CITES - What every bass player should know

[Turnaround]

Read it, thanks. IMHO it has little bearing on the CITES thread. Customs and shipping hassles abound, even with well-informed, well-intentioned, and responsible parties or entities.

I can see the attraction of grouping all rosewood or musical instrument shipping and customs problems with bureaucratic venality and corporate stupidity and placing the heading CITES over the pile.

The problem is that we can't learn fact from fiction that way, right?

I hope we can soon have an example of someone actually understanding and using the CITES protocol and documents to travel internationally with an instrument containing materials covered by the treaty.

It's worth noting that in the case I quoted early in this thread, the basses were accompanied with proper documentation, but the docs were a photocopy. That wasn't good enough - the originals were required at the border.

 

[Jeff Scott]

How does that SR confiscation not apply? It was claimed to have an illegal material in it so it was not allowed to be shipped and was not even returned to the original owner while still on US soil.

It should not have required any documentation as there was nothing on it that needed documenting.

 

[Jim Carr]

I can't and won't serve as the defender of stupidity. I have just pointed out that repeating the same questions and frustrations is getting us all NOWHERE.

Scream all you want at the darkness, it sheds no light. We need not waste time on the recitation of often poorly documented incidents. IMHO, it is clear that we have not heard from anyone with real direct experience trying to comply with the treaty.

OK. Let's all point fingers and complain. Really? REEAALLY??

 

[Jim Carr]

FYI
http://www.wood-database.com/wood-a...osewood-from-east-indian-and-other-rosewoods/

 

[Tom Drinkwater]

Many woods on CITES aren't restricted so tightly that they cannot be shipped as part of an instrument, it's a tiered system and while many species on it are unrestricted some species are only restricted from being shipped in a raw state as lumber, logs etc. This is to slow down or halt the harvest and poaching of endangered species.

On occasion a customer requests that I provide a statement to accompany an instrument so I verify to best of my ability and knowledge that the wood is what I say it is and I also include contact info back to me and to where I purchased the wood from in case a customs agent needs further help. This is normally only requested after a customer talks to customs agent first so they avoid these issues from happening at the border. I've shipped dozens of guitars worldwide that contain exotic woods, many of which are on the CITES radar, but I'm careful to not use woods that are almost guaranteed to cause a problem like Brazilian Rosewood.

My chief supplier of exotics is located here in Maine and still operates out of in his native South Africa as well. He had a whole shipment of Burmese Teak worth hundreds of thousands of dollars confiscated because it was harvested in Burma/Myanmar and of course we had an embargo against them. The fact that he bought the teak from a broker in Singapore years ago and brought it into S. Africa prior to having an American operation and sat on it for several years prior to bring it here the gov took it and charged him for storage of the goods all the while giving him the runaround. He didn't even know which agency or department was handling the issue because they were so cagey about the whole thing. Really sad the way it was handled.

 

[Jim Carr]

...I've shipped dozens of guitars worldwide that contain exotic woods, many of which are on the CITES radar, but I'm careful to not use woods that are almost guaranteed to cause a problem like Brazilian Rosewood.

My chief supplier of exotics is located here in Maine...He had a whole shipment of Burmese Teak worth hundreds of thousands of dollars confiscated because it was harvested in Burma/Myanmar and of course we had an embargo against them. The fact that he bought the teak from a broker in Singapore years ago and brought it into S. Africa prior to having an American operation and sat on it for several years...

Tom, unless I am mistaken, this wood species (Burmese Teak, i.e., Tectona grandis) is not presently listed in the CITES Appendices nor on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. In your post, the context of your supplier's problems makes it sound like his wood was confiscated because of a CITES violation. Was this action at a much earlier date—when maybe Burmese Teak was listed by CITES?

Was the violation perhaps of some non-CITES regulation or separate trade embargo?

 

[Jim Carr]

The "passport for instruments" is discussed here, in a Summer 2013 article: Invalid Link Removed

 

[peterpalmieri]

Jim did you read his entire post? He explains the trade embargo issue.

 

[Jim Carr]

Jim did you read his entire post? He explains the trade embargo issue.

Hi Peter. I did read Tom's post, but found it unclear. While he does not state if the incident was or wasn't CITES, he did mention an embargo in the third paragraph.

Since this one was probably not a CITES issue, it just makes things cloudy to recount seizures and confiscations for other reasons—no matter how reasonable or unjustified—while discussing CITES and dalbergia nigra, as in the first two paragraphs. All IMHO.

 

[Jim Carr]

Has anyone on TB applied for, received, or used a CITES instrument passport?
I am trying to do it for the instrument below, which has a fingerboard of dalbergia nigra.

 

[SteveC]

Thankfully I don't cross borders. Swamp ash, maple, Koa, who knows what they'd say.
An end to "coffee table" basses? That would make some people happy. We'll all have to play alder/maple fender P basses.

