# TRAQ Course



## sac-climber (May 10, 2014)

Anybody attended a TRAQ course? Just Signed up for one and hoping to get others opinions. I've heard some people say it was the best ISA course they have ever attended and others says it's just a refresher. Let me know what you think, going to be attending the one in Escondido, CA later next month.


----------



## treevet (May 10, 2014)

It is hardly a refresher but new stuff giving you a standardized way to quantify risk that is commonly acceptable and likely the standard in a court of law which is probably the highest standard possible. I took the first round and until it runs out mine is a credential. Now they are considered a "qualification".


----------



## ATH (May 10, 2014)

Just took it several weeks ago.

It is good. Whether it is a refresher class or new material depends on your experience and background. I'd say it was 60/40 (refresher/new). Had I taken the same class a couple of years ago, it probably would have been 30/70.

As treevet said, what it really does well is offers an industry standard. I was in the class with others who have done FAR more risk assessment than I have and I think I may have gotten the 'system' better only because they are pretty well locked into what they have been doing while I am new enough in that part of the game to still be teachable. Not that they don't know what they are doing...they do and are very good at it. But some of the TRAQ process is different than what they have been doing - maybe better, maybe not...but different. I guess you would say "can't teach an old dog new tricks".

For me, the "refresher" part was what to look for, how bad is this defect, is that really a problem, etc... The new part was more about the process of using their matrix to come up with a risk rating and understanding what that means. I think it is a good system and certainly moves us towards having common ground for better communication.

Read the book ahead of time...or at least do a very thorough review of it and read the chapters that you need to learn.

Now I just need to do a better job of selling the service.


----------



## treevet (May 10, 2014)

That's what I meant re the "new" part relatively speaking. Yeah read the book and the classroom and out of class (we went to a cemetary) are very comprehensive. I took mine from the current ISA Director Terry Flannagen. Very enjoyable...cept for a pretty high price tag. Not complaining tho. It is excluding to rid of the masses so worth it.


----------



## sac-climber (May 10, 2014)

Good to know. I'm actually really looking forward to it.


----------



## jefflovstrom (May 10, 2014)

I am going to try. I heard the test is pretty hard. 
Jeff


----------



## BC WetCoast (May 10, 2014)

Took it about 5 years ago when it was first developed in conjunction between the PNW ISA and Worksafe BC. The course was given by the Julian Dunster, who developed it. Have had to requalify/rewrite the test. One of the most useful courses I've taken, as it tends to objectify what was previously an subjective assessment. 

During our course there were some good debates on the probability of failure. Most people had it a lot higher than the instructors.


----------



## ATH (May 10, 2014)

jefflovstrom said:


> I am going to try. I heard the test is pretty hard.
> Jeff


I didn't think so. I did very well on the multiple guess. If you know the terms as they are used in the book you will be fine. The field practical is pass/fail, so all I know is I passed...maybe by the skin of my teeth, maybe with a perfect score, doesn't matter. The practical is straight forward if you use their process and language. Make sure you complete everything and give good reasons for your answers. Our instructors were good about reminding us of that the first two days and really went through the expectations very clearly the day before.

They told us that they expected us all to pass, so I don't think it is supposed to be a difficult test - just make sure you have caught on. If somebody doesn't test well, I could see them having trouble even if they know the material. The indoor portion is 100 questions of multiple choice. Some smart people just don't do well with those... If you don't read the book ahead of time, there may be some stumbling blocks there too....or if you have never done risk assessments it may be too much to take in all at once.


----------



## treeseer (May 11, 2014)

"Most people had risk a lot higher than the instructors." This is no surprise. Most arborists tend to exaggerate defects and understate tree strength; i hope the course makes a difference there. So ATH, your phone's not ringing off the hook with assessment work?


----------



## ATH (May 11, 2014)

[Quote="treeseer, post: 4811928, member: 4077".....So ATH, your phone's not ringing off the hook with assessment work?[/QUOTE]
Hahaha...no. But I had not really advertised it yet either. I see 2 potential major clients: municipalities and real estate management companies (for condo associations, commercial real estate, etc...). I don't want to spend my days writing reports...but I think there is plenty of potential market if I wanted to travel and wrote a lot of reports. I hope to pick up a few here and there.

