ISA TRAQ & CEU changes

macrocarpa

macrocarpa

Branched out member
Location
Midwest
It looks like the ISA has changed their CEU requirements for what used to be the “municipal specialist” is now “urban forest professional”. From what I gather we only need the standard 30 CEU’s to recertify instead of 42, is this right?

Secondly, it looks like they changed the TRAQ recertification requirements. It used to be a five year certification cycle and the recertification testing course was $220. Now it looks like I have to take the entire course all over again for $650. Is this right? If so, why would it matter if you let it expire if you have to take the whole thing over again anyway? It just doesn’t make any sense. And they changed it to a seven year certification cycle.Seems like if they are going to require those of us that got certified under the old system to pay the full amount and take the course over again, they should give us the additional two years. Honestly, I only got it because a municipality paid for me to take the course. It hasn’t increased my income in anyway so I’m on the fence.
 
Last edited:
Don't know about the municipal/urban Forester professional part...but, yes they are requiring full retake for TRAQ. More costly than the extra money for the class is 2 more days off of the job.

(Editing what I just typed because) I think I remember someone saying that redoing the whole course fits in with some kind of ANSI-like certification or standard for what such courses/qualifications should be for professionals.
 
ATH said:
Don't know about the municipal/urban Forester professional part...but, yes they are requiring full retake for TRAQ. More costly than the extra money for the class is 2 more days off of the job.

(Editing what I just typed because) I think I remember someone saying that redoing the whole course fits in with some kind of ANSI-like certification or standard for what such courses/qualifications should be for professionals.
Click to expand...
Like OSHA 30 and stuff.

It's frustrating when they use construction standards for a non construction environment. We're not dealing with engineered principles. The refresher course was great for TRAQ, I'm not happy to hear about these changes at all. I don't see any benefit to completely retaking the course. Plus, isn't a more frequent refresher more useful? It keeps the info in your mind and allows them to provide useful updates instead of the same course every time.
 
ATH said:
Don't know about the municipal/urban Forester professional part...but, yes they are requiring full retake for TRAQ. More costly than the extra money for the class is 2 more days off of the job.

(Editing what I just typed because) I think I remember someone saying that redoing the whole course fits in with some kind of ANSI-like certification or standard for what such courses/qualifications should be for professionals.
Click to expand...
So the expiration date basically means nothing, we would just have a lapse in being certified? I probably won’t recertify. I’ve never had a single customer reach out to ask if I had the tree risk assessment qualification. The only real benefit I see is for future employment/having it on a résumé.
 
Regarding the muni/UF credentials, it is a bit confusing but as I read it you need 30 ceu's to re-up in addition to the 30 minimum for CA. Don't hold me to that though. As ever, the "New ISA" communication with members is non existent.
 
Regarding Traq
I’m assuming it’s because it’s now Traq 3.0. I have the book on my desk yet it doesn’t look too different there are some changes. Before the rollout they gave the option of just taking the test without the class.
I agree that 95% of my customers never ask if I’m Traq but I do advise that I am so maybe that’s why they have me come look? Some municipalities are requiring a risk assessment for a removal permit. That’s where I use mine most often for profit.
 
evo said:
Regarding Traq
I’m assuming it’s because it’s now Traq 3.0. I have the book on my desk yet it doesn’t look too different there are some changes. Before the rollout they gave the option of just taking the test without the class.
I agree that 95% of my customers never ask if I’m Traq but I do advise that I am so maybe that’s why they have me come look? Some municipalities are requiring a risk assessment for a removal permit. That’s where I use mine most often for profit.
Click to expand...
Around here, insurance companies won't accept an arborist report unless the CA is also TRAQ
 
Yes it certainly has its place. Biggest issue I run against is when tree failure is only part of the picture. Instances which are more akin to soil failure. It gets heady but the tree is structurally sound, but either due to soil composition or slides it’s still high risk.
 
evo said:
Yes it certainly has its place. Biggest issue I run against is when tree failure is only part of the picture. Instances which are more akin to soil failure. It gets heady but the tree is structurally sound, but either due to soil composition or slides it’s still high risk.
Click to expand...
For your area definitely. Environmental engineering would be useful on the coast.
 
For me I don’t get many if any RFP’s yet to get a critical area permit or removal permit it requires a Traq report. Also dealing with insurance companies I found it’s helpful but not a deal breaker. This is the case where insurance wants every limb cut off or a low risk tree removed just for shits and giggles. I’ve pulled tree appraisals coupled with risk assessments that basically say the insurance company should pay for the removal of a valuable asset if they are requiring removal. That gets them to change their tune right quick
 
macrocarpa said:
For those of you that are benefiting from this certification and increasing your income with it, are insurance companies and municipalities etc reaching out to you and perusing an arborist with TRAQ?
Click to expand...
I've benefitted by securing jobs with it- municipal arborist roles and post wildfire tree risk assessment roles. TBH, I've only ran the thorough TRAQ form perhaps a couple of dozen times, but it's a worthwhile credential for me. I'm definitely not happy with the new ISA though. Poor website performance and they just seem to be a ghost in the shell of sorts lately-poor customer service from people who don't know much about the industry they're serving.
 
