Brazilian rosewood in the u.s. To become illegal
 

Up until now Brazilian rosewood already in the U.S. was legal to buy, sell, use, and ship interstate even without documentation (much old lumber and many vintage guitars lack paperwork, since it wasn’t previously required). But as of June 26th, as a CITES Appendix I species (like elephant ivory) and in conjunction with the new total ban on all elephant ivory, it will become a felony to buy or sell anything containing Brazilian rosewood unless it has proper documentation (http://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/regulation-part23-use-after-import.pdf). To qualify for the exception: “If the [rosewood] was lawfully imported…before the species was listed…you may continue to use the [rosewood]…provided you can clearly demonstrate (using written records or other documentary evidence) that your [rosewood] was imported prior to the CITES listing, with no restrictions on its use after import. If you are unable to clearly demonstrate that this exception applies, the [rosewood] may be used only for noncommercial purposes.” Good luck to you all trying to get acceptable paperwork for old wood stocks and all those guitars out there...

I'm not too worried about it. As long as I can prove that the one vintage guitar was made before CITES by matching the serial number to 1933, I should be fine, no? And because I'm not using my guitar commercially, the burden of proof appears to be moot anyway. At least that's how interpret this verbiage.

A government dept. in one day declaring that what you legally own is now confiscated by law.
I am just trying to decide when the fighting starts,and it will, do I join in or do I get some popcorn and set back and watch the show. This same thing has been done over and over through history so I know who is going to win,but the show should be good if you can keep from being shot.

I'm unable to find the relevant section under CITES that says Brazilian Rosewood is banned. If someone could direct me to it I would be most obliged.

As for ivory, it is not a complete ban. See 6g) trade in registered raw ivory (for Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, whole tusks and pieces) subject to the following:
i) only registered government-owned stocks, originating in the State (excluding seized ivory and ivory of unknown origin);
ii) only to trading partners that have been verified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not be re-exported and will be managed in accordance with all requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP16) concerning domestic manufacturing and trade;
iii) not before the Secretariat has verified the prospective importing countries and the registered government-owned stocks;
iv) raw ivory pursuant to the conditional sale of registered government-owned ivory stocks agreed at CoP12, which are 20,000 kg (Botswana), 10,000 kg (Namibia) and 30,000 kg (South Africa);
v) in addition to the quantities agreed at CoP12, government-owned ivory from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe registered by 31 January 2007 and verified by the Secretariat may be traded and despatched, with the ivory in paragraph g) iv) above, in a single sale per destination under strict supervision of the Secretariat;
vi) the proceeds of the trade are used exclusively for elephant conservation and community conservation and development programmes within or adjacent to the elephant range; and
vii) the additional quantities specified in paragraph g) v) above shall be traded only after the Standing Committee has agreed that the above conditions have been met;

As this & many other things go on, the people do not even bother even making complaint,instead they sleep..zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

The guy most upset in that article in fretboard journal is vintage seller George Gruhn. Martin seems to have no problem with it.

The obvious answer here, if you are concerned about it, is "get a guitar that doesn't violate CITES to travel with." Problem solved! Making a fetish out of this or that wood species is dumb: it's got nothing to do with music making and everything to do with copycat marketing and vintage marketing.

I'm happy, because I don't want to see Dalbergia Nigra go extinct just to indulge a bunch of collectors who can't play. If you have a nice old guitar with Brazilian backs and sides, be happy, it just got more valuable. Treasure it, and keep it close to home.

The only downside, to me, is it pretty much crashes my desire for a future BTO 12 fret with a Red Cedar top and BRW B/S. Oh, well. I'm happy that there is some control over industry in the CITES treaty member nations to prevent the extinction of a wonderful hardwood species.

Brw
 

The issue is that this puts us in the position of "Assumed Guilt" rather than "Assumed Innocence" . The basic legal tenet in this country is that you're innocent until proven guilty. In this case you have to prove what may be unprovable.

The Japanese guitar I bought in the mid 60's probably has BRW in it. The company web site is spotty at best, and the model doesn't come up in any web search I've ever done.

I certainly don't have the sales receipt for it almost 50 years later showing that I've owned it before the ban. But under this interpretation of CITES I could lose the guitar if a Customs agent even suspects that it contains BRW?

Once we accept "Assumed Guilt" in this situation how long before we give in on other basic issues?

The problem as I see it is less assumed guilt than the discretion it gives to the customs agent. They already had a lot of discretion; it's hard to see how customs could operate otherwise.

In practice, I seriously doubt someone would confiscate an obviously old Yamaha with some possible Brazilian in it: it would obviously predate CITES. But it would only take one customs agent being a jerk.

I think the easiest answer is don't travel with that guitar. How else do you stop the traffic in endangered species?

Maybe we should consider amnesty for all Brazilian that has been in the US for several years. We could crate a "pathway to legal tonewood" so that Brazilian that aspires to becomes a great guitar has the opportunity to do so instead of being in the shadows of instrument making. Place like Nazareth, PA could declare themselves "sanctuary cities" for undocumented (we shouldn't use the term illegal) rosewood.

Ain't goin' be no fight!
If we didn't start fighting when they "off-shored" our jobs, raided our pensions, stopped our benefits, enslaved our kids' generation with usurious student loans, eavesdropped on our phone and email conversations, and gave corporations the privileges of citizens...and etc. What makes you think that guitar manufacture will be the last straw? Besides, who wants a revolution lead by musicians? The last one of those didn't end so well. It turns out that guitars and dope are terrible weapons for a war.

I love it! Very, very good!

You should run for office!!

I think the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is misunderstood. As it has been explained to me, it's a rule of evidence, not a rule of law. If you are suspected of a crime, you can be arrested without proof of guilt. You can be presumed guilty based on what a law officer observes, for example. When you go to trial, there must be positive proof of guilt as an evidentiary basis for conviction. But arrest, detention, confiscation of property, and other acts can happen on the basis of reasonable suspicion. If you're suspected of drug trafficking, property involved in that suspected activity (like a car, a house, a boat) can be confiscated.

I'm sure there are nuances here that I'm missing but that's how it has been explained to me. The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is true in only a limited sense and it's always been that way.