If nothing else maybe I will be able to better serve existing clients. For example, I was looking at a dead 12' tall spruce for a loyal client. Their neighbor has a few dead trees that will take out proabaly a couple of grand of their fence. Not that it takes a TRAQ Arborist to ID that...but when I write them a follow up letter that title will at least add extra authority to the letter. And if the neighbors refuse to have the trees removed hopefully that title gives my client a stronger case..assuming they pass a copy of the letter next door now.


----------



## treevet (May 12, 2014)

you look at the other end of the spectrum where on a daily basis around here a homeowner is approached at their front door or on their lawnmower and virtually EVERY tree "best be taken down right now" and "for a bargain price while you are so lucky we just happen to be in the neighborhood"....the victim has a comparison from someone learned in the process of discerning risk identified and schooled by the largest trade organization.


----------



## treevet (May 12, 2014)

then again...you do not want to be the guy that talked em into saving this tree cause "it had a little lean and a few pesky roots heaving out" either do you?


----------



## sac-climber (May 12, 2014)

OUCH!


----------



## chief116 (May 12, 2014)

Nice pic, and good point Vet. Do you need to have malpractice insurance when writing out a Tree Risk Evaluation? Or do you get to just shrug and say "Mother Nature can be a *****"?


----------



## ATH (May 12, 2014)

You do need to talk to your insurance agent. If you need extra coverage it would be called Errors and Omissions coverage.

Doumenty, document, document.... If you missed something that could be as problem!


----------



## BC WetCoast (May 12, 2014)

ATH said:


> You do need to talk to your insurance agent. If you need extra coverage it would be called Errors and Omissions coverage.
> 
> Doumenty, document, document.... If you missed something that could be as problem!




And find some good waffle clauses for your report ie this was only an external visual assessment... 

Define exactly what you did, how you did it and what you found. 

The other thing to remember in these assessments is that they define a risk level, it is up to the decision maker (ie homeowner) to decide whether they can accept that level of risk. Technically, the risk analyst (you) shouldn't be recommending retention or removal, that is the decision maker's role, however you can make recommendation on how to lower the risk. However, I understand in reality a homeowner will want a removal/retention recommendation.

Where I've used this system is in municipalities where a tree removal permit must be issued before any tree larger than a threshold size can be removed. Often the Tree Hazard Rating must be included in the application. In the municipalities we work in (12), the threshold size ranges from no permit required, to 8" dbh to 24" dbh.


----------



## treevet (May 13, 2014)

chief116 said:


> Nice pic, and good point Vet. Do you need to have malpractice insurance when writing out a Tree Risk Evaluation? Or do you get to just shrug and say "Mother Nature can be a *****"?



....or chief, you can just use this course as an education as to how to evaluate risk numerically and write NO reports that you give to the ho and either recommend removal or, if retention, just verbally give the reasons to keep the tree and let them decide knowing that the liability "bouncing" ball is still way in their court. 

Most often they will not ask for a report (and you will thusly receive no "report money") as they know not one is available, but chances are it gives you a huge advantage on getting the mitigation work or removal, just by being that qual. guy with the official ISA # and all. I have found it to be that way.

$550. course monies well spent and often recouped in a day's profit. Plus there is that ISA history of having to STAY qualified/certed by ceu's or re testing that does nothing but keep you up to date and refreshed on procedure and new science.


----------



## treevet (May 13, 2014)

treevet said:


> then again...you do not want to be the guy that talked em into saving this tree cause "it had a little lean and a few pesky roots heaving out" either do you? View attachment 349859



I arrived at this tree within a half hour of this strike with a call from a friend that passed by. I offered to bid on the removal but the ho stated the insurance co. was sending "their" guy. TRAQ paper or not if you recently even looked over the trees on this property or worse yet did some pruning on this tree, pretty good poss. the Ins. Co. would entertain the possibility of going after you not just the ho. Guy Treeseer has some very good exemption clauses in his contracts/proposals but the above mentioned "errors and omissions" insurance is peace of mind money well spent too.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (May 13, 2014)

The class was great. I had Skip Kincaid as my main instructor. He beat the hell out of most of my college profs, as a lecturer. The test was easy, the practical easier. Just read the material beforehand and do the workbook and you'll breeze on through. In Austin, TX., land of some of the strictest tree ordinances in the US, they now require the TRAQ Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form for trees over 24" DBH, that need to be removed for development projects.


