TRAQ Course

[sac-climber]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jefflovstrom]

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

 

[BC WetCoast]

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]

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]

"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]

[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]

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]

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]

OUCH!

 

[chief116]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..