Proceedings 2015/036

Proceedings of the Zonal Peer Review of the Recovery Potential Assessment for Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) in Atlantic Canada; February 19-20, 2015

Chairperson: Christie Whelan
Editor: Kristian Curran

Summary

Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) was re-assessed as Endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in May 2014. In support of listing recommendations for Porbeagle by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pursuant to the Species at Risk Act (SARA), Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science has been asked to undertake a Recovery Potential Assessment of the species. On February 19-20, 2015, a Porbeagle Recovery Potential Assessment science advisory meeting was held at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. A Working Paper was discussed on the first day of the meeting, followed by discussion of a Science Advisory Report on the second day of the meeting. Review of the Science Advisory Report was not completed upon adjournment of the meeting. It was agreed by meeting participants that the science lead and meeting chair-person would coordinate completion of a draft report consistent with views expressed at the meeting on the Working Paper, and circulated as a revised draft Science Advisory Report by email for subsequent review and approval. All comments provided on the circulated report were addressed, and incorporated as necessary, jointly by the science lead and meeting chair. In general, meeting participants felt the Science Advisory Report and Working Paper presented sound scientific analyses based on the best available information on Porbeagle. It is noted, that Porbeagle discards and post-release mortality estimates presented at the meeting were grouped by fishery type (e.g. longline), and as such, these estimates might not be attributable equally to individual fishing fleets within groupings. Sincere efforts were made in this science peer review process to acknowledge and address all comments and concerns raised by meeting participants provided they were appropriate and within the confines of acceptable peer review practice.

Complete document (PDF, 158 KB)

Accessibility Notice

This document is available in PDF format. If the document is not accessible to you, please contact the Secretariat to obtain another appropriate format, such as regular print, large print, Braille or audio version.