Big CITES news!

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
This is great news, especially for us buyers in Canada! Its been slim pickins since January 2017 on our side of the border.
 

Stuball48

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
4,736
Reaction score
2,534
Location
Dickson, TN
This is great news, especially for us buyers in Canada! Its been slim pickins since January 2017 on our side of the border.
Your sales will end much sooner. Those tempted by your guitars, and confidence they have in your honesty, will be taking the "plunge."
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
good news for guitar players, terrible news for the environment.

Why do you say that? My understanding is that the amount and types of woods used in instrument making were insignificant compared to other uses for wood, for example furniture. In the specific case of guitars I tend to believe the manufacturers when they say they are moving towards sustainable sources of wood. Is my understanding of wood usage different or incorrect?

LTG discourages political discussions, even those started by a Moderator. I am genuinely interested in how a European point of view differs but hope I do not end up having to moderate my question :) Thank you.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,443
Reaction score
7,105
Location
Central Massachusetts
I am curious about airplane's answer as well, Fro. I hope there is a non-political answer to this question from the European point of view.

I do believe, in general, that the creation of exemptions such as this invite abuse... From that point of view, it's a near certainty that non-musical instrument usage of CITES-protected species will slip in by poachers intentionally. That, as airplane said, is bad news, and (IMO) highly likely.

That said, my expectation about treaty changes here is that it's an enforcement issue for the authorities, not that the music business has successfully lobbied anything political. My guess (and it's only just that) is that It's too difficult for customs officers to be on top of all the musical instruments that travel across borders and enforcement needs to be on "bigger" possible violations like furniture and building materials... I'm guessing.
 

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
That said, my expectation about treaty changes here is that it's an enforcement issue for the authorities, not that the music business has successfully lobbied anything political. My guess (and it's only just that) is that It's too difficult for customs officers to be on top of all the musical instruments that travel across borders and enforcement needs to be on "bigger" possible violations like furniture and building materials... I'm guessing.

Chaz, I think your assessment is spot on. In my experience having crossed the border multiple times with guitars containing RW, border agents have shown zero interest in enforcing CITES rules and regulations. All they've been interested in is making sure I pay duties and taxes. I've called a number of government agencies on both sides of the border to ask for information about CITES and have openly volunteered information about RW content in the guitars I've crossed the border with, and either they have no clue about it or do not care one iota.

The only impact I've seen is the fact that CITES has virtually killed the international sale of instruments containing RW and has also contributed to inflating prices on these instruments which are much harder to find because their movement across the border is severely hindered. Sellers in the US just don't want the hassle, so smaller markets, like in Canada, have been adversely affected.

I'm a strong believer in environmental protections, but in this case, I think they've missed the mark by unjustly targeting instruments. I think the fact they've finally recognized this is great news for all concerned and will even help to focus resources and attention where it needs to be.
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.
From the article, I added emphasis for my point:
"If successful the proposal could be adopted at the next CITES meeting in May 2019 and pass into law by September next year."
I think this is an example of what Airplane was getting at, and what I've tried to explain many times as the real reason for CITES (which nobody in this thread has condemned, to your credit!):
"One compliance matter discussed by the Committee concerned exports of African rosewood from Nigeria. Since the beginning of 2018, Nigeria has authorised over 180,000 m3 of the timber to China and Vietnam, without first making sure that these exports will not threaten the survival of the species. The Committee decided to recommend suspension of commercial trade in this timber species until Nigeria has made a non-detriment finding for the species in the country."
But this is also an example of what the Committee is looking for and attempting to curb.
Still, it ain't a "Done deal" yet, although it seems to be quite probable.
But maybe I can finally start realistically entertaining my lust for a theorbos.

img_4140.jpg
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
I'm a strong believer in environmental protections, but in this case, I think they've missed the mark by unjustly targeting instruments. I think the fact they've finally recognized this is great news for all concerned and will even help to focus resources and attention where it needs to be.
Clyde with due respect, instruments (especially those already constructed when the listings went into effect) were never "targeted", they were simply never exempted.
Call 'em "collateral damage".
Even the US FWS put out a letter to that effect when the final rosewood restrictions went into effect, and emphasized the exemptions for personal carry of up to 20lbs of restricted material which covers most instruments.
As Frono said the real "targets" were the furniture industry, and countries who were exploiting their own resources or not enforcing their own anti-poaching laws.
That proposed recommendation to suspend Nigerian African rosewood trade?
THAT'S "targeting".
And I suspect you're just as ok with it as I am.
:friendly_wink:
Edit: You got this in while I was composing the above:
Agreed, we'll believe it when we see it :)
At least its a step in the right direction.
And I think we're basically on the same page.
We all hate bureaucracy, whose wheels grind even slower than those of justice, but it's probably still preferable to the alternative?
:biggrin-new:
 
Last edited:

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Clyde with due respect, instruments (especially those already constructed when the listings went into effect) were never "targeted", they were simply never exempted.
Call 'em "collateral damage".

