It is restricted to the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and western Indian Ocean,[4] but was formerly considered more widespread due to confusion with its relatives.

[6] A large fish reaching up to 3.1 m (10 ft) long and weighing as much as 227 kg (500 lb),[5] it is brownish or greyish above with a variable pattern of white spots.

[4] In addition to this, the guitarfish can also be characterized by the large black eyespots on the pectoral bases and a distinct pointed snout.

[6] The species may be confused with the distantly related common shovelnose ray, from which it differs in a smaller first dorsal fin set farther back on the body; a more rounded head with a prominent snout; a lack of upper jaw indentations; and larger skin denticles.

[7] The giant guitarfish is considered ovoviviparous, where the embryos initially feed on the yolk and then receive more nourishment from uterine fluid enriched with mucus which is obtained by means of indirect absorption.

[5][8] Giant guitarfishes have been exploited as incidental catch, and as a result, it has led to severe declines, reduced population size, and disappearances.

Though the giant is labeled as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List, there is no specific data for the species that could be used to calculate the number of individuals in the decreasing population.

Additionally, the Indonesian Aru Islands wedgefish gillnet fishery had rapidly expanded their industry from the mid-1970s to its peak in 1987, operating with more than five hundred boats.

Shortly afterward, the catch rate of the fish declined significantly and only a hundred boats remained in the area by 1996.

By 1992, a wedgefish fishery in the Arafura Sea had been withdrawn because the area had been significantly overfished and the Indonesian investors only obtained limited returns from their investment.

[11] Concerning the catch rates at varying levels of taxonomy, five contemporary datasets are available for accounted data ranging from Iran, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia.

These decreases are the equivalent of ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent population reduction over the last three generations of larger glaucostegid species.

However, the fishing effort had doubled over this time, which would be the equivalent of a ninety-five percent population reduction over the three generations for glaucostegid species.

Though it is possible that this dataset indicated a large majority of giant guitarfishes, the trends of the data can be considered representative of glaucostegids as well as rhinids.

Estimates of fishing mortality rates in the Northern Prawn Fishery for similar species are well below those that would ultimately lead to significant population declines.

Australia, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands provide sufficient conservation for the species, but the proportion of this region compared to the global range isn't adequate to substantially lower the assessment.

[14] On a global perspective, giant guitarfishes are subject to intense fishing pressure on their coastal and shelf habitats, which are unregulated across the majority of their distribution range.

The giant guitarfishes are captured in industrial, artisanal, and subsistence fisheries with multiple fishing methods including, gillnetting, trawling, traditional hook and line, trapping, and seine netting.

The giant guitarfish is landed heavily throughout its range and several countries within the distribution of this species rank among the top twenty shark fishing nations globally.

[16] Cartilaginous fish, such as the giant guitarfish, have evolved from one of the most ancient lineages from over 400 million years ago and possess potentially the best immune systems in the animal kingdom.