub-adults which are more resilient to fishing pressure as they are subject to higher levels of natural mortality than long-lived adults. Modelling suggests that by targeting juveniles and sub-adults a 1015% maximum sustainable yield could be attained as long-lived adults have higher fecundity (AFMA 2009d).
Nursery grounds and fishery closure
Onshore School Shark recovery actions require cooperation between state and local governments. SharkRAG can be used to advise on the benefit, feasibility and likely cost of undertaking research in impacts from coastal development and pollution on pupping grounds (AFMA 2009d). Some known School Shark nursery grounds in South Australia and Tasmania (with 11 designated pupping areas) have been closed to commercial fishing and all Victorian coastal waters are closed to targeted shark fishing. Since 2003, many other closures aimed at protecting school shark have been introduced and these are described in the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy (AFMA 2009d).
Spatial closures to fishing have also been implemented in areas of the Great Australian Bight where pregnant female School Sharks are known to aggregate (AFMA 2009d). The localised depletion of School Sharks in Port Phillip Bay highlights the sensitivity of this species to fishing and habitat disturbance in nursery areas. There have been individual management measures to protect some known School Shark migratory and nursery grounds.
Marine bioregional plans have been developed for four of Australia's marine regions - South-west, North-west, North and Temperate East. Marine Bioregional Plans will help improve the way decisions are made under the EPBC Act, particularly in relation to the protection of marine biodiversity and the sustainable use of our oceans and their resources by our marine-based industries. Marine Bioregional Plans improve our understanding of Australia's oceans by presenting a consolidated picture of the biophysical characteristics and diversity of marine life. They describe the marine environment and conservation values of each marine region, set out broad biodiversity objectives, identify regional priorities and outline strategies and actions to address these priorities. Click here for more information about marine bioregional plans.
The School Shark has been identified as a conservation value in the South-west Marine Region. See Schedule 2 of the South-west Marine Bioregional Plan (DSEWPaC 2012z) for regional advice. The "species group report card - sharks" for the South-west Marine Region provides additional information.
A number of journal articles focus on the management and biology of the School Shark and include Graham and colleagues (2001), Grant and colleagues (1979), Olsen (1953, 1954, 1959), Punt and Walker (1996, 1998), Punt and colleagues (1996), Stanley (1988), Taylor and colleagues (1996) and Xiao (1995).
Consistent with its obligations under the Harvest Strategy Policy, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has developed and implemented a Rebuilding Strategy for School Shark (AFMA 2009d) that describes a series of management measures and responses designed to recover the School Shark to 40% of pre-exploitation levels within a biologically reasonable timeframe. The Addendum to the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy (TSSC 2009d) provides strategies for the onshore recovery of this species.
The following table lists known and perceived threats to this species. Threats are based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) threat classification version 1.1.
|Threat Class||Threatening Species||References|
|Biological Resource Use:Fishing and Harvesting Aquatic Resources:Commercial harvest||Commonwealth Listing Advice on Galeorhinus galeus (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2009b) [Listing Advice].|
|Biological Resource Use:Fishing and Harvesting Aquatic Resources:Harvest by gill netting||Commonwealth Listing Advice on Galeorhinus galeus (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2009b) [Listing Advice].|
|Biological Resource Use:Fishing and Harvesting Aquatic Resources:Mortality due to capture, entanglement/drowning in nets and fishing lines||Commonwealth Listing Advice on Galeorhinus galeus (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2009b) [Listing Advice].|
|Ecosystem/Community Stresses:Ecosystem/Community Stresses:Habitat loss/conversion/quality decline/degradation|
|Pollution:Pollution:Deterioration of water and soil quality (contamination and pollution)|
|Pollution:Pollution:Pollution due to oil spills and other chemical pollutants|
|Residential and Commercial Development:Housing and Urban Areas:Habitat loss, modification and fragmentation due to urban development|
|Species Stresses:Indirect Species Effects:Poor recruitment (regeneration) and declining population numbers|
Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) (2009d). The School Shark Rebuilding Strategy 2008. [Online]. Canberra: AFMA. Available from: http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/school_shark_rebuild.pdf.
Compagno, L., M. Dando & S. Fowler (2005). A Field Guide to the Sharks of the World. London: Harper Collins.
Daley, R., J. Stevens, P.R. Last & G.K. Yearsley (2002a). Field Guide to Australian Sharks and Rays. CSIRO Marine Research and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) (2007). Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines, September 2007. [Online]. Canberra: DAFF. Available from: http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest_strategy_policy.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2011i). Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened fish. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.4 . [Online]. EPBC Act policy statement. Canberra, ACT: DSEWPAC. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/threatened-fish.html.
Fenton, G.E. (2001). Radiometric Aging of Sharks. Final Report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corperation, 94/021 2001.
Graham, K.J., B.R. Wood & N.L. Andrew (1997). The 1996-97 Survey of Upper Slope Trawling Grounds between Sydney and Gabo Island (and Comparisons with the 1976-77 Survey). Kapala Cruise Report No. 117. Cronulla, Australia: NSW Fisheries.
