ISA TRAQ & CEU changes

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...
Out of those 21 tree risk assessments how many specifically wanted the traq form?

For example, what if a certified arborist isn’t traq qualified, but they still offer tree risk assessments and they take pictures and make a PDF document, noting defects, overall health, etc basically creating their own form. For better or worse it’s a very unregulated trade.

I remember when I was working for Davey there was a 52-year-old foreman that started there when he was 18 years old and he was not a certified arborist. I remember asking him “do you have to be a certified arborist to call yourself an arborist”, he told me “I’ve been an arborist for 34 years”. I think my question irritated him :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH
I feel the same way, the credentials while important doesn’t cleanly equate to quality of product. Sometimes it feels like my company is the only one in the area of cert arbs that don’t spike climb out of convenience. I’m not a purest yet it’s not that hard to set a line in a Doug fir srt up the dang thing!
 
macrocarpa said:
Out of those 21 tree risk assessments how many specifically wanted the traq form?

For example, what if a certified arborist isn’t traq qualified, but they still offer tree risk assessments and they take pictures and make a PDF document, noting defects, overall health, etc basically creating their own form. For better or worse it’s a very unregulated trade.

....
Click to expand...
It is rare that I use the form. The form is publicly available, I don't think there is any copyright or restriction that says you have to be TRAQ to use it. I see it as a tool that helps guide the process... Maybe like a map. My first few times going to a new place, I will use the road map. Once I have been there, it's not often that I will bring out the map again, but I might if there is something abnormal about the journey that day.

It is not a tool that examines the tree itself. That is the arborist... Whatever certification or qualification you have that goes with that.

Probably also noteworthy in this discussion, in related to the reason I don't often use the form: that is designed for a level 2 assessment. Often when I am asked to evaluate a tree, it is because it needs a level 3 assessment. When I took the original course and the 2 freshers since, I don't think they do a lot prepare in arborist to complete Level 3 inspections.
 
Last edited:
Just to be blunt, almost no ISA TRAQ-credentialed CAs can accurately complete a TRAQ Basic Level 2 assessment. The last one I reviewed had a time frame of 1 hour. Ask yourself if you are part of the .01% and, if not, why there should not be a requirement to retake the class, andvretake it very often. There should probably be a requirement to retake the class several times a year if the goal is to professionalize TRAQ.
 
ATH said:
It is rare that I use the form. The form is publicly available, I don't think there is any copyright or restriction that says you have to be TRAQ to use it. I see it as a tool that helps guide the process... Baby like a map. My first few times going to a new place, I will use the road map. Once I have been there, it's not often that I will bring out the map again, but I might if there are something abnormal about the journey that day.

It is not a tool that examines the tree itself. That is the arborist... Whatever certification or qualification you have that goes with that.

Probably also noteworthy in this discussion, in related to the reason I don't often use the form: that is designed for a level 2 assessment. Often when I am asked to evaluate a tree, it is because it needs a level 3 assessment. When I took the original course and the 2 freshers since, I don't think they do a lot prepare in arborist to complete Level 3 inspections.
Click to expand...
Best description of the form I’ve heard is: “this is your notes….. you don’t have to submit it with your report, but you should as an appendix. Don’t be caught without it in a court room”
 
I’m just trying to weigh if it’s really worth recertifying or not. To my knowledge there are no regulations/enforcement that a certified arborist can’t charge to provide tree risk assessments even if they don’t have the TRAQ qualification. So they could do their own research to educate themselves and do a thorough and professional job of compiling a report. In court is a judge going to be aware of the TRAQ program and be able to differentiate weight carried by a certified arborist VS a certified arborist with a 2 day TRAQ qualification?

I would much rather the ISA require intense annual CEU’s than having to take the whole course all over again, charging the full amount, and having to take two days off of work and potentially a hotel room. I think the ISA these days might need more advisors that came up from the groundie up ;)
 
macrocarpa said:
...To my knowledge there are no regulations/enforcement that a certified arborist can’t charge to provide tree risk assessments even if they don’t have the TRAQ qualification. So they could do their own research to educate themselves and do a thorough and professional job of compiling a report. In court is a judge going to be aware of the TRAQ program and be able to differentiate weight carried by a certified arborist VS a certified arborist with a 2 day TRAQ qualification?
...
Click to expand...
Right...there may be local or state requirements. For example a municipality may say "before a tree is removed it needs to be identified as moderate to high risk by a TRAQ arborist" but otherwise no regulation or restriction on doing risk assessments.

Will a judge know? Probably not. But an attorney worth anything will make that known. In the courtroom that doesn't mean the TRAQ arborist knows more than the other...just easier for the attorney to point those initials out to convince a jury their expert is better.

I had to do a deposition for an appraisal case where another arborist drastically disagreed with my numbers. He had more "qualifications" than I did, but I showed the attorney who hired me why his numbers were wrong based on the book he said in his report that he used. (That never went to trial, so I don't know how it was settled...). That would have been really easy to discredit that report to a jury, IMHO, despite the fact he had more qualifications.
 
ATH said:
Right...there may be local or state requirements. For example a municipality may say "before a tree is removed it needs to be identified as moderate to high risk by a TRAQ arborist" but otherwise no regulation or restriction on doing risk assessments.

Will a judge know? Probably not. But an attorney worth anything will make that known. In the courtroom that doesn't mean the TRAQ arborist knows more than the other...just easier for the attorney to point those initials out to convince a jury their expert is better.

I had to do a deposition for an appraisal case where another arborist drastically disagreed with my numbers. He had more "qualifications" than I did, but I showed the attorney who hired me why his numbers were wrong based on the book he said in his report that he used. (That never went to trial, so I don't know how it was settled...). That would have been really easy to discredit that report to a jury, IMHO, despite the fact he had more qualifications.
Click to expand...
Not knowing outcomes really peeves me.
 
Boomslang said:
How much is everyone paying for their TRAQ courses?
Click to expand...
Looks like Ohio is charging $695. I don't know the numbers off hand, but most of that goes to ISA/pays for the instructors. The local component is responsible for venue and lunch, IIRC, and ends up with a little profit from it (but probably not really because we also pay the director who organizes everything and that's part of her job).
 
ATH said:
Looks like Ohio is charging $695. I don't know the numbers off hand, but most of that goes to ISA/pays for the instructors. The local component is responsible for venue and lunch, IIRC, and ends up with a little profit from it (but probably not really because we also pay the director who organizes everything and that's part of her job).
Click to expand...
Ours is 1200 loonies, which even with the exchange is considerably higher. We based that price off of covering our costs with just the minimum number of participants (which I think is 10). However, every additional participant nets us a small profit. Some still goes to ISA HQ and the instructor, as they get a cut per person, but they've been a money maker for us in the past. And I still don't get paid....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom