Bonefish and Tarpon Unlimited (fly fishermen apparently love that “unlimited” name) is fighting to take Permit off restaurant menus on and protected gamefish lists in Florida.
Apparently, the hard-fighting permit is seeing increasing commercial harvest, and history suggests Permit won’t tolerate commercial takes very well at all.
The Underground added its illustrious name to BTU’s letter/petition drive in 19 seconds – let us know if you beat that time.
UPDATE: Added the link to the petition (sorry).
See you fly fishing for Permit (some day), Tom Chandler.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Think of it as a petition for a Permit Permit.
SmellsLikeFish(Quote)
Time permitting, of course.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
No, I know, that’s my brother, Crazy Talk. We’re all a little worried about him.
SmellsLikeFish(Quote)
How are they planning on increasing their catch? Without gill nets there is no profit in targeting them,just a bycatch while fishing for other things.I think someone is stirring things up for no reason.
Free(Quote)
With Permit starting to appear on restaurant menus more often, the incentive to harvest grows, belying the idea that “bycatch” is all that’s happening to the Permit population.
As for “stirring things up” for no reason, I think taking a proactive approach to fisheries management – before populations find themselves in trouble – is probably a good (though rare) idea these days.
As the linked-to letter notes, a healthy Permit population managed as a gamefish is sustainable and good news for the area’s economy. Non-sustainable (uncontrolled) commercial harvest will dramatically reduce the value of the recreational resource, ultimately harming the area’s economy.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Looks like just another “fish grab” by a hand full of fishermen who want to have exclusive rights to a public resource.I guess the 17 million non fishing residents of this state have absolutly no right to be able to enjoy one.
Free(Quote)
Just so all can read for their self and not listen to propaganda.It is almost impossible for the commercial effort to increase a significant amount in this day and time as the commercial fishing industry has been almost destroyed in the state of Fla.It may be that Permit are showing up more on the menu as restaurants try to find any fresh Florida seafood to serve and these fish are staying here instead of being shipped out of state.
Permit, Trachinotus falcatus
Permit are found only in the western Atlantic where they occur from Massachusetts to
southern Brazil, throughout the West Indies, and in Bermuda (Berry and Smith-Vanez 1978).
Permit inhabit the waters in northern and central Florida during the warmer months and the
waters in south Florida year-round. Juveniles occur in the waters near sandy beaches where they
prey on benthic invertebrates (Finucane 1969). Adults are associated with channels, holes,
sandflats, and reefs. Permit grow rapidly until reaching age 5; then growth slows considerably
(Crabtree et al. 2002). Maximum age for permit appears to be at least 23 years. Males and
females grow at the same rate; predicted size at age is 12.6 inches fork length (FL) at age 1 and
25.4 inches FL at age 5. Half of female permit reach maturity by 21.5 inches and about 3 years
old (Table 1; Crabtree et al. 2002). Males mature at smaller sizes (19.1 inches FL) at 2 years of
age. Spawning occurs during the summer in the Florida Keys and possibly again during the fall
in Tampa Bay.
Table 1. Von Bertalanffy growth parameters and length-weight relations for permit
Inches FL = L∞ (1-e-K(age-t0)) K L∞ (inches FL) t0 (years) Source
Sexes combined, Florida gulf coast 0.348 29.6 -0.585 Crabtree et al. (2002)
Weight in lbs = a (inches FL)b a b Source
Sexes combined, Florida gulf coast 0.00160 2.803 Crabtree et al. (2002)
Juvenile permit are initially planktivorous and feed on copepods, amphipods, mysids, and
larval shrimp and fish (Carr and Adams 1973). At larger sizes, juveniles shift to benthic prey
such as mole crabs, coquina clams, flatworms, gastropods, and sessile barnacles. Larger
juveniles and adults prey on gastropods, sea urchin, bivalves, and crabs (Randall 1967).
Total 2005 landings of permit in Florida were 113,381 pounds. The recreational fishery
accounted for 82% of the total statewide landings. Fifty-three percent of the statewide landings
in 2005 were made on the gulf coast. Commercial landings during 2005 were greatest in Lee,
Manatee and Pinellas Counties on the gulf coast (Fig. 1). Recreational landings were evenly
spread along the Atlantic coast and, with the exception of Monroe County, in coastal counties
south to the Big Bend region (Fig. 2).
