For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Lutherie: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=22
- - - For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=260382



Message

keith -> For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 29 2014 12:48:29)

Well it appears our dear leader and his underlyings at the Fish and Wildlife Services are determined to throw luthiers and guitar owners into the clink--or at least rob them of their livelihood. For those who build negras or use d. nigra on a guitar (bridge, faceplate, pegs, etc.) some info from the dear leader's henchmen. Once again, it is the spring it upon them but not take into account any possible issues tactic. As of this writing 17 days to go.....the clock is ticking.


http://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/regulation-part23-use-after-import.pdf

Here is the FWS form to use if you are lucky enough to have paperwork with your D. nigra. Page 5 has info on guitars. The previous pages include the amount you will need to shuck out to be legal with the FWS henchmen.

http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-32.pdf



keith -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 29 2014 13:39:58)

The final decision went into effect on May 26 (our Memorial Day) and goes into effect June 26.



Tom Blackshear -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 29 2014 14:49:52)

What would the FWS people say if you bought wood in the late 70's and could prove it by having the Company's invoices?

Anyway, this new decision could effect the Martin Company if they don't have an invoice dated before Cites...........??



Morante -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 29 2014 14:53:21)

quote:

What would the FWS people say if you bought wood in the late 70's and could prove it by having the Company's invoices?


Try telling that to the typical braindead USA Customs officer.[:-]



Anders Eliasson -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 29 2014 14:59:05)

I personally have nothing against restrictions in the use of endangered species.
I have stopped using endangered woods years ago. It has been illegal for decades, but nothing has been done, so those still having woods on the list, can claim themselves and noone else.
Whining has always been the easyest thing in the world.



ralexander -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 29 2014 15:06:30)

I had to fill out a FWS form a few years ago for an acoustic guitar I sent to the US. Luckily, everything went smoothly although I'm fairly sure the bridge on that guitar was brazilian rosewood. If I understand this new development, you can import/export musical instruments containing Brazilian RW/Dalbergia Nigra provided that it was harvested