Positive Solutions with CITES

[OMO]

Originally Posted by Bowie

There's plenty of great woods. Consumers just aren't all that open minded to them, it seems. They fetishize certain woods.

I think that part of the problem is, people are willing to buy (what would normally be) a $2k to $3k guitar, but with a Braz back for an extra $3k, rather than just buying a $5k guitar with non-exotic woods, built by a higher-end builder.
The woods aren't nearly as important builder.

Personally, I'm convinced Braz is the finest tone wood. For me, it lives up to the hype based on sound. These days a braz is likely only to be built by a high end luthier.

Anyways, Let's get away from this sort of discussion and look at ways of growing more for the future generations.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by OMO

Anyways, Let's get away from this sort of discussion and look at ways of growing more for the future generations.

Well, that's contradictory. Making sure there's fine tonewood for future generations, and saying Braz is the only way to get there, just doesn't work. Trees grow slow. If people open their minds to other woods, they won't need Braz to get the best of the best, and to have the finest woods available to other generations.

To be honest, I think we're about to have a huge surplus of fine acoustics anyway as the younger generations aren't listening to a lot of acoustic driven music like the Boomers did. Prices are already slipping, including the prices of used Brazilian backed guitars.

[gitarro]

There isn't actually any real need for exports of all rosewood guitars to be only allowed with permits. The guitar industry isn't a contributor to the rapid depletion of rosewood. Even if all guitar makers would stop using all rosewood over night it would make no real difference to the decline of rosewood in the world. I reckon the real reason why they have insisted on permits being required even for finished guitars is to destroy all demand for rosewood itself. No doubt the next step would be shame those who love rosewood in the same way as baby seals and tortoise shell and ivory.

The only positive step I think cites should and can do is to remove the requirement for export permits for finished musical instruments. To me, rosewood is irreplaceable as a guitar tonewood. It can be substituted but it will look never be the same.

Where it concerns braz, it isunrealistic to talk about wiaitng for it to recover. Only old growh braz grown in their original environment will sound like the braz we are taking about.

Good old growh brazilian rosewood is indeed special. Completely impossible to bring it back in commercial terms since it is heavily dependent on its surrounding coastal ecology and that environment is for most purposes already destroyed for good except in small pockets. There are however many guitar makers and traders who have stocks of good braz that was cut down a lot long time ago but they have no documentation for it. Cites could declare an amnesty of sorts whereby people who hv such stocks are given some time frame to document their stocks and obtain licenses for every set of brazilian. In sondoing a census of all remaining legal braz could be obtained and kept track of. The licenses then can be transferred on to the guitars. It could also be stipulated that all leftovers from the production process must also be weighed and measured and declared and if destroyed then must be declared as wellm if they are to be reused as rosette or headstock material or bindings rhen that must also be declared and a license be obtained. Their dimensions and weights are measured against the original set to ensure that no unlicensed sets are being "laundered".

[creamburmese]

To change the focus slightly - does anyone here actually have a "passport" 'for a Brazilian guitar? I applied for one back in December but have not heard even if they will consider it...

[TokyoNeko]

Originally Posted by gitarro

The only positive step I think cites should and can do is to remove the requirement for export permits for finished musical instruments. To me, rosewood is irreplaceable as a guitar tonewood. It can be substituted but it will look never be the same.

Unfortunately, I think the chances of eliminating export permits for finished instruments with BRW are slim to none. If anything, that same restriction may eventually creep into other rosewoods (EIR, Cocobolo, Madagascar, Honduran, you name it), which I mentioned earlier.

I'm a rosewood guy as well, and at the same time, I don't think it will be too long before rosewood becomes an unobtainable material for guitars (from the perspective of general availability and increasing expenses to buy/use the material). That's why I'm having a custom one made so that I can at least have a great one to hold on to.

[tadol]

Constructive thoughts - OK -

First, there is no need for most people to take a BR guitar while traveling internationally, except possibly to perform - and even then, those performers will either need to obtain the passports for their instruments, or purchase others that are not resricted. So for those whose performance demands a BR instrument - maybe set up a database of luthiers / music shops / individuals within each country who would be willing to rent or loan instruments to traveling musicians for performances? I've been to a few shows where the player mentions that they were unable to bring their personal instrument, and are playing a (name here) for the show, and special thanks to (name here) for letting them borrow it -

Or to prevent the sale of br instruments (which is really what its all about) any international movement of a restricted material would require registration with photos before exit, and then re-checked on re-entry. That wouldn't be too hard, and with the value of many of these instruments, the insurance people would probably be happy to assist in this documentation for their own risk avoidance. Maybe we could microchip guitars?

