“…Whilst measuring accurate F c rates is largely dependent on the quality of fisheries observer programmes and fleet coverage (Dapp et al., ; Walsh, Bigelow & Sender, ; Walsh, Ito, Kawamoto & McCracken, ), F r can be challenging to estimate due to cost‐benefit and logistics (Goodyear, ; Horodysky & Graves, ; Kerstetter & Graves, ; Musyl & Gilman, ; Musyl, Brill et al., ; Musyl, Domeier et al, ). It has been hypothesized that F c and F r rates might be expected to show congruence because prognostic factors responsible for F c in fisheries are likely to be many of the same ones acting on F r (Benoît, Hurlbut, Chasse & Jonsen, ; Braccini, Rijn & Frick, ; Campana, Joyce & Manning, ; Dapp et al., , ; Musyl & Gilman, ; Musyl, Brill et al., ; Musyl et al., ). Though there are several indirect and direct methods to estimate F r rates in pelagic sharks, each method has different strengths and weaknesses which impact cost‐benefit and ultimately experimental design and statistical power (Campana, Joyce, Fowler & Showell, ; Goodyear, ; Graves et al., ; Horodysky & Graves, ; Kerstetter & Graves, ; Musyl & Gilman, ; Musyl, Brill et al., ; Musyl et al., ).…”