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. And you can't deny the negative impact its had on the industry. This whole thing has been very poorly managed in my view.

Believe me 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.
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
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.
NULL_7480604e473d2524.jpg


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".
 
Last edited:

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,443
Reaction score
7,105
Location
Central Massachusetts
Well, we may not all agree on whether the music instrument industry should be exempted from CITES. I think that's a fair disagreement. I worry about "loopholes" like this will create, but I still believe my contention that enforcement of CITES such as it is is highly problematical for guitars.

Anyway, I'd still like to hear more from airplane and other EU folks about their opinions.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Well, we may not all agree on whether the music instrument industry should be exempted from CITES. I think that's a fair disagreement. I worry about "loopholes" like this will create, but I still believe my contention that enforcement of CITES such as it is is highly problematical for guitars.
Purely for the sake of facilitating civil discourse, I think what needs to be clarified is this phrase from that article:
"The Committee will exempt “finished musical instruments”, “finished musical instrument parts” and “finished musical instrument accessories” from its licensing requirements, although the exact definition of those terms will be defined in a proposal document prepared in cooperation with the EU"
I think we'd probably universally agree that "finished instruments" would cover all the vintage items that the collecting community is primarily interested in, and that that's a good thing.
What interests me is the distinction of "finished parts": that could be interpreted as being intended to apply to partially worked raw materials intended for use in construction of new instruments.
Pre-sized rosewood fretboard blanks come to mind.
I'm guessing anything intended for use in instrument construction probably doesn't have a lot of potential re-purposing for smugglers to be tempted to use the "finished parts" loophole.
Big blocks of raw wood for making backs and sides?
Yeah, that'd be tempting but the way I read it, they're not finished parts, so they're still subject to the regs, but really only affect new instrument construction, in which case the maker takes on the onus of verifying compliance..
I can't think of a better way to construct the proposal for our ideal solution.
I suspect most everybody here would agree on the principle, at least.

Anyway, I'd still like to hear more from airplane and other EU folks about their opinions.
Yeah and I'm gonna try to shut up now myself, unless I think anything I said was misinterpreted.
 
Last edited:

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,443
Reaction score
7,105
Location
Central Massachusetts
Not at all, Al. I'm just not sure if we're missing something.

Interesting about the "finished parts" thing. And, while we're at it, have you guys ever seen the size of a piano's spruce soundboard?? There's definitely some bridges to cross in the future.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Not at all, Al. I'm just not sure if we're missing something.

Interesting about the "finished parts" thing. And, while we're at it, have you guys ever seen the size of a piano's spruce soundboard?? There's definitely some bridges to cross in the future.

Right about the soundboard, but, conversely, spruce isn't regulated, last I heard.
It does raise the question of what piano bodies are traditionally made of, though.... (a quick google search brings back maple as a common one)
So one could reasonably guess that rosewood described as piano body parts might get a closer inspection...
:friendly_wink:
 

Walter Broes

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
5,892
Reaction score
1,957
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
It would be awesome news, and it wouldn't necessarily be bad for the environment. Listened to a podcast on the Fretboardjournal's site, and Bob Taylor (who is very au courant of wood supplies and legality and all that) said something to the effect that most if not nearly all of the rosewood used in musical instruments these days is from India, and that India is very responsible and careful with their rosewood these days.
 

Quantum Strummer

Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
2,382
Reaction score
118
Location
Michigan
I currently have a guitar kinda stuck in CITES limbo land. Rosewood fretboard. It'll ship from Germany to me in the US as soon as it gets cleared by the German authorities. It's a build-to-order jobbie, with the order placed just prior to the current regulations, otherwise I likely wouldn't have bothered getting it.

As noted well here, concerns about irresponsible rosewood harvesting are legitimate…but use of the wood in guitars (don't know about pianos) is tiny compared to the furniture & decorative trades. IMO the current CITES regs paint with too broad a brush, so I'm glad to see this will likely get corrected.

Environment-wise I think it would be a real shame if we harvested rosewood into depletion. It's a beautiful and useful resource, and with a longer-term outlook applied to its use & maintenance can be a sustainable resource too.

-Dave-
 
Top