But really, we've all done amazingly well without ivory, tortoise shell, whale oil, baby seal coats, rhino horn aphrodisiacs, and other endangered species items - the same is true with BR - there are alot of native woods that we (the market) have not accepted as reasonable materials that we should, and I'm not aware of us making any effort to replace the native materials we are using. Shouldn't we be using some of these same arguments for our own adirondack and sitka spruce? What efforts are we making to replace or regrow these so that in 100 years from now, luthiers will have access to reasonably priced high quality material that we take for granted now, just like they did with BR 100 years ago?

[The Bard Rocks]

Gitarro is on to something here. If someone has a private stock of wood that predated CITES though it was without documentation, and I am sure there is a lot of this around, it seems like it would a relatively simple matter to allow them to create legal documentation, even if it is just a sworn notarized statement that they have owned this wood since XXX. Start creating the chain of ownership. Yes, this relies upon a certain amount of trust.

[OMO]

Originally Posted by tadol

Constructive thoughts - OK -

First, there is no need for most people to take a BR guitar while traveling internationally, except possibly to perform - and even then, those performers will either need to obtain the passports for their instruments, or purchase others that are not resricted.

Well, this is your opinion. Others would not feel that way as it is their guitar they play best with and they should be able to take is where they want.

Originally Posted by tadol

So for those whose performance demands a BR instrument - maybe set up a database of luthiers / music shops / individuals within each country who would be willing to rent or loan instruments to traveling musicians for performances? I've been to a few shows where the player mentions that they were unable to bring their personal instrument, and are playing a (name here) for the show, and special thanks to (name here) for letting them borrow it -

This is a great idea! However, what about the guy who feels and performs best with the instrument they bonded with?

Originally Posted by tadol

Or to prevent the sale of br instruments (which is really what its all about)

Well, I thought it was about saving the trees. I think this can best be done by planting more not preventing commerce.

Originally Posted by tadol

But really, we've all done amazingly well without ivory, tortoise shell, whale oil, baby seal coats, rhino horn aphrodisiacs, and other endangered species items - the same is true with BR - there are alot of native woods that we (the market) have not accepted as reasonable materials that we should,

Well, all those things can be duplicated well and do not contribute to the sound like Braz does to the sound. I would in no way spend a lot more for a guitar if it did not sound superior and often, it seems the raw fact is, the Braz just sounds better. Which is why, I believe we must take action to grow more for future generations. Others will disagree but there will always be some of us who hear and appreciate the difference. Regulations only restrict. Let's grow some more!

Originally Posted by tadol

I'm not aware of us making any effort to replace the native materials we are using. Shouldn't we be using some of these same arguments for our own adirondack and sitka spruce? What efforts are we making to replace or regrow these so that in 100 years from now, luthiers will have access to reasonably priced high quality material that we take for granted now, just like they did with BR 100 years ago?

Oh, absolutely the US has plenty of individuals and companies working hard on conservation and growth of new trees. http://www.appalachianwood.org/forestry.htm

It's the tropical woods that concern me in countries with less than stable laws. The US owns Hawaii, which is a stable place and should be for the next 100 plus years, god willing. Crops of tropical woods, such as Braz should be grown their for future yields.

I know Bob Taylor has started some inroads to growing more Koa in Hawaii. It is my hope he or others would grow some of the other highly prized woods their as well. Where there is a will, there is a way.

[OMO]

Originally Posted by gitarro

There isn't actually any real need for exports of all rosewood guitars to be only allowed with permits. The guitar industry isn't a contributor to the rapid depletion of rosewood. Even if all guitar makers would stop using all rosewood over night it would make no real difference to the decline of rosewood in the world. I reckon the real reason why they have insisted on permits being required even for finished guitars is to destroy all demand for rosewood itself. No doubt the next step would be shame those who love rosewood in the same way as baby seals and tortoise shell and ivory.

I agree.

I wish I could find some confirmation on this: I heard from someone who went to a CITES conference, the Indian government is pulling out due to the restrictions placed on their IRW.

Originally Posted by gitarro

The only positive step I think cites should and can do is to remove the requirement for export permits for finished musical instruments. To me, rosewood is irreplaceable as a guitar tonewood. It can be substituted but it will look never be the same.

I think this is quite reasonable. It also takes a lot of fear away from owners who have no way or no easy way of proving how the wood was harvested.

Originally Posted by gitarro

Where it concerns braz, it isunrealistic to talk about wiaitng for it to recover. Only old growh braz grown in their original environment will sound like the braz we are taking about.

I think growing more is a sensible thing to do. New trees won't be harvested for a lifetime but it is the only thing that solves the issue, which is diminished trees.

I think, it is up in air as to if trees grown in a different location would sound better or worse. They could sound better! Hawaii has some amazing soil and it rains on the south side of the big island every day.

