If this is the case, a person can refuse to fly and simply take the instrument home then? If that's the case, it's inconvenient, but less frightening.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
CITES - What every bass player should know
- Thread starter Turnaround
- Start date
If this is the case, a person can refuse to fly and simply take the instrument home then? If that's the case, it's inconvenient, but less frightening.
I'd still be careful, but there are supposed to be a document that can be filled out when traveling with one's own instrument across borders. I wouldn't, personally, claim anything on an instrument as shell, ivory, BR, etc. brown wood (maybe say it's walnut, if pushed), plastic, laminate, etc. is what I would say, if necessary. The fact that a Stingray was abducted because it had a rosewood fingerboard sucks, especially since it was a new instrument and would not have had BR, it would have been EIR which is not illegal.
Under CITES it is illegal to transport listed material across international boundaries. Simple possession of cited material is another matter as some manufacturers have found out. Gibson has been raided twice that I know of and had material seized. You could argue that they intended to transport the material across international boundaries, or that they bought listed materials that had to get somehow from a foreign place to their factory. I don't know enough about this case to know on what basis their wood was seized - simple possession or active importation?
Meanwhile, a supplier of exotic woods in my area was raided and wood was confiscated. I know that they had some wood that has been recently listed in CITES, but I know that some of it was harvested over 40 years ago - before CITES.
My point is that the understanding of the regulations and how they are implemented is very uneven. As I stated earlier, customs recently held up over $30,000 worth of instruments that had woods that looked like listed species. Each piece of the shipment had official US government documentation stating that none of the materials were on the CITES list, and each document cost the manufacturer $150. Still it was held up when it crossed the border.
If you have been travelling internationally with your Brazilian Rosewood guitar and you have had no problem, I would say you have been lucky. May your luck continue...
Last edited:
Just tell me that the Roscoe I bought at your shop is in the clear! 
Very interesting thread, and very informative. As with many well intentioned laws, the implementation is the sticking point.
Very interesting thread, and very informative. As with many well intentioned laws, the implementation is the sticking point.
Just tell me that the Roscoe I bought at your shop is in the clear!
No worries there.
This is what bothers me. Someone else had also mentioned that the owner of the instrument is being punished for the manufacturers transgression. THAT is the real issue here. I didn't build it, I may not even know what's in it. Chances are it looked nice and sounded great so I bought it. I hate contraband laws to be honest
The Lacey Act requires someone purchasing an animal or plant item to exercise "Due Care" during the purchase. Your expected to play detective and ask questions. Your expected to know.
I've stopped using cocobolo for fret-boards. Not just because it is now on CITES appendix 2, but because I don't know how I or my customer is supposed to prove for a fact that it was harvested in Mexico (where it's legal) and not Panama (where it's not).
If the FEDS look at that bass your holding with the cocobolo fret-board and say it's from Panama and thus in violation of the law the burden is on you to prove it's not.
I've stopped using cocobolo for fret-boards. Not just because it is now on CITES appendix 2, but because I don't know how I or my customer is supposed to prove for a fact that it was harvested in Mexico (where it's legal) and not Panama (where it's not).
If the FEDS look at that bass your holding with the cocobolo fret-board and say it's from Panama and thus in violation of the law the burden is on you to prove it's not.
This is exactly the issue with the shipment I discussed earlier. The basses had Mexican Cocobolo, and had official USA government approved documentation of the origin of the Cocobolo, but it was still held up at customs. It's much like an issue I had with the city government on a recent renovation. I had to prove the state of a building before a change in the bylaws in the 1950's. So I provided documents from the city's own archives, but it wasn't good enough for the building permit department. Apparently you need a notarized hand-written document from God. In triplicate.
My secretary can arrange those for you, come on up to Cloud 429; here name is Windy Mistral, she can be a very cool person but could warm up to you if you are sincere to her.
It bums me out that this regulatory scheme was executed so poorly. I'm a huge advocate for preservation (to a reasonable degree) and spend a lot of time advancing similar interests in the Great Lakes.
However, when regs are passed that are too convoluted and/or over broad, there's a very real chance they will do more harm than good - it fosters resentment towards what is, otherwise, a pretty laudable and agreeable end in the minds of most people. In the end, you may save a few trees, but you also make a lot of enemies that will come to resent any forms of land ethic. The net effect very well might not be any progress at all towards the policy the regs are purporting to advance.
