Why Can't We Get Some New Good Quality Brazilian Rosewood?

[mmasters]

I mean there's still a decent amount of Brazilian Rosewood left - 7% or so of the remaining forests of what used to be. It's valued enough that Brazil could probably get $100,000 a tree. In addition, it would probably only take a hundred trees over about a ten year period to satiate the higher end guitar market. One hundred trees over ten years isn't really that much in the scheme of things... and the trees could be sold for close to 10 million. Seems like it could work under the right circumstances. Thoughts?

[loco gringo]

Who is in charge of allotting the 100 trees? How many would Martin get? Gibson? Collings? All the rest?

What if the furniture industry wants 100 trees? What about the luxury automobile industry? What about the picture framing industry? What about any other industry? Why should the guitar industry, to the exclusion of other industries, be allowed to do this? Or are you saying that other industries should be allowed to have 100 trees, also? A better question might be, "why do we need guitars made from recently harvested BRW"?

What about ivory and tortoise shell? There are some animals that die of natural causes every year. Why can't that be allotted?

[buddyhu]

What about all the other people who want to use “just a little” Brazilian rosewood for their pet uses (furniture or wooden bowls or statues or whatever)? How do we convince them that we should be permitted to use some, but they should not be given the same opportunity? And if everyone is allowed an exemption, wont that seriously compromise the Brazilian rosewood that is still extant?

[alnico5]

I'll buy in if the remaining African elephants are slaughtered for fret markers.

[mmasters]

Originally Posted by loco gringo

Who is in charge of allotting the 100 trees? How many would Martin get? Gibson? Collings? All the rest?

What if the furniture industry wants 100 trees? What about the luxury automobile industry? What about the picture framing industry? What about any other industry? Why should the guitar industry, to the exclusion of other industries, be allowed to do this? Or are you saying that other industries should be allowed to have 100 trees, also?

A better question might be, "why do we need guitars made from recently harvested BRW"?

I guess you have a valid point though I would say the guitar industry is better than those other industries.

I mean I haven't heard much talk of BRW being the holy grail for anything but guitars. So why not share a little of the best for the best...

[loco gringo]

Originally Posted by mmasters

I guess you have a valid point though I would say the guitar industry is better than those other industries.

I mean I haven't heard much talk of BRW being the holy grail for anything but guitars. So why not share a little of the best for the best...

It could also encourage the illegal harvest and sale of it. Allowing the legal harvest and sale also means you have to be able to distinguish between the legal and illegal harvest and sale of it. This means regulatory agency enforcement resources are required.

I am not one who believes it is the holy grail of guitar wood. I'm not against the use of existing stock to make guitars, but it isn't something I would seek out.

[charles Tauber]

Seems like it could work under the right circumstances. Thoughts?

After some serious consideration, I can’t imagine what are those circumstances.

[Gordon Currie]

Funny, I wouldn't call 7% of what used to be in forests a decent amount. I'd call that endangered.

[Brucebubs]

I need some more whale oil for my lantern too.

[Alan Carruth]

This is a very complicated issue.

I had a student at one time who owned a large tract of forest in the area where BRW grows. He very much wanted to manage it for sustainable wood harvest; he could have made a decent living and preserved the ecosystem. He was not allowed to. Cutting trees was forbidden. If they caught you with the wood it was confiscated, only to show up later in the hands of one of the old line logging firms, where you could buy it back. You could not clear land for agriculture, but if a tract of forest caught fire from, say, lightening, you could farm it afterward. I have seen pictures of one of these 'lightening strike' areas, with stumps about three feet tall and flat on the top. The 'lightening', I was told, comes from the local gas station in five gallon cans. When it's the only way you're allowed to make a living from your land there's not much choice. I understand that Brazil has done much better since, although from what I've seen in the news they may have been back sliding of late.

It's a classic 'tragedy of the commons', exacerbated, as is often the case, by poorly thought out laws, badly enforced, and circumvented by corruption. It's a difficult trap to escape from, even in the best of circumstances: see Ostrom's 'Managing the Commons' for more.

[jklotz]

I tried really hard to come up with something that wouln't sound like preaching to respond with, but I couldn't. I guess all I can add is that I own, and have played many guitars that sound amazing, look great, and to the best of my knowledge, haven't endangered any living species and are sustainable. I'm happy with that.

[tommieboy]

Originally Posted by mmasters

I mean there's still a decent amount of Brazilian Rosewood left - 7% or so of the remaining forests of what used to be. It's valued enough that Brazil could probably get $100,000 a tree. In addition, it would probably only take a hundred trees over about a ten year period to satiate the higher end guitar market. One hundred trees over ten years isn't really that much in the scheme of things... and the trees could be sold for close to 10 million. Seems like it could work under the right circumstances. Thoughts?

7% remaining = 93% lost!

7% is next to nothing when you take into account the damage that has already been done to the entire ecosystem. It is unknown how many species of plants and animals have been permanently lost. The sad news is that these small tracks of remaining forest will continue to shrink in size due to what Alan Carruth has pointed out in his post.

Tommy

[The Bard Rocks]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

This is a very complicated issue.

I had a student at one time who owned a large tract of forest in the area where BRW grows. He very much wanted to manage it for sustainable wood harvest; he could have made a decent living and preserved the ecosystem. He was not allowed to. Cutting trees was forbidden. If they caught you with the wood it was confiscated, only to show up later in the hands of one of the old line logging firms, where you could buy it back. You could not clear land for agriculture, but if a tract of forest caught fire from, say, lightening, you could farm it afterward. I have seen pictures of one of these 'lightening strike' areas, with stumps about three feet tall and flat on the top. The 'lightening', I was told, comes from the local gas station in five gallon cans. When it's the only way you're allowed to make a living from your land there's not much choice. I understand that Brazil has done much better since, although from what I've seen in the news they may have been back sliding of late.

It's a classic 'tragedy of the commons', exacerbated, as is often the case, by poorly thought out laws, badly enforced, and circumvented by corruption. It's a difficult trap to escape from, even in the best of circumstances: see Ostrom's 'Managing the Commons' for more.

Many thanks for that insight.

I have little interest in having BRW and it's not just the expense for so little gain (if any). I just would feel uncomfortable. Even if I knew my BRW was fully legal, but using it in public I'd be promoting it's use. That said, I do have a 1920's mandolin with BRW...

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by mmasters

I mean there's still a decent amount of Brazilian Rosewood left - 7% or so of the remaining forests of what used to be. It's valued enough that Brazil could probably get $100,000 a tree. In addition, it would probably only take a hundred trees over about a ten year period to satiate the higher end guitar market. One hundred trees over ten years isn't really that much in the scheme of things... and the trees could be sold for close to 10 million. Seems like it could work under the right circumstances. Thoughts?

Mmmm....... I think we may be asked to get our own house in order first before any agency trusts the guitar industry with access to a precious resource!

Gibson, I believe, has already been investigated for buying restricted woods even though it was stated that they knew from on-site visits that they couldn't guarantee its legality. Martin has just launched its new "eco" model, sort of ignoring that they can proudly verify the provenance of the wood used only on 2 of their wide range of catalogue models at present. Taylor? Well at least they are making an effort. Eastman? No chance of verifying anything there! And we know that potentially 80% of the African mahogany on the market (most going to China) is from dubious sources.

Nope, I can't see any one in an authority position trusting the guitar industry to manage the remaining BRW stocks!!!!

But then there is Godin who, completely by accident rather than design, have ended up ahead of the game by using 95% Canadian woods (at least on the budget guitars), collecting fallen not felled trees for the tops (under a strict Canadian Gov licence system), and making plywood from local cherry and maple for the backs and sides (thus using smaller, fast growing species and, by rotary cutting for plywood, getting up to 20 times more usable board from each tree compared to quarter sawing backs and sides).

So perhaps there is some hope we may be getting the message. At least as consumers we are discussing the issue now - it is not something I would have thought about a few years ago.

[Steve DeRosa]

Waiting...waiting...waiting...