Originally Posted by gitarro

Good old growh brazilian rosewood is indeed special. Completely impossible to bring it back in commercial terms since it is heavily dependent on its surrounding coastal ecology and that environment is for most purposes already destroyed for good except in small pockets. There are however many guitar makers and traders who have stocks of good braz that was cut down a lot long time ago but they have no documentation for it. Cites could declare an amnesty of sorts whereby people who hv such stocks are given some time frame to document their stocks and obtain licenses for every set of brazilian. In sondoing a census of all remaining legal braz could be obtained and kept track of. The licenses then can be transferred on to the guitars. It could also be stipulated that all leftovers from the production process must also be weighed and measured and declared and if destroyed then must be declared as wellm if they are to be reused as rosette or headstock material or bindings rhen that must also be declared and a license be obtained. Their dimensions and weights are measured against the original set to ensure that no unlicensed sets are being "laundered".

This would be a good idea to solve something now. Even better would be the US exiting the CITES regulations. As I understand it, (I wish I could find some confirmation) it is not the US that is eating up all this precious wood - it's other countries using it for furniture. If true, what a waste of valuable tone wood.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by gitarro

There are however many guitar makers and traders who have stocks of good braz that was cut down a lot long time ago but they have no documentation for it. Cites could declare an amnesty of sorts whereby people who hv such stocks are given some time frame to document their stocks and obtain licenses for every set of brazilian. In sondoing a census of all remaining legal braz could be obtained and kept track of. The licenses then can be transferred on to the guitars. It could also be stipulated that all leftovers from the production process must also be weighed and measured and declared and if destroyed then must be declared as wellm if they are to be reused as rosette or headstock material or bindings rhen that must also be declared and a license be obtained. Their dimensions and weights are measured against the original set to ensure that no unlicensed sets are being "laundered".

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

Gitarro is on to something here. If someone has a private stock of wood that predated CITES though it was without documentation, and I am sure there is a lot of this around, it seems like it would a relatively simple matter to allow them to create legal documentation, even if it is just a sworn notarized statement that they have owned this wood since XXX. Start creating the chain of ownership. Yes, this relies upon a certain amount of trust.

Good idea. And it happens to be exactly what Fish and Wildlife does already. A couple of years ago they began implementing a new rule for legalizing old stocks of BRW, and it relies heavily on trust and affadvits. It can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/international/pd...ter-import.pdf. [Unfortunately, one person read that rule mistakenly, and posted all over the internet that it made all existing stocks of BRW illegal. It actually did the opposite.]

[Ken Olmstead]

Seems like "Smart" wood was a bit before it's time but we are getting close to the fact that it is necessary, but exciting at the same time!

I used to use tortoise picks on my Mandolin. I just loved the sound! But even as a non-touring armature, I constantly had people asking me what pick I used! It bothered and embarrassed me that I might be creating a demand for something endangered! I finally switched to Blue Chips when they became available so as not to create any local demand (however small.) Now the tortoise picks sit in a drawer and I pull them out in private for fun, but I still prefer Blue Chips.

I have a guitar with rosewood (no Braz ) and I will continue to play it, however, carbon fiber and other wood alternatives are raising on my priority list to check out!

[Rodger Knox]

Originally Posted by OMO

It's the tropical woods that concern me in countries with less than stable laws. The US owns Hawaii, which is a stable place and should be for the next 100 plus years, god willing. Crops of tropical woods, such as Braz should be grown their for future yields.

I know Bob Taylor has started some inroads to growing more Koa in Hawaii. It is my hope he or others would grow some of the other highly prized woods their as well. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Hawaii actually belongs to the Hawaiians, and they have some serious constraints with regard to removing trees from their forests. Even trees that have fallen due to natural causes must be left in place to decompose. There's a lot of koa logs on the ground in Hawaii, and that's where they will stay.

[mercy]

The only good part of getting old is I wont have to deal with all this rosewood stupidity. Ill be able to play my rosewood guitar till my body cant. Its not guitars that have caused the rosewood crises.

[OMO]

Originally Posted by Rodger Knox

Hawaii actually belongs to the Hawaiians, and they have some serious constraints with regard to removing trees from their forests. Even trees that have fallen due to natural causes must be left in place to decompose. There's a lot of koa logs on the ground in Hawaii, and that's where they will stay.

Well, the land belongs to the individual land holder. The politicians of the state and counties makes laws just like they do in the states. Harvesting trees is a matter of getting the proper permits. And there is not a lot stopping a person selling a big Koa tree in their yard to pay for the kids college.

[OMO]

Originally Posted by creamburmese

To change the focus slightly - does anyone here actually have a "passport" 'for a Brazilian guitar? I applied for one back in December but have not heard even if they will consider it...

The permit is only good for 6 months. So you have to pony up and spend the hassle getting a permit on a revolving basis.