Graham, K.J., N.L. Andrew & K.E. Hodgson (2001). Changes in the relative abundances of sharks and rays on Australian South East Fishery trawl grounds after twenty years of fishing. Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 52:549-561.
Grant, C.J., R.L. Sandland & A.M. Olsen (1979). Estimation of growth, mortality and yield per recruit of the Australian school sharks, Galeorhinus australis (Macleay), from tag recoveries. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 30:625-37.
Johnson, K. (1999). Tagging along with sharks. Ecos. 99:6-8.
Last, P.R. & J.D. Stevens (1994). Sharks and Rays of Australia. Melbourne, Victoria: CSIRO.
McLoughlin, K. (2007). Shark Gillnet and Hook Sectors. In: Larcombe, J. & K. McLoughlin, eds. Fishery Status Reports 2006: Status of Fish Stocks Managed by the Australian Government. Page(s) 174-186. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences.
Olsen, A.M. (1953). Tagging of school shark Galeorhinus australis (Macleay) (Carcharhinidae) in south-eastern Australian waters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 4:95-104.
Olsen, A.M. (1954). The biology, migration, and growth rate of the school shark, Galeorhinus australis (Macleay) (Carcharhinidae) in southeastern Australian waters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 5:353-410.
Olsen, A.M. (1959). The status of the school shark fishery in south-eastern Australian waters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 10:150-76.
Paul, L.J. & B.M. Saunders (2001). A description of the commercial fishery for school shark, Galeorhinus galeus, in New Zealand, 1945 to 1999. In: New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2001/32.
Pogonoski, J.J., D.A. Pollard & J.R. Paxton (2002). Conservation Overview and Action Plan for Australian Threatened and Potentially Threatened Marine and Estuarine Fishes. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Environment Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/marine-fish-action/pubs/marine-fish.pdf.
Punt, A.E. & T.I. Walker (1996). Stock-assessment and risk analysis for 1996 for the school shark Galeorhinus galeus (Linnaeus) off southern Australia using a spatially-aggregated age-structured population dynamics model. Page(s) 49. SharkFAG Document No. SS/96/D9. Canberra: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
Punt, A.E. & T.I. Walker (1998). Stock assessment and risk analysis for the school shark (Galeorhinus galeus) off southern Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 49:719-730.
Punt, A.E., Y. Xiao & B.L. Taylor (1996). Standardization of commercial catch and effort data for school shark Galeorhinus galeus (1973-1994). Page(s) 31. SharkFAG Document No. SS/96/D8. Canberra: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
SharkRAG (2007). 2007 Stock Assessment Report for School Shark (Galeorhinus galeus). Prepared by the Shark Resource Assessment Group (SharkRAG).
Stanley, C.A. (1988). Tagging experiments on school shark (Galeorhinus australis) and gummy shark (Mustelus antarcticus): recapture data for south-eastern Australian releases, 1942 to 1956. Page(s) 92. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report No. 192.
Stevens, J. (2005). Tope or school shark Galeorhinus galeus (Linneaus, 1758). In: Fowler, S.L., R.D. Cavanagh, M. Camhi, G.H. Burgess, G.M. Cailliet, S.V. Fordham, C.A. Simpfendorfer & J.A. Musick, eds. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Gland: IUCN.
Taylor, B.L., A.E. Punt, T.I. Walker & C. Simpfendorfer (1996). Catches of school shark Galeorhinus galeus (1927-1994). Page(s) 14. SharkFAG Document No. SS/96/D7. Canberra; Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2009b). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Galeorhinus galeus. [Online]. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/68453-listing-advice.pdf.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2009d). Addendum to the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy 2008. [Online]. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/68453-addenum-rebuilding-strategy.pdf.
Walker, T.I. (1998). Can shark resources be harvested sustainably? A question revisited with a review of shark fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research. 49:553-572.
Walker, T.I., R.D. Cavanagh & J.D. Stevens (2005). Galeorhinus galeus. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Ward, R.D. & M.G. Gardner (1997). Stock structure and species identification of school and gummy sharks in Australian waters. FRDC Project 93/64. Final Report. Canberra: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
Xiao, Y. (1995). Stock-assessment of the school shark Galeorhinus galeus (Linnaeus) off southern Australia by Schaefer production model. Page(s) 58. SharkFAG Document No. SS/95/D2. Canberra: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
This database is designed to provide statutory, biological and ecological information on species and ecological communities, migratory species, marine species, and species and species products subject to international trade and commercial use protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). It has been compiled from a range of sources including listing advice, recovery plans, published literature and individual experts. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken, by the Commonwealth for its accuracy, currency or completeness. The Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this database. The information contained in this database does not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth. This database is not intended to be a complete source of information on the matters it deals with. Individuals and organisations should consider all the available information, including that available from other sources, in deciding whether there is a need to make a referral or apply for a permit or exemption under the EPBC Act.
Citation: Department of the Environment (2014). Galeorhinus galeus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:50:32 +1000.