----------



## treeseer (May 15, 2014)

Sunrise, glad to hear the course worked out. So Austin just requires the form be used, but does not say who should be using it?

Attached example assigns Improbable Likelihood of Failure on a 70%+ hollow oak. One common problem with the system is that people say 'Anything is Possible', even though failure is highly Improbable. With this course there should be less of that kind of overstatement.

treevet, that was one top-heavy tree! I wouldn't want to be the one who whacked off all those lower limbs, though it's reeeeeeeeeeeeeally doubtful the ins. co. will pursue tree guys ime, unless cause-and-effect is glaringly obvious..


----------



## lxt (May 17, 2014)

skip Kincaid is a good guy worked with him at DRG, I am debating on the TRAQ course?? studying for the BCMA however the TRAQ might be a good stepping stone!

Ones area I believe dictates what you need, here I would only obtain what I stated above for my self as around my area there are too many guys that just sell removals & do em cheap!!!! It would be nice to see some standards that must be met prior to just trimming or removing, too many new guys just in it to try & make a buck

LXT..


----------



## BC WetCoast (May 17, 2014)

lxt said:


> skip Kincaid is a good guy worked with him at DRG, I am debating on the TRAQ course?? studying for the BCMA however the TRAQ might be a good stepping stone!
> 
> Ones area I believe dictates what you need, here I would only obtain what I stated above for my self as around my area there are too many guys that just sell removals & do em cheap!!!! It would be nice to see some standards that must be met prior to just trimming or removing, too many new guys just in it to try & make a buck
> 
> LXT..



I'm qualified to write for the BCMA but really unsure what to study. Do you have any study guidance except for the 'read every book every written on arboriculture' guide provided by the ISA.


----------



## treevet (May 17, 2014)

treeseer said:


> Sunrise, glad to hear the course worked out. So Austin just requires the form be used, but does not say who should be using it?
> 
> Attached example assigns Improbable Likelihood of Failure on a 70%+ hollow oak. One common problem with the system is that people say 'Anything is Possible', even though failure is highly Improbable. With this course there should be less of that kind of overstatement.
> 
> treevet, that was one top-heavy tree! I wouldn't want to be the one who whacked off all those lower limbs, though it's reeeeeeeeeeeeeally doubtful the ins. co. will pursue tree guys ime, unless cause-and-effect is glaringly obvious..


Top heavy?
Have you taken the TRAQ course and test yet?


----------



## treeseer (May 19, 2014)

Top heavy = high center of gravity after lower limbs whacked. Comprendez vouz mon frer?

no and no; i gave at the office, attached shows fundamental philosophical differences, so i am taking this instead: www.vetree.com


----------



## chief116 (May 19, 2014)

Arent all trees top heavy? I would have thought sidewalk construction directly influenced the trees failure.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## treevet (May 19, 2014)

treeseer said:


> Top heavy = high center of gravity after lower limbs whacked. Comprendez vouz mon frer?



silly snap judgement. normal mature tree in normal setting with just lower limbs removed in proximity to the house and drive. root failure from saturated soil over extended period = catastrophic tree failure in extreme wind event. Hindsight is 20/20. I live down the road from this town.



> no and no; i gave at the office, attached shows fundamental philosophical differences, so i am taking this instead: www.vetree.com



you gave what at the office? my guess is just too expensive for you? support your trade org. son.


----------



## treeseer (May 30, 2014)

Saw TRAQ presentation 2 days ago and am more sure than ever BCMA is a better cert. imo.

vet, center of gravity matters. re support, and risk assessment, see June 2014 ArbNews. 

BCW, study what you're weakest on, and practice taking tests, and you'll do well. BCMA works well in many markets.


----------



## BC WetCoast (May 30, 2014)

treeseer said:


> Saw TRAQ presentation 2 days ago and am more sure than ever BCMA is a better cert. imo.
> 
> vet, center of gravity matters. re support, and risk assessment, see June 2014 ArbNews.
> 
> BCW, study what you're weakest on, and practice taking tests, and you'll do well. BCMA works well in many markets.



