Guitar friendly breakthrough on CITES regs?

[D41Fan]

I hate this Cites deal as much as everyone else and it can be dragged around in circles for years. Bottom line is that right now the manufacturers are using what they have in stock referring to limited materials such as Madagascar.

The big players have enough in stock for a while, but the bottom line is if the big players say no more, some will go to smaller luthiers. Don't tell me that money doesn't talk. If you want Braz or Madi and you got the money, the luthiers will be more than happy to get it for you. Right or wrong, money talks.

[guitar george]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

I have to say that learning about how Madagascar (and many other countries) are being denuded of its forests I would/could not, in conscience buy or own an instrument containing "Mad - Rose".

Once the sale of woods like Madagascar rosewood and other rosewoods become completely banned, guitars made from those woods might become as popular as tortoise shell pickguards, real fur coats and ivory piano keys. We might find a significant drop in the value of rosewood guitars due to decreased demand.

[Earl49]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

It's all a bunch of hooey anyway. The only people who abide by these kinds of regulations are legitimate businesses with a reputation on the line.

To which I add the old sayings:
"Locks are for honest people", and "Laws are for the law-abiding". Those who are determined to skirt the law will. I no longer own any rosewood guitars, or intend to cross international borders, so CITES does not apply to my collection.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by guitar george

Once the sale of woods like Madagascar rosewood and other rosewoods become completely banned, guitars made from those woods might become as popular as tortoise shell pickguards, real fur coats and ivory piano keys. We might find a significant drop in the value of rosewood guitars due to decreased demand.

I think not.

You can't unmake a guitar, so why vilify what is a part of musical history?

It's different now that we are better educated and knowledgable about environmental issues, and for new builds we all have a choice and a conscience.

In real and absolute terms, the guitar industry has had a miniscule impact on the use of endangered species.

[peter.coombe]

Guitar makers should find other, non threatened woods to build instruments with.

Well a lot of us are doing just that. However, Indian Rosewood is not threatened, most of it is plantation grown, but it has been caught up in the CITES rules on all rosewoods. Indian rosewood was used for back and sides, fingerboards, bridges, bindings etc, but now some makers are using Ebony to replace the rosewood. That is downright crazy, because Ebony is more scarce than Indian Rosewood. If these changes mean I will be able to get Indian Rosewood again I will be very happy.

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by guitar george

Once the sale of woods like Madagascar rosewood and other rosewoods become completely banned, guitars made from those woods might become as popular as tortoise shell pickguards, real fur coats and ivory piano keys. We might find a significant drop in the value of rosewood guitars due to decreased demand.

What u r suggesting is the complete ban of the use of any rosewood for any reason. Which is what has almost happened in effect to ivory and tortoise shell That is just unnecessary and will not achirve tbat purpose when (1) the people who are causing the most destruction of rosewood trees are probably clear cutters who use fire to clear forests for agriculture and for housing (2) the next biggest factor are the furniture industry which uses massive amounts of rosewood. Chief among these are the makers of Chinese hongmu furniture.

The music instrument industry's use of rosewood is a pin prick compared to that. The guitar industry is simply not responsible for the global rosewood illicit market in any substantial.fashion and punishing them and by extension musicians and guitarists the world over wont change that. On the other hand it is causing real damage in the form of threats to the liquidity of guitar companies and retailers and thus jobs and businesses owned by many human beings in the face of the fact that rosewood is necessary to create one of the two most recognisable tonal flavours in guitar (the other being mahogany).

Thus creating an exemption for the music instrument isnt watering down necessary legislation - it is cutting back on an unnecessarily draconian imposition thta is causing real damage and hurt to thousands of people around the world for nothing.

[Dan Hall]

I wonder if this means Gibson and Martin could open factories in Brazil and export completed instruments? It says parts too.....precut backs and sides?

[gitarro]

"Nimby"?

One could just as easily characterise the lobbying of well funded environmental non governmental organisations who have been pressuring cites to impose a blanket ban as the agenda of people who have as their ultimate goal the Ban of All Products Of Flora and Fauna that Are Not Grown Or Reared on farms regardless of the effect on actual human lives around the world (BAPOFFAGOR? Lol doesnt roll off the tongue!!!)

For instance it did not seem to matter to them that a blanket ban and requirement for permits for all rosewood would punish the most well run rosewood harvesting country in the world - India. Where all the rosewood made available for sale are carefully ensured to be harvested from tea plantations and not forests. It also didn't seem to matter tbat there is no way allowing an exemption for guitars would in any way enable the hongmu furniture makers to circumvent that exemption given the tiny amount of rosewood given that the very small quantities of rosewood in a guitar cannot be disassembled for use as furniture.