 

[Jim Carr]

Thankfully I don't cross borders. Swamp ash, maple, Koa, who knows what they'd say...

All they would probably say is, "Purpose of your visit to Canada, Sir?" because none of the woods you mention are listed as endangered, though Koa has become very pricey, even for native Hawaiian artisans.

 

[bobwhite]

Since you assert that a tropical cherry plantation in Brazil has been prevented from export by CITES, would you provide a little more detail? The taxonomic designation of the wood would be a start.

We can look up it's status in CITES. There are at least a half dozen classifications, and an organism can change status and thus how it is affected by the treaty. If the naturally occurring tree is not endangered, it is not restricted.

The point is that a plantation is not a rain forest.

Illegal logging won't stop until the export market is basically squashed. The treaty is not eternal, extinction is.

Sent you a PM.

 

[Jim Carr]

...Gibson's factory was not raided just one, but twice!! ...After all that aggravation, the DOJ did not pursue charges... Again, I have to point out that I oppose the wholesale depletion of scarce resources. However, this treaty should not be subject to the whims of overly zealous regulatory bodies who rely "on a hunch" or "opinion" that a particular timber is used illegally, when in fact, it most certainly was not...

I've noticed several posts assume or infer that the Gibson raids were due to CITES violation. They were not.

Gibson was raided and fined for violating the Lacey Act, which was passed in 1900. Basically they purchased illegally obtained wood from a supplier that offered them something that was too good to be true—unless it was illegal. Gibson went for the deal, but got nailed.

There is more to it, but it is not CITES.

 

[DigitalMan]

I guess my question is would be if it is possible to build enough musical instruments to actually make a difference in these tree populations. I understand that larger things with a broader market like furniture and flooring certainly could. What percentage of the problem do musical instruments represent?

 

[Jeff Scott]

I guess my question is would be if it is possible to build enough musical instruments to actually make a difference in these tree populations. I understand that larger things with a broader market like furniture and flooring certainly could. What percentage of the problem do musical instruments represent?

Easy, visible target.

 

[TheAnalogKid]

I've noticed several posts assume or infer that the Gibson raids were due to CITES violation. They were not.

Gibson was raided and fined for violating the Lacey Act, which was passed in 1900. Basically they purchased illegally obtained wood from a supplier that offered them something that was too good to be true—unless it was illegal. Gibson went for the deal, but got nailed.

There is more to it, but it is not CITES.

Oh, yeah; I forgot that I posted a reference to Gibson earlier. I shouldn't have gone off bad research or anecdotes. I confused the Lacey Act with CITES. Thanks for the clarification-If I were in charge of purchasing materials for ANY major guitar builder, best to check with the lawyers/counsel first.

 

[Turnaround]

I've noticed several posts assume or infer that the Gibson raids were due to CITES violation. They were not.

Gibson was raided and fined for violating the Lacey Act, which was passed in 1900. Basically they purchased illegally obtained wood from a supplier that offered them something that was too good to be true—unless it was illegal. Gibson went for the deal, but got nailed.

There is more to it, but it is not CITES.

Effectively the same thing. CITES is an international treaty. The Lacey Act was in place before CITES, but it is the mechanism that supports the treaty in US law. Rather than create a whole new law just for CITES, USA used the existing legislation to provide the framework for the legal requirements.

The Gibson case is not entirely clear. They were charged with violation of the Lacey Act, but originally claimed innocence. They later capitulated. The violation was that they purchased wood illegally - that could mean that the wood was illegally harvested, or that the wood was on the CITES list and crossed international boundaries, or both. Same difference - it's still illegal in the US under the Lacey Act.

In Canada the enabling legislation is called "Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act". Brevity is not a hallmark of our government.

 

[Jeff Scott]

WAPPRIITA. Sounds Aussie.

 

[Jim Carr]

Effectively the same thing. CITES is an international treaty. The Lacey Act was in place before CITES, but it is the mechanism that supports the treaty in US law. Rather than create a whole new law just for CITES, USA used the existing legislation to provide the framework for the legal requirements...

While they may have some of the same scope, I'm not so certain that they are "effectively the same thing." The Lacey Act was intended primarily to protect domestic wildlife when there was a transaction involving harvested contraband—mostly fish and fowl. It is applied to US citizens and firms that trade internationally. It is simply US law, and Teddy Roosevelt supported it and many such efforts.

CITES is a global treaty with a process that dynamically lists endangered, threatened and vulnerable organisms, regardless of origin, transaction, or border.

To quote the treaty web pages, "CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival."

The survival and protection concepts do over lap. The mechanisms, process, and case law are distinct, IMHO.

Lacey Act case law is not my field, thank the Almighty. Is it yours?