Are there any practice tests available online? I'm concerned I will have to study things like pesticides that are not appropriate to my area. We have super restrictive pesticide regulations - if it isn't oil, sulphur, copper, soap or Bt, we can't use it.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 2, 2014)

BC WetCoast said:


> Are there any practice tests available online? I'm concerned I will have to study things like pesticides that are not appropriate to my area. We have super restrictive pesticide regulations - if it isn't oil, sulphur, copper, soap or Bt, we can't use it.


They used to have a practice scenario online but I couldn't find it. BCMA has been orphaned by the rush to implement TRAQ. Pesticides are a small part of the test; if you're strong in other areas, lack of experience with any one area should not cause you to fail.
http://www.isa-arbor.com/certification/resources/cert_ExamOutline_BCMA.pdf

vet, the TRAQ stuff I saw peddles the same old imaginary knowledge of 'defects'. A pictured tree had massive ribs of woundwood around an old physical injury. As we know, those areas are often stronger than undamaged wood. But in the exercise, the area was inaccurately labeled a 'canker'. etc., etc.
Voodoo arboriculture!


----------



## treevet (Jun 2, 2014)

treeseer said:


> They used to have a practice scenario online but I couldn't find it. BCMA has been orphaned by the rush to implement TRAQ. Pesticides are a small part of the test; if you're strong in other areas, lack of experience with any one area should not cause you to fail.
> http://www.isa-arbor.com/certification/resources/cert_ExamOutline_BCMA.pdf
> 
> vet, the TRAQ stuff I saw peddles the same old imaginary knowledge of 'defects'. A pictured tree had massive ribs of woundwood around an old physical injury. As we know, those areas are often stronger than undamaged wood. But in the exercise, the area was inaccurately labeled a 'canker'. etc., etc.
> Voodoo arboriculture!



It is just a committee in developmental stages Guy...don't hate. This is the place to be if your area of expertise is intended to be Risk Assessment. Only so much time in a day and one can become a slave to tangental ceu's.

"We need specialists" (Alex Shigo)


----------



## Ed Roland (Jun 2, 2014)

Its good to see healthy debate make its way back to this forum. Especially from you two opcorn:

TRAQ is comprable to BCMA? That's comparing Malus to Citrus. Whom would be more likely to distinguish the difference between weakening of wood through annual delamination (repetitive bz formation) and Kane, et all, data on wound wood strenght? 

With that said: this BCMA would like to add the TRAQ badge to my sash.


----------



## treevet (Jun 2, 2014)

and delignification Ed?

good to see you back.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 3, 2014)

That's a pricey badge for the sash; good luck marketing it in your market! No sweat re ceu's; just cash to retake.

"Developmental stages"? TRAQ is a full-blown juggernaut; fully developed and rolling for some time now.
No hate; just want to see them get the facts straight. No delam or delig on that shot of the cypress. Very limited diagnosis (I confess being particular on this), and very limited looks at mitigation options, but quick to agree with removing 'moderate risk' trees. 
Curriculum designed with very low risk tolerance, and poor understanding of pruning options. But there's a lot of good in the systematic approach.


----------



## ATH (Jun 3, 2014)

treeseer said:


> .........
> Curriculum designed with very low risk tolerance, and poor understanding of pruning options. But there's a lot of good in the systematic approach.


I disagree about the risk tolerance. Maybe that has to do with the instructor and how they presented/what they emphasized, but I thought it was pretty clear that the assessor is not to influence risk tolerance or whether or not to remove "moderate" trees. It is our job to assess this tree, site, targets, etc and assign a risk rating. It is the owner's duty to determine level of risk they are willing to tolerate.

I do agree that there wasn't much discussion about mitigation. My take was anybody qualified to take the class probably already has an understanding of those options. They could have spent more time talking about where cabling & bracing legitimately reduces risk and where it does not..but that is starting down a rabbit hole they probably did not want it chase!


----------



## treeseer (Jun 4, 2014)

" it was pretty clear that the assessor is not to influence risk tolerance or whether or not to remove "moderate" trees. It is our job to assess this tree, site, targets, etc and assign a risk rating. It is the owner's duty to determine level of risk they are willing to tolerate."

