Brazilian rosewood in the u.s. To become illegal

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Simon Fay

I want sensible legislation that addresses the root of the problem and takes sensible steps

You seem to suffer from the delusion that this is what the gov't actually tries to do.

The simple fact is that what they're doing is EASIER than what should be done, and the public is so gullible as to believe that what they're doing IS going to do some good.

Thus, the gov't is able to restrict your freedom while appearing to be doing something "noble" . . . and the gov't isn't stupid . . they KNOW this.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

You seem to suffer from the delusion that this is what the gov't actually tries to do.

The simple fact is that what they're doing is EASIER than what should be done, and the public is so gullible as to believe that what they're doing IS going to do some good.

Thus, the gov't is able to restrict your freedom while appearing to be doing something "noble" . . . and the gov't isn't stupid . . they KNOW this.

You know song this reads like someone who doesn't participate and has a political agenda. Would hate to see yet another thread closed down because it's easier to push ideology than work toward collective solution.

Originally Posted by Simon Fay

Max,
It is odd that you think that nobody is being proactive -- several builders and tonewood dealers are actively trying to figure out what exactly is going on. I already have made several calls into the FWS and, of course, haven't been able to get anywhere. Unfortunately, nobody really knows what the real effects of the new regulations at this point in time -- including the governmental departments overseeing the new regulations. Theoretically speaking, the people are the government -- but in practice, it doesn't always work that way and the government only responds when massive numbers of people begin to complain.

I personally don't want to see the law go back to how it was --- I want sensible legislation that addresses the root of the problem and takes sensible steps to prevent America from further contributing to the problem. But I don't want my customers to be shafted because of incompetent and over-reaching laws.

Sorry Simon, my apologies this is the first time I recognized someone was being proactive in this thread. Have you contacted your Congressman? Senators' offices? This might be a good idea as well as your efforts contacting FWS. Did you also submit during the comment period?

max

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by mjz

than work toward collective solution.

The solution is simple.

This is a BRAZILIAN problem . . . it's THEIR wood . . . to do with as they please.

If THEY want to protect it, they THEY can go at it . . . AT THE SOURCE.

If they can't stop it from leaving their country, then anything else is pointless.

[Guitar1083]

Great the BRW Police are knocking at my door

[StuartDay]

Originally Posted by gstar

Can anyone identify contact information for the decision makers involved in producing these rules? I believe those opposed to this change would be better off contacting those folks to point out the (potentially unintended) negative consequences of this rule change on law-abiding citizens.

I'm not sure who agrees, but there seems to be two very specific categories of members who this rule change affects.

1. The first group is consumers who bought expensive and completely legal guitars who cannot now (legally) sell them under the current rule change but would have little difficulty showing that the guitar was produced before the rule change. The harm caused to this group is easily remedied by a simple clause allowing the sale of any guitars produced before the ban. Assuming the guitar is dated or your builder/manufacturer keeps records of any sort (they should be able to provide documentation regarding the build date).

2. The second group is guitar builders (also consumers) who legally bought BRW building materials to stockpile for future builds knowing that the pre-1992 wood would eventually run out and now who cannot recoup their investment let alone make the profit they would have made on the up-charge associated with BRW. Solving this equitable dilemma is much more complicated because raw wood is not a finished product and providing documentation that it was purchased before the ban is much more difficult. There is no serial number on individual pieces of raw wood to correlate to receipts or an inventory that was done pre-ban. I'm sure something could be figured out though that would alleviate most concerns that the wood comes from newly logged trees. Having builders number, inventory and photograph their existing sets should prove that any future builds use pre-ban wood.

I don't understand how protecting the environment has to be exclusive of protecting consumers. The posts to that effect in this thread are baffling. Stripping law-abiding citizens of the value of their property does nothing to help the environment. Telling people they can't sell their existing products doesn't magically turn those products back into living trees. If history tells us that prohibiting sales of products does little to protect the at risk resource then banning the sale of already existing materials is misguided at best. It is unusual for people to argue that the government doing this as acceptable.

I wonder if these same people would agree if the government said one day that because building houses has a negative environmental impact, we are going to ban any future homes from being built. Additionally, although it will be legal to keep, use, and enjoy the home you currently have, you cannot sell it. Give me a break.

When the CITIES amendment originally passed in a farm bill… 3 years ago? I was working as shop foreman in Tom Ribbecke's shop. Tom, along with Kathy Wingert, George Gruhn, and some other notable lutherie and vintage figure heads actually took a trip to DC and lobbied in conjunction with representatives of NAMM regarding this issue. Trying to strike some compromises that would allow the fundamental purpose of the law to remain while creating some loop holes for people who owned vintage instruments and luthiers who had stock piles of previously purchased wood etc…

As far as I can see here… it was all to no avail. At one point there was talk about creating sort of like a passport for wood and instruments. I thought that was a great idea. But again, it doesn't look like that has happened.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by mjz

<<snip>>

Have you contacted your Congressman? Senators' offices?

Did you also submit during the comment period?

max

I did.

Did you?

What's the point of your commentary here?

[kydave]

On the ivory issue, I've written FWS numerous times and failed to get any clear cut answers from them on permits regarding:

The import, export and sale in interstate commerce of non-antique specimens of other ESA-listed species continue to be prohibited without an ESA permit.