The 2005 total landings of permit were 0.3% higher than the average landings in the
____________________________________________________________________________
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserv. Comm., FWRI (2006) PERMIT – 2
previous five years (2000–2004) and were 22% lower than the 1982–2005 historical average
landings (Fig. 3). The recreational landings estimates prepared using MRFSS data were based on
recreational catch rates determined for only a few permit anglers, so these estimates may not be
reliable. For instance, during 1997 fewer than 70 permit anglers were interviewed statewide.
Commercial catch rates have been steady on the Atlantic coast since 1992 (Fig 4).
Commercial catch rates on the gulf coast, which generally increased between 1994 and 1998,
have fluctuated around 10 pounds per trip since 1999 (Fig 5). Estimates of recreational catch
rates do not show a long-term trend on the Atlantic coast, but have dropped and stabilized on the
Atlantic coast since 1999 (Figs. 6, 7).
Young-of-the-year permit varied cyclically with lows in 1997-1998 and 2001-2003 on
the Atlantic coast (Fig. 8). On the gulf coast, they declined during 1998-2003 following high
abundance in 1996-1997 and then rebounded in 2004 and 2005 (Fig. 9). Post-young-of-the-year
permit showed similar trends on both coasts, with highest values during the period 1997–1999
(Figs. 10, 11). No gross external abnormalities were reported on any permit collected from
1999–2003.
There is not enough known about permit life history to conduct a biological assessment
of the status of permit in Florida (Armstrong et al. 1996b).
Free(Quote)
The last thing to point out is EVERY commercial caught fish is counted,the recreational cout is a very poor estimate at best.
Mr. Chandler if it’s proactive fishery’s management you truly want then we all need to be working together to have every recreational caught fish tagged with a FWC issued tag,then we will get better harvest numbers to manage with.
Free(Quote)
How about calling this what it really is. A BAN ON RECREATIONAL PERMIT HARVEST. Commercial, fine, less than 50K a year anyway, but fine who cares. Ban every single family level recreational angler from being able to keep a 4 pound permit for dinner or one big one? When the FWRI survey has said the population has been stable since 1996? WHY?
Why would you seek a RECREATIONAL BAN on permit harvest on a perfectly healthy fishery?
Thats not right. If you dont like to keep them so be it but dont try and inflict your personal permit morals on all other Floridians.
Ed Walker(Quote)
BTW- 89 percent of Florida Sportsmen forum readers who have been informed on what you are REALLY seeking here disagree with what you are trying to do. The FWC is also being notified of your plan to ban recreational permit harvest by repeatedly talking only about commercial harvest. Hopefully BTT supporters will see what you are up to.
What to 180 fishermen think of the BTT plan to ban recreational harvest?
Click here and see for yourself: http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=837586
What I say is the truth. Deleteing this post should make you ask yourself if what you have to hide.
Ed Walker(Quote)
“Free” said:
Looks like just another “fish grab†by a hand full of fishermen who want to have exclusive rights to a public resource.
Isn’t that exactly what commercial fishing amounts to – grabbing fish once, asserting a private right over a public resource?
Ed: Always happy to hear from someone with a monopoly on the “Truth.” And truly, “personal permit morals” is a classic, as is “Deleting this post should make yourself ask yourself if what you have to hide.”
I scanned the forum you mentioned. Long on vituperation, short on reason.
Again, with permit showing up on more menus, the threat is similar to what happened to redfish once “blackened redfish” became a staple in restaurants – the populations were decimated, and required significant regulation before coming back.
And the survey you cited doesn’t cover the most recent years, which are the bits in question. The idea that this ban is aimed at recreational harvest isn’t supportable; the petition specifically cited increased commercial catch (and demand in restaurants) as the reason for the action.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
You are still trying to hide behind the commercial issue Tom. Please skip commercial overfishing claims or me. Im not opposed to commercial regulation increases. Why wont you come out and cazll it what it is? A “Ban on recreational harvest”
Im talking about family level RECREATIONAL harvest which BTT is trying to have banned without actually coming out and saying it. The stock is perfectly healthy according to to the most current research and my past 19 years as a fishing guide.
You and BTT are out of line with this one Tom as 89% of the poll responders have pointed out to you. Im just the messenger.
Ed Walker(Quote)
“The idea that this ban is aimed at recreational harvest isn’t supportable; the petition specifically cited increased commercial catch (and demand in restaurants) as the reason for the action.”
Quote
Isnt supportable? Hmmm….OK. Pehaps I am mistaken. Perhaps you could explain to me the difference between “catch and release only” and a ban on recreational harvest” ?
Ed Walker(Quote)