Closing the loop in fishery management: the importance of instituting regular independent management review.

Herein we argue that lack of a regular independent review process in U.S. federal fishery management is a serious shortcoming in policy and that such a system should be implemented. Although our arguments specifically refer to federal fishery management in the United States, we believe they may be applicable to other areas of ecological management here and in other countries. Fish-stock assessments are among the most influential scientific contributions to marine resource management. In the United States, where, for legal reasons, assessment results may trigger unavoidable fishing restrictions, assessments of federally managed resource stocks are subject to extensive peer review, making these assessments among the most highly reviewed examples of applied science worldwide. Within the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), each of the 6 science centers, working with local Fishery Management Councils, has established a peer-review process. Typically, an expert panel spends 3–6 days reviewing 1–3 stock assessments and several days writing reports. Panel members are scientists not connected with the assessment or the fishery who have