???? Not sure what you're responding to but appreciate the tone of civilized debate. (Seriously, no snark intended. It inspires me to try to do the same. )
CITES didn't list East Indian Rosewood. They listed ALL Dalbergia as being controlled.
Right, I guess you thought I meant EIR was the
only one to get added to the list.
It just happened to be the most popular one and the subject of relevance to the discussion.
My point exactly: ALL the
remaining unlisted species of Dalbergia were listed in 2016 with effective date of 1/2/2017 for exactly the reason I cited in post 20:
"The express purpose was to get them listed en masse now, just like Tommym mentions in post #14, instead of piece-meal adding 'em as the consumption pressures inevitably shift to "un-listed" species as has historically been seen with the other varieties."
Many species of Dalbergia were lsied prior to he 2016 mass listing
From farm grown EIR to the Dalbergia Sissoo I have planted in my front yard as a shade tree. (most popular shade tree in Phoenix). Plus three species of Bubinga.
It sounds like you take exception to listing farmed EIR but doesn't this go right back to your original issue about customs agents being unable to distinguish between EIR and other rosewoods?
By the same token,
how are they supposed to be to tell the difference between farmed or wild-harvested rosewood,
which has been illegal to export from India ever since 1927?, preceding the CITES convention by almost 50 years?
Again, I submit: "Documentation".
Not even the CITES signatories think that EIR is in any way endangered.
Again, my point exactly.
They're trying to get past trying to catch a train that's left the station, and trying to prevent it from leaving at all.
History has shown that in the case of forest products, once one species gets listed other "substitute" species become the focus of exploitation.
All they have done is sew chaos in any industry that uses rosewood and/or bubinga.
Well, I respectfully disagree.
Prior to the 2016 additions, many species of Dalbergia were already listed.
Hyperbole ("all they have done is sew chaos") won't convince me but quotes from industry sources might.
I do sincerely applaud your apparent understanding of the listings and the species covered.
A lot of folks don't seem willing to investigate what's listed and when, but I posted a link to the US F&WS letter that linked to the formal CITES listings about a year ago, but for those who may be interested I'll re-post it here:
http://www.letstalkguild.com/ltg/sh...-Regs-for-US-citizens-Official-FWS-newsletter
And the current listing as of 1/2/2017, detailing when various species were first listed.
EIR would be under the "Dalbergia spp" after "populations of Madagascar":
https://www.fws.gov/international/plants/current-cites-listings-of-tree-species.html
There also seems to be a common misperception that there's only one level of "control".
Actually there are differing levels of control.
"Appendix 1" is complete prohibition of international trade.
"Appendix 2" simply requires documentation.
And anybody involved in the EIR trade was well aware of the pending effective date of the listings for 6 months prior, and had plenty of time to make adjustments, initiate documentation processes, and acquire documentation for existing stockpiles if necessary, which is why I don't buy the "sew chaos" reference.
Another factor mitigating against that is that when CITES was originally instituted it specifically looked at GATT in order to avoid disrupting existing international trade.
And yes I concede that corruption degrades the actual processes so the model ideal may not be presently achieved but I respectfully submit it's still better than uncontrolled rape of resources.
And in this case I don't consider "rape" to be hyperbole:
Why Madagascan species were the subject of focus in 2013.