However, when regs are passed that are too convoluted and/or over broad, there's a very real chance they will do more harm than good - it fosters resentment towards what is, otherwise, a pretty laudable and agreeable end in the minds of most people. In the end, you may save a few trees, but you also make a lot of enemies that will come to resent any forms of land ethic. The net effect very well might not be any progress at all towards the policy the regs are purporting to advance.
I did not find Turnaround's original post to be any longer than it needed to be. CITES is a serious subject and not all information can be condensed to 140 characters.
What is the alternative? Often the source countries of endangered species do not have the resources to prevent the harvesting. The only real hope is to try and tackle the international transport and limit the market. Not traveling or shipping questionable materials across borders is certainly a PIA but the alternative is to do nothing as any other scheme is toothless.
So in practice has anyone personally had a guitar/bass confiscated? If I were to purchase a vintage fender with a rosewood fretboard would that get flagged going over the border?
There are many alternatives, regulations aren't that difficult to draft narrowly tailored to the purpose they mean to effectuate. I, however, also recognize that I do not have all the data in front of me, or the policy concerns motivating the drafting of CITIES, necessary to do so, so I'm not going to put my drafting hat on right now. One thing is for certain, however, when a statute or regulation is too vague to allow law-abiding, willing-to-comply citizens to simply figure out if and when they are in violation, and how to avoid being in violation, the reg is drafted poorly. Simple as that.
Multiple luthiers on this forum (large and small) have spoken of how much effort they have put forward simply trying to just figure out what they need to do to comply, and still don't have a straight answer (mind you, not attempting to figure out ways to get around it, just simply what is required to be in compliance). Any single time that is the case, the issue is with the final product of the legislature, not the goals they are working towards.
If the policy you cite is their main concern, precluding new harvest from source countries, then well drafted regulations would address that issue and keep the basses already made insular from the scheme. By analogy (and I am in no way expressing an opinion on this), if the concern is to keep illegal immigrants from using commercial airlines to fly into the US to permanently remain there, I can assure you the correct way to address that issue through regulation is NOT to ground all humans and preclude them from flying all together.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Revised CITES Regulations to Allow Sale of Musical Instruments with CITES Appendix 1 Species
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
June 24, 2014
The Fish & Wildlife Service has amended the "use after import" provisions of its CITES regulations (50 CFR 23.55) to allow for the commercial sale of musical instruments and other products containing CITES Appendix I species (e.g., ivory, Brazilian rosewood and Hawksbill turtle shell).
Under the old rules, which were adopted in 2007, use after import was limited to noncommercial purposes only. Thus, the sale within the U.S. of vintage instruments such as guitars was prohibited, although no enforcement actions were ever undertaken.
The new rules allow for domestic sales if the species was lawfully imported and if the seller can "clearly demonstrate (using written records or other documentary evidence)" that the species in the instrument was imported prior to its CITES listing. No advance permits are required, and FWS officials have not specified what kind of documentation is required under the new rules.
Some observers have suggested that manufacturers and retailers selling instruments with CITES-listed species include with each product an affidavit or certificate stating the seller's belief that the listed species used in the instrument was lawfully imported into the United States.
The final CITES rules can be found HERE.
Revised CITES Regulations to Allow Sale of Musical Instruments with CITES Appendix 1 Species
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
June 24, 2014
The Fish & Wildlife Service has amended the "use after import" provisions of its CITES regulations (50 CFR 23.55) to allow for the commercial sale of musical instruments and other products containing CITES Appendix I species (e.g., ivory, Brazilian rosewood and Hawksbill turtle shell).
Under the old rules, which were adopted in 2007, use after import was limited to noncommercial purposes only. Thus, the sale within the U.S. of vintage instruments such as guitars was prohibited, although no enforcement actions were ever undertaken.
The new rules allow for domestic sales if the species was lawfully imported and if the seller can "clearly demonstrate (using written records or other documentary evidence)" that the species in the instrument was imported prior to its CITES listing. No advance permits are required, and FWS officials have not specified what kind of documentation is required under the new rules.
Some observers have suggested that manufacturers and retailers selling instruments with CITES-listed species include with each product an affidavit or certificate stating the seller's belief that the listed species used in the instrument was lawfully imported into the United States.
The final CITES rules can be found HERE.
Well there we go, still think this should be applied to international but that is exactly what I'm saying!