That's good news. It's also clear that the owner makes the decisions, and the assessor does not make recommendations. That's pretty basic. But it's the assessor's low risk tolerance that is the issue.
I wish it was true that anybody qualified to take the class probably already has an understanding of mitigation options. Reduction pruning and cabling & bracing legitimately reduce risk, but there are a lot of myths about these basic practices. Where confusion reigns it may seem like starting down a rabbit hole, but it's really straightforward. The June Arborist News has something on specifying those practices, simple.


----------



## ATH (Jun 4, 2014)

treeseer said:


> ....Reduction pruning and cabling & bracing legitimately reduce risk, but there are a lot of myths about these basic practices. Where confusion reigns it may seem like starting down a rabbit hole, but it's really straightforward. ...


Can't argue with that! I guess what I was thinking was there should have been some discussion about considering whether the cabling/bracing was done correctly and if it has been inspected as scheduled. If not, those factors should come into the consideration at some point and possibly increase the risk rating.


----------



## treevet (Jun 5, 2014)

treeseer said:


> " it was pretty clear that the assessor is not to influence risk tolerance or whether or not to remove "moderate" trees. It is our job to assess this tree, site, targets, etc and assign a risk rating. It is the owner's duty to determine level of risk they are willing to tolerate."
> 
> That's good news. It's also clear that the owner makes the decisions, and the assessor does not make recommendations. That's pretty basic. But it's the assessor's low risk tolerance that is the issue.
> I wish it was true that anybody qualified to take the class probably already has an understanding of mitigation options. Reduction pruning and cabling & bracing legitimately reduce risk, but there are a lot of myths about these basic practices. Where confusion reigns it may seem like starting down a rabbit hole, but it's really straightforward. The June Arborist News has something on specifying those practices, simple.



ANSI Standards and BMP's...buy em...use em


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 5, 2014)

I guess I am not able to do it this time. Too bad, I am 15 minutes from Escondido. No big deal, we have 3 of them on staff. Maybe later, we are so busy and there are not enough days in the week. 
I have no life,,,,
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 5, 2014)

treeseer said:


> I wish it was true that anybody qualified to take the class probably already has an understanding of mitigation options. Reduction pruning and cabling & bracing legitimately reduce risk, but there are a lot of myths about these basic practices.



That is why I was gonna take it.
Jeff


----------



## sac-climber (Jun 5, 2014)

jefflovstrom said:


> I guess I am not able to do it this time. Too bad, I am 15 minutes from Escondido. No big deal, we have 3 of them on staff. Maybe later, we are so busy and there are not enough days in the week.
> I have no life,,,,
> Jeff


Too bad you couldn't make it, it's good to be busy though!


----------



## treevet (Jun 15, 2014)

I think that what Ed and Guy said may be true in generallity, that a BCMA "in general" may currently be more able to rate risk better than some of the fledgling TRAQ graduates...I feel at the same time that this is a specialist's field that is in the process of maturation and that dynamic will soon switch in favor of the seasoned TRAQ practicioner.

Just bought a number of Risk Assessment books from the ISA to add to my already fairly comprehensive collection. One book that would be good for those in need of economy with the buck would be "Evaluating Tree Defects" by Ed Hayes. Very concise and informational but does not go into the rating system which has had variations in the past but that info (current) can be easily obtained....by taking the TRAQ course. This likely will be the standard of the future be it forensic expert testimony or what ev.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 15, 2014)

It is a beautiful day!
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 15, 2014)

treevet said:


> I think that what Ed and Guy said may be true in generallity, that a BCMA "in general" may currently be more able to rate risk better than some of the fledgling TRAQ graduates...I feel at the same time that this is a specialist's field that is in the process of maturation and that dynamic will soon switch in favor of the seasoned TRAQ practicioner.
> 
> Just bought a number of Risk Assessment books from the ISA to add to my already fairly comprehensive collection. One book that would be good for those in need of economy with the buck would be "Evaluating Tree Defects" by Ed Hayes. Very concise and informational but does not go into the rating system which has had variations in the past but that info (current) can be easily obtained....by taking the TRAQ course. This likely will be the standard of the future be it forensic expert testimony or what ev.



You are smart,,
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Jun 16, 2014)

So are you Jeff...John Ball reviewed above mentioned book which you just had the foresight to attend his seminar I believe.


----------



## sac-climber (Jun 18, 2014)

First day of class...

Instructors are Kevin Eckert and Scott Baker. A nice team teaching pair.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 18, 2014)

Yes they know trees. You lucked out--make the most of it!


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 18, 2014)

sac-climber said:


> First day of class...
> 
> Instructors are Kevin Eckert and Scott Baker. A nice team teaching pair.



How you like the weather here? You staying in Escondido? Kinda jealous, but too busy. Have fun!
Jeff


----------



## sac-climber (Jun 18, 2014)

jefflovstrom said:


> How you like the weather here? You staying in Escondido? Kinda jealous, but too busy. Have fun!
> Jeff


Gorgeous weather right now. My in-laws have a time share at the Welk so were living it up for a week. It's a nice break for sure.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 18, 2014)

sac-climber said:


> Gorgeous weather right now. My in-laws have a time share at the Welk so were living it up for a week. It's a nice break for sure.



See why I always say it was a beautiful day? 
Jeff


----------



## sac-climber (Jun 20, 2014)

Well class is done and I wanted to give my thoughts on the course. 

Pricey? Yes (work paid though). Worth while? I think so, it gives you another tool and streamlines the VTA process. I see TRAQ becoming necessary for anyone doing risk assessments and wishing to stay out of potential legal hot water. I think the knowledge base for BCMA surpasses TRAQ but its a whole different animal really. Like TRAQ, I wish CA had to retest to stay certified, I think it would add another degree of credibility. TRAQ sort of fills that void in a way. On a side note Kevin and Scott were great. Those of you who know them can attest to the same I'm sure. I can relate with Scott on many levels, it was nice to get to know him. As long as the instructors are of their caliber, I think the qualification will be worth while. 

If you are serious about doing the right thing for trees, take this course. Don't hesitate, it's worth it. If you are more concerned about filling the truck with chips, save the money and buy a new saw.


----------



## treevet (Jun 20, 2014)

well reviewed...

except for one point...in my opinion

I think the big value of a CA is that it gets better with time like a good wine...wayyy better. You have to get those pesky credits (or just retest). I took the first wave of CA tests in 92 (can prove it) and I took the first wave of TRAQ courses (was then called a "Certification"...since has changed to a qual). I feel there should be mandatory credits specifically in current Risk info on this endeavor to keep updated....not just dumb it out for what ? 3 years or whatev then cram your ascs off and forget most in the meantime.


----------



## sac-climber (Jun 20, 2014)

treevet said:


> well reviewed...
> 
> except for one point...in my opinion
> 
> I think the big value of a CA is that it gets better with time like a good wine...wayyy better. You have to get those pesky credits (or just retest). I took the first wave of CA tests in 92 (can prove it) and I took the first wave of TRAQ courses (was then called a "Certification"...since has changed to a qual). I feel there should be mandatory credits specifically in current Risk info on this endeavor to keep updated....not just dumb it out for what ? 3 years or whatev then cram your ascs off and forget most in the meantime.



I totally agree with you. This is going to continuously evolve over time and 5 years is a big knowledge gap.

Kevin indicated there will be major changes coming to Cert programs in the next few year. Especially CTW.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 20, 2014)

sac-climber said:


> Well class is done and I wanted to give my thoughts on the course.
> 
> Pricey? Yes (work paid though). Worth while? I think so, it gives you another tool and streamlines the VTA process. I see TRAQ becoming necessary for anyone doing risk assessments and wishing to stay out of potential legal hot water. I think the knowledge base for BCMA surpasses TRAQ but its a whole different animal really. Like TRAQ, I wish CA had to retest to stay certified, I think it would add another degree of credibility. TRAQ sort of fills that void in a way. On a side note Kevin and Scott were great. Those of you who know them can attest to the same I'm sure. I can relate with Scott on many levels, it was nice to get to know him. As long as the instructors are of their caliber, I think the qualification will be worth while.
> 
> If you are serious about doing the right thing for trees, take this course. Don't hesitate, it's worth it. If you are more concerned about filling the truck with chips, save the money and buy a new saw.



Did you pass? or do you have to wait for results?
Jeff


----------



## sac-climber (Jun 20, 2014)

Its ISA! You know the game, 4 weeks to infinity before you know anything.

Pretty sure I passed though, the written was a piece of cake.


----------



## ATH (Jun 20, 2014)

Check your credentials online in a week or two...or search your state for a list of TRAQ arborists to see if you are on it. Probably be up in 2 weeks (or look for other names of people you took the class with...if they are up and you are not you might start to worry!)


----------



## treeseer (Jun 20, 2014)

"I see TRAQ becoming necessary for anyone doing risk assessments and wishing to stay out of potential legal hot water."

Was that part of the course, or the pre-course info?

One way to keep that water from getting too hot? Don't make recommendations.


----------



## treevet (Jun 20, 2014)

Orrrr...make recommendations based on the TRAQ steps and protocol completely documented and carry appropriate insurance. They are gonna want recommendations. You cannot keep telling every homeowner to keep every tree and get away with it Guy. Just like the gypsy cowboys that tell them every tree is dangerous and should come down Arbs that tell the homeowner that every tree should be saved and the next day their roof is crushed ( I have witnessed this many times)....they are also going to be phased out by more QUAL ified people to make that assessment based on a sophisticated system (and science).


----------



## sac-climber (Jun 21, 2014)

treeseer said:


> "I see TRAQ becoming necessary for anyone doing risk assessments and wishing to stay out of potential legal hot water."
> 
> Was that part of the course, or the pre-course info?
> 
> One way to keep that water from getting too hot? Don't make recommendations.


Making recs is part of assessment. There is a whole section for mitigation on the form. It's not a class for hacks, most attendees were municipal or consultants. The rest were management. The cost alone cuts out most the yahoos.

Lawyers will soon know the qualification is available. If you don't have it and something happens, well, I wouldn't want to be that guy. Better make sure your E&O's are paid up.


----------



## ATH (Jun 21, 2014)

treevet said:


> ....You cannot keep telling every homeowner to keep every tree and get away with it Guy. Just like the gypsy cowboys that tell them every tree is dangerous and should come down....


Interesting 'fact' I heard a while back was that the less trained/experienced somebody is, the more likely they are to recommend removal. I have seen that play out too. Was with a group smart folks who knew trees well, but were not trained/experienced in risk assessment (spent more time in the woods than urban settings), and they wanted to rate minor defects as high probability of failure several times. They had nothing to gain or lose from the designation - it was a training exercise. Sure, that is the 'safe' bet, but at what cost?


----------



## ATH (Jun 21, 2014)

treevet said:


> Orrrr...make recommendations based on the TRAQ steps and protocol completely documented and carry appropriate insurance. They are gonna want recommendations.....


It might be splitting hairs...but TRAQ doesn't teach to offer "recommendations" (actually the instructors when I took it made it clear that we should not), but rather to assign a risk rating and offer mitigation options. Are those recommendations??? Technically, no...and that is where following protocol and documenting, as you said, comes into play.

So, essentially, the difference is:
"If this level of risk is not tolerable, here are options to lower the risk, and here is what the level of risk would be after you complete xyz"
vs.
"I recommend you completed xyz"

Not saying that is what I do every time, but that is the difference.


----------



## BC WetCoast (Jun 21, 2014)

The way it was defined to me when I took the course was that we were analyzing the risk and it was the decision makers deciding whether they could tolerate that level of risk. 

The education part comes by trying to explain to homeowners what is meant by risk (probability X consequence), what the levels of risk mean and what is meant by mitigation.


----------



## treevet (Jun 21, 2014)

It is just another case of semantics ATH and BC , giving options (or even assigning level of risk) is YOUR recommendation in my opinion. You really cannot paint yourself out of the (final decision) treatment (if it is yours they are using). You (the Qual guy) facilitated it. 

They CHOSE you to promulgate the proper situation, be it alone or with competition. If they chose yours....you recommended it, teed it up and let if fly.


----------



## ATH (Jun 21, 2014)

I agree it is semantics in the real world, and that is what we really do want to present to clients. But if you end up in front of a lawyer, it is better if you can say "I never told them they should or should not do anything...I presented them with information about the level of risk and options to lower (not eliminate) that risk".