I have written my representatives asking for them not to support this nonsense. I was admittedly not up on the Brazilian matter, although it doesn't seem I was the only one.

I think it is just as likely to be a fallacy to criticize the viewpoint of SongWriter Fan as overly cynical as not.

I know from dealing with the government (legal areas, Courts, County Recorders/Assessors) that there are at least as likely to be obstructionist bureaucrats involved in any department as there are well meaning, helpful public servants.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by mjz

and has a political agenda.

The only "political agenda" I see here are the "Tree Huggers" who seem to believe that ANY infringement on our rights is OK as long as it's "for the trees/planet".

Let me propose a simple "first step" anybody who wants to pass a law in this country remember: The burden of proof MUST be on the GOVERNMENT to prove that illegally harvest wood is owned . . it should NOT be the burden of the citizenry to prove that they don't possess illegally harvested wood.

And make sure the paper trail the gov't has to have to prove the wood's illegality is as cumbersome as that currently proposed for the citizen to prove that his wood isn't illegally harvested.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by kydave

there are at least as likely to be obstructionist bureaucrats involved in any department as there are well meaning, helpful public servants.

Even if you DID find one that's helpful, their interpretation of the law is meaningless.

You can ask the IRS for an opinion on whether your proposed deduction is legal or not. If they tell you "yes" and you file it and the IRS later decides it's not legal, the advice that you got from the IRS is utterly useless to you in your defense.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

I did.

Did you?

What's the point of your commentary here?

Larry, not on this issue, but on many, many others.
I have no money tied up in any Brazilian Rosewood.
It doesn't affect me.
And while the best guitars I have ever played were made from it -- it's really not that important to my enjoyment of acoustic guitar to be able to sell undocumented pre-ban BRW.


Laws are passed by legislators.
So when laws are being debated that affect me personally or my business, or my customers -- yes... I often get involved. Sometimes through trade associations I belong to or local Chambers of Commerce because a collective voice is often stronger -- but other times as an individual.

The point of my "commentary" it's that it's really easy to whine about "them." Harder to do our part, get involved, and help shape legislation. But it's kinda our responsibility.

Mea culpa -- the comment period which I referred to earlier was the Dept of Agriculture's New Lacey enforcement comment period back in 2011. Found the old thread on the UMGF. With input from concerned constituents the instrument passport concept was developed and implemented through this phase. That's how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

The point is... if this affects you we have a system in place that represents you. Use it.

Sounds like some here are. And that's what should happen. But I do realize it's way more fun to complain about "them."

max

[kydave]

For more full disclosure, I wrote asking point blank:

Under the article below, what would the appropriate permit be to sell a Martin guitar made in 1965, which came from the factory with ivory on the nut and saddle (the parts where the strings are suspended between at the end of the neck and before the strings go into the body)? I’m talking about a routine interstate sale.

The article was from FWS containing the quote I showed above:

The import, export and sale in interstate commerce of non-antique specimens of other ESA-listed species continue to be prohibited without an ESA permit.

The non-answer (or at best - circular) I received was:

Thank you for your inquiry. Per the United States Endangered Species Act and 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director's Order No. 210, available from http://www.fws.gov/policy/do210.html, the import, export, and interstate sale of listed species or their parts is prohibited without an ESA permit, except for items that qualify as antique. This strict enforcement of the ESA applies to items made from elephant, rhinocerous, sea turtle, and any other ESA protected species. For guidance about the ESA antique exemption, the Director's order, and allowable imports under the African Elephant Conservation Act, please review the Q&A document available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/international/pdf...nd-answers.pdf.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by kydave

For more full disclosure, I wrote asking point blank:



The article was from FWS containing the quote I showed above:


The non-answer (or at best - circular) I received was:

Respectfully getting an answer you don't like isn't the same as a non or circular answer.

The FAQ clearly outlines the exceptions and your 1965 Martin does not appear to qualify. That's the way I read the response. Pretty clear to me.
Am I missing something, Dave?

the import, export, and interstate sale of listed species or their parts is prohibited without an ESA permit, except for items that qualify as antique.

To qualify as antique, the importer, exporter or seller must
show that the item meets all of these criteria:
•It is 100 years or older;
•It is composed in whole or in part of an ESA listed species
•It has not been repaired or modified with any such species after December 27, 1973; and
•It is being or was imported through an endangered species antique port

Did you apply for an ESA permit?

max

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by mjz

it's really easy to whine about "them."

That's because THEY pass the laws. Laws that routinely put the burden of proof on the CITIZEN rather than on the GOV'T, where it belongs.

If they can't understand that simple concept, they have no business being in gov't.

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

That's because THEY pass the laws. Laws that routinely put the burden of proof on the CITIZEN rather than on the GOV'T, where it belongs.

If they can't understand that simple concept, they have no business being in gov't.

I'd really prefer that this thread not be closed. If feel you're taking the conversation in a direction that will make that happen, unfortunately.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by ecguitar44

I'd really prefer that this thread not be closed.

So, it's OK for others to say that you should write your representatives, etc?

And it's OK to talk about a LEGAL issue (that would be something passed by the GOVERNMENT) concerning a particular wood?

But it's NOT OK to state that the regulations should adhere to a simple principle of where burden of proof belongs?

OK, got it. Makes PERFECT sense.