Brando CalPankian said:
Like OSHA 30 and stuff.

It's frustrating when they use construction standards for a non construction environment. We're not dealing with engineered principles. The refresher course was great for TRAQ, I'm not happy to hear about these changes at all. I don't see any benefit to completely retaking the course. Plus, isn't a more frequent refresher more useful? It keeps the info in your mind and allows them to provide useful updates instead of the same course every time.
Click to expand...
I agree that it seems like a more frequent refresher is better than retaking the full course. That's what I started to type, then I remembered hearing about how they are trying to align with professional standards. I don't know about construction specific...but just in general how certifications are managed. That is, for example, why they allow non-members to hold ISA credentials. Standards for credentialing say that it cannot be a members only club.

(I don't know who holds those standards...is it another number of ANSI???)

While I don't like it...if you want a valid standard when you go to court to testify about your assessment, you want your qualification to mean something. The way it means something is to follow the norms of professional qualifications.

The other thing I don't know...why is it different for a qualification vs. certification? And: can they make TRAQ into TRAC (Certification instead of Qualification) so that CEUs keep us current???
 
macrocarpa said:
So the expiration date basically means nothing, we would just have a lapse in being certified? I probably won’t recertify. I’ve never had a single customer reach out to ask if I had the tree risk assessment qualification. The only real benefit I see is for future employment/having it on a résumé.
Click to expand...
I just skimmed through Jobber...looks like I had 21 specific tree risk assessments last year. I think 2 of those jobs were for a city which were multiple day jobs. 3 so far this year with another scheduled tomorrow.

While there is always more to learn, I never felt the refreshers were great learning. Its good to hear somebody else's perspective on things....but they weren't really "allowed" to teach. Their job was to just run through the ISA provided slides and that's all there was time for. I wanted discussion: why did you say that tree is "probable" instead of "possible" or vice versa? I would have said the other, but I could be talked into your side, I just want to hear what you see how you made that decision. But that's not the way the class had been set up.

Going through TRAQ the first time was good for teaching the language and getting everybody to use a system. I felt like refreshers would have been good opportunities for experienced practitioners to bring their experiences, observations, and questions to the table for mutually beneficial discussion, not just being re-told the same thing in case you forgot. (having said that, there were some changes last time I renewed, so that part was helpful).

I'm hoping the full course isn't going to feel like retaking a 101 level class my senior year...
 
ATH said:
I just skimmed through Jobber...looks like I had 21 specific tree risk assessments last year. I think 2 of those jobs were for a city which were multiple day jobs. 3 so far this year with another scheduled tomorrow.

While there is always more to learn, I never felt the refreshers were great learning. Its good to hear somebody else's perspective on things....but they weren't really "allowed" to teach. Their job was to just run through the ISA provided slides and that's all there was time for. I wanted discussion: why did you say that tree is "probable" instead of "possible" or vice versa? I would have said the other, but I could be talked into your side, I just want to hear what you see how you made that decision. But that's not the way the class had been set up.

Going through TRAQ the first time was good for teaching the language and getting everybody to use a system. I felt like refreshers would have been good opportunities for experienced practitioners to bring their experiences, observations, and questions to the table for mutually beneficial discussion, not just being re-told the same thing in case you forgot. (having said that, there were some changes last time I renewed, so that part was helpful).

I'm hoping the full course isn't going to feel like retaking a 101 level class my senior year...
Click to expand...
That's a take I didn't think of. By segregating the classes into first time takers and requals they drained much of the discussion that can come from having diverse learning groups.

I know very little about how certs and quals, or a lot of education, is actually managed and credentialed. This is revoking bias as I hope some more light gets shed on this topic.
 
Brando CalPankian said:
That's a take I didn't think of. By segregating the classes into first time takers and requals they drained much of the discussion that can come from having diverse learning groups.

I know very little about how certs and quals, or a lot of education, is actually managed and credentialed. This is revoking bias as I hope some more light gets shed on this topic.
Click to expand...
Some or a lot of that comes from the quality of the instructor. Personally I love when an instructor defers a question back to the class in a discussion round table format. Essentially facilitating the class to teach itself vs pushing the slides through.
It gives more perspective and learning opportunities for all involved including the instructor!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom