Reptile Rescue & Wildlife Services
Preliminary Application Comments
The following are my comments for OHV Grant request, G08-04-26-S01, Education & Safety:
In it’s present form, I advise against funding for this project.
While I appreciate the concept of the project, I find fault in the manner in which it is written up and how it is to be carried out.
Under Expenses, Contracts, how does $230. for portable toilets fit in?
Other- camera and Other-Camcorder are both listed in two separate sections, once in Materials/Supplies and once in Equipment Purchases.
From the information supplied, I cannot tell how many brochures will be produced.
There is no clear explanation of how or where the brochures will be distributed to the OHV users. Under EVALUATION CRITERIA #8, it is stated that over 10,000 points of contact will be made.
“Training will take place at forever wild in phelan, ca and also vivid water gardens in victorville, ca.” These are not locations that would be good for contact with the OHV users.
Under EVALUATION CRITERIA #4, “List partner organization(s)”, the reply is “to be named later”. That information should be included in the Grant Request.
Under EVALUATION CRITERIA #6, “Explain each statement that was checked”, the reply is “later”. That information should be included in the Grant Request.
Thank you for considering my comments. [Bruce Brazil - 4/5/09]