Targeted, collateral damage, unfairly impacted, etc. We're on the same page... my first language is French so sometimes my choice of words might not be so precise, but thanks for correcting that.
Still, the fact that one can carry a RW guitar across the border but not ship it without all the "paperwork", makes no sense to me... its the same guitar.
It's the "personal carry" thing: that's much less likely to be a commercial transaction, whereas something that's being
shipped is much more likely to be a commercial transaction, and the whole point is to reduce demand on threatened species by putting the restrictions on
commercial transactions.
And again, it's not
the instrument, it's the
specific threatened species.
Same restrictions apply to
anything containing rosewood and any of the other species covered under "personal carry".
So that carved rosewood jewelry box is subject to the same restriction but it's ok for personal carry as long as it weighs less than 20 lbs.
What they really want is to reduce the incentive to try to smuggle large volumes of stuff which by definition is probably going to be shipped in containers.
For commercial gain.
So the broad strokes are laid down first and the fine tuning follows as we're seeing here.
We're just (understandably) looking through an instrument focused lens here, but try to step back and see what the
really big picture is:
Don't forget CITES also lists endangered
wildlife where I suspect you don't even get personal carry exemptions.
And where we see some of the most destructive and heart-rending smuggling techniques, for BIG bucks.
Elephant ivory.
Rhino horn.
Tiger skin.
Exotic cats and birds.
All under pressure not just from habitat loss but from pursuit of the root of all evil.
And this is one scenario which demonstrates the accuracy of that characterization.
It's not just the loss of a given species that's regrettable, it's the unknown impact that loss has on its native ecosystem that's hugely terrifying.
It's like pulling a stick out of a Jenga tower.
And you can't deny the negative impact its had on the industry. This whole thing has been very poorly managed in my view.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the trade in used guitars an "industry", but that may just be a matter of translation again.
You wanted the framers of the treaties to forecast and construct the exceptions prior to acting so that our instrument collecting and trading hobby escaped unscathed?
Lemme tell ya they simply had far bigger problems on the agenda.
If I may quote a line from
Casablanca:
"... but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world"
And the private trade in individual instruments is pretty analogous to the 3 little people compared to 180,000 cubic meters of rosewood in a year..
Obviously the international trade in instruments has been affected but how big is that really compared to the voracious demand for raw materials?
Believe when I say: Nowadays, if you live in Canada or any other country excluding the US and want to buy an American made guitar (Guild, Gibson, Taylor, Martin, etc.), you gotta work hard as hell. Buying a quality instrument should not have to be such a PITA.
Are you saying none of those makers offer
new CITES-compliant instruments in Canada?
Or is this still in reference to the used and vintage trading community?
In which case I stand by my observations and respectfully close my "presentation".