TRAQ Course

[BC WetCoast]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"

 

[treeseer]

"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]

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]

[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]

"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]

"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]

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]

things change...just ask Obama