----------



## treevet (Jun 21, 2014)

perfect world that flies...but my established clients want a "what would you do if you were in my shoes", and I am gonna give that to those people who make up most of my annual income. I did not take this qual. to develop into a clipboard guy whose income is predominantly this kind of thing. I just want to provide the best possible tree service a valued client could obtain...without them calling some "out of town expert".


----------



## Pelorus (Jun 21, 2014)

Interesting discussion.
Am currently embroiled (may get boiled alive) in a situation where the clients that hired me decided that they were risk adverse to several large, mostly dead poplars on their well-treed cottage (waterfront, small lot size) property. These were dismantled, along with 2 dead elm, several dead Balsalm fir, and a large hemlock, (extensive decay at base, dead top, leaning towards dock and boathouse). Limbs chipped on site, (chips left), and wood was removed. 
Neighbour ventures over......he is a retired university physics prof. Smart guy. An expert. Is incensed that 1. I removed the trees, and 2. I removed the wood. (something about the calcium contained in the wood is essential for the water quality/health of the lake. Basically no trees should get cut down, they should be allowed to die and fall down and return to Mother Earth.
I told him the world would be a better place if people could mind their own business, and things became testy. Friday afternoon, tired, wanna go home. (he is the prez. of the cottage lake association. There is a tree cutting bylaw in place there that I was unaware of, and should have been aware of). Guilty.
Ended up in conversation with the fellow for about half an hour, we exchanged biz. cards, and he invited me over to visit his (mostly clearcut) cottage property. Cottage built by his grandpa, etc. And we parted on better terms than we started, but I don't know where this is gonna end up. Am gonna get TRAQ qualified more for self-preservation in these matters.
Everybody is a tree expert...and everybody knows what their neighbours should and shouldn't do.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 22, 2014)

ATH said:


> It might be splitting hairs...but TRAQ doesn't teach to offer "recommendations" (actually the instructors when I took it made it clear that we should not), but rather to assign a risk rating and offer mitigation options. Are those recommendations??? Technically, no...and that is where following protocol and documenting, as you said, comes into play.
> 
> So, essentially, the difference is:
> "If this level of risk is not tolerable, here are options to lower the risk, and here is what the level of risk would be after you complete xyz"
> ...


----------



## treeseer (Jun 22, 2014)

"If this level of risk is not tolerable, here are options to lower the risk, and here is what the level of risk would be after you complete xyz"

ATH, spot on. That difference is not hair-splitting; it's black and white. Your instructors had it right.

I don't mind answering "what would you do if you were in my shoes", WITH A DISCLAIMER that I am not them, and it is not put in writing.
Imperfect worlds are made by men doing imperfect work where 'the customer is always right'.

Yes leaving logs as landscape timbers returns Ca etc. to the soil; the physicist is right. But he needs planting scheduled next spring to not be a hypocrite!


----------



## treevet (Jun 23, 2014)

Anybody can sue anyone for anything at any time. You just need to put yourself in the best position. Not just the best position to win but ideally the best position not be sued. Most of the pain comes from lawyer costs and often it does not matter if you are right or not. The lawyer will get paid by you and you may not recover any of it.


----------



## Pelorus (Jun 23, 2014)

[Yes leaving logs as landscape timbers returns Ca etc. to the soil; the physicist is right. But he needs planting scheduled next spring to not be a hypocrite![/QUOTE]

Gypsum would also return Ca to the soil without the dubious aesthetic value of logs strewn like fallen soldiers around the property.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 24, 2014)

"You just need to put yourself in the best position. Not just the best position to win but ideally the best position not be sued." Yup, and the best defense is a defendable report. 

Logs can be lined up neatly, but true; not for every landscape.


----------



## treevet (Jun 24, 2014)

treeseer said:


> "You just need to put yourself in the best position. Not just the best position to win but ideally the best position not be sued." Yup, and the best defense is a defendable report.


 And eventually, probably by the most acceptable credential or qualification....ISA TRAQ. You might as well hop on the train sooner than later Guy. Especially a forensic leaning person like yourself.


----------



## treeseer (Jun 25, 2014)

Thanks for the advice; publications and experience in cv are the first quals examined by attorneys ime, so my train's chugging along just fine.


----------



## treevet (Jun 25, 2014)

things change...just ask Obama


----------

