Scientific Review Committee

Overview:  This committee was formed to provide local Sporting and Conservation Groups in the State of Washington access to scientific expertise to be used in evaluating volunteer conservation project requests.  Upon submittal these project outlines will be evaluated for merit by a volunteer team of biologists, veterinarians, research scientists and other qualified individuals.  The opinion rendered by the Scientific Review Panel will be non partisan, unbiased and need not be unanimous.  The panel will be critiquing projects and giving comment as they see fit. The opinions rendered by the Scientific Review Panel will not be binding and are to be used only as a reference by the Group or Organization who submitted the proposal.

Goal:   The purpose of the Scientific Review Panel is to allow well intended groups to make an informed decision as to the projects they commit valuable labor and resources to. The time table for submission will also force local, state and federal project cooperatives to give each the Groups or Organizations ample time to come to this decision.  Ultimately, this should focus the critical volunteer resources in Washington State toward the projects most worthy of their support.

Participants:  Any Washington non-profit organization is invited to submit proposals.

Fee:  There will be no fee associated with the review process.  However, each proposal must include ten (10) copies.

Timing:  Upon receipt of the proposal, the Scientific Review Panel will endeavor to achieve a four (4) week turnaround time.  Failing this, the Scientific Review Panel will notify submitting group of approximate turnaround date.

Process:  Submitting group will send ten (10) copies of project proposal to:

Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation

Attention: Scientific Review Panel

6116 N. Market St.

Spokane, WA 99207

   The proposals will then be mailed individually to each member of the Scientific Review Panel.  Included will be instructions as to the due date of the Review.  Each Panel participant will forward their findings back to the address above.  Panel participants can utilize email to accomplish this and are encouraged to do so.  EMAIL to: inwc@aol.com.  Upon receipt of all comments,  WWC will forward them to submitting group.  Should a Panel participant not be able make any meaningful comments on a proposal, they are instructed to notify WWC as such.  Panel participants are encouraged to communicate with other Panel members if necessary, during the review process.

 Scoring Criteria:  The following criteria should be used to evaluate submittals.  Narrative explanations as to the scoring is requested.

• Demonstrative Need:  Does the specie or habitat the project is designed to help - really need help.

• Lasting Impact:  Will the project leave a lasting positive impact on the target specie or habitat?

• Cost effective:  Considering the resources available  -  is this the best way to approach the problem at hand?

• Regarding purely research oriented projects - How will the information gathered be used to better the conditions of the target specie or habitat?  How will the cooperator act on the information gathered from the research project?  Is there a funding mechanism in place or available to fix a problem should one be found?  At the very least - a plan should be available to act on the information gathered.  Should a project proposal lack any post planning information, score it accordingly.

• What is the cooperators motivation for beginning the project in the first place.  What evidence do they have that a project - research or otherwise - is needed.

• Specie or habitat of concern:  Is the project aimed at a known problem area that is commonly acknowledged to be in need of assistance.

• Collateral Benefit:  Will the project have collateral benefit to surrounding specie and habitat.

   The above criteria should be measured only from a scientific standpoint.  How does the project measure up to scientific principle in relation to our criteria?  Species and habitat should not be evaluated on whether or not it includes fish, big game, small game, birds, reptiles or insects, but only on the criteria set forth.

  Scoring will be on a 10 point basis. 10 being the highest merit and 1 being the lowest merit.

For more information contact Bobbie Thorniley.