Using a chair maker as an example isnt at all similar since chairs are furniture which means that u r talking about the very same industry that is causing the depredations on rosewood worldwide. A solid rosewood chair is in fact one of hongmu futrniture's specialities and it uses a lot of solid rosewood to make.

This is completely different from rosewood used by guitarmakers.the piece of rosewood used for the back and sides of a guitar are very thin. The rosewood used for overlays etc are usually waste wood.

In these circumstances, why see a completely necessary and justified exemption for guitars especially to be somehow a slippery slope? There are justified exemptions and there are those which are unjustified - the cites assembly will debate them. I think it is clear for guitars that it is justified.

Originally Posted by Klimski

Typical nimby (not in my back yard) reactions here to a positive environmental protection legislation...

Guitar makers should find other, non threatened woods to build instruments with. As stated above, private persons travelling with existing instruments are hardly affected. And don't believe for a second that the original CITES regulations came about overnight and manufacturers were surprised. The pace of such agreements is always glacial. And already it's being watered down...do you believe that's because ancient forests have suddenly grown back and there's a surplus of rosewood and ebony etc.?

If you don't agree, and wish to insist that guitars should be excepted, just remember that proponents of every possible industry will have reason why their specific niche should be excepted because CITES is an unreasonable burden (e.g. "We only make chairs, it's not as if we make entire doors"). Meanwhile ancient forests are coming down in no time and will never return.

If we want to save the world we must all share some of the burden, not just the 'bad guys'....

[peter.coombe]

I wonder if this means Gibson and Martin could open factories in Brazil and export completed instruments? It says parts too.....precut backs and sides?

No, this change only applies to the rosewoods on Appendix II of CITES. It does not apply to Brazilian Rosewood which is on Appendix I. Nothing will change for Brazilian Rosewood.

[AZLiberty]

Originally Posted by Steadfastly

Not if it is one guitar for personal use. I have done so from the USA to Canada. They don't even ask. I think some people are making too much of this and are scaring themselves over it when there is no need. My personal observations, experience and opinion.

The treaty still applies. There is a personal exemption for a personal instrument which contains no more than 10 kilos of the regulated woods. If and only if it is being transported for non-commercial purposes.

[dspoel]

Originally Posted by Klimski

Typical nimby (not in my back yard) reactions here to a positive environmental protection legislation...

Guitar makers should find other, non threatened woods to build instruments with. As stated above, private persons travelling with existing instruments are hardly affected. And don't believe for a second that the original CITES regulations came about overnight and manufacturers were surprised. The pace of such agreements is always glacial. And already it's being watered down...do you believe that's because ancient forests have suddenly grown back and there's a surplus of rosewood and ebony etc.?

If you don't agree, and wish to insist that guitars should be excepted, just remember that proponents of every possible industry will have reason why their specific niche should be excepted because CITES is an unreasonable burden (e.g. "We only make chairs, it's not as if we make entire doors"). Meanwhile ancient forests are coming down in no time and will never return.

If we want to save the world we must all share some of the burden, not just the 'bad guys'....

Totally agree. If bans are being lifted there will be even more incentive to take the last of the last. Natural forests are dwindling in size as we speak. Also if the ban is lifted even partially it will be abused by loggers claiming to work for a guitar builder and shipping the timber for other purposes instead. A complete ban on logging natural forests is needef unfortunately. We don’t have enough left.

[J185-4Me]

This is great news. I was starting to get sick of dragging that plastic trombone with me everywhere I go.....

Fred

[Steadfastly]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Really?

What about individuals who aren't prepared to take the risk of importing an item (from a legitimate business or not) because it might not get through customs??

See post #20 and dozens of others that have made the same point on similar threads.

[Steadfastly]

Originally Posted by AZLiberty

The treaty still applies. There is a personal exemption for a personal instrument which contains no more than 10 kilos of the regulated woods. If and only if it is being transported for non-commercial purposes.

Exactly what I said; for personal use. If you have a 10 kilo guitar or even a 5 kilo one, you can keep it.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Steadfastly

See post #20 and dozens of others that have made the same point on similar threads.

Go and speak with specialist high end sellers (e.g. a well known online Martin Custom Shop seller who is also a sponsor of this forum) and ask them how their international sales have plummeted since the CITES regulations came into force.