TRAQ Course

shop deals on amazon
Treestuff
Wesspur
Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

You are smart,,;)
Jeff
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Did you pass? or do you have to wait for results?
Jeff
 
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!)
 
"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.
 
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).
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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....
Click to expand...
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?
 
treevet said:
Orrrr...make recommendations based on the TRAQ steps and protocol completely documented and carry appropriate insurance. They are gonna want recommendations.....
Click to expand...
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.
 

Similar threads

T
The Echo rattle
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
LuDookie
LuDookie
R
Chain guide bumpers on this saw?
Replies
1
Views
270
Crftrapper535
Crftrapper535
Blue42
Woodport/roof in the woods for milled lumber
Replies
11
Views
1K
composter
C
N
New Member
Replies
1
Views
260
stihlaficionado
stihlaficionado
J
Pine volunteers/seedling/saplings, worth moving.
Replies
3
Views
661
irhunter
irhunter

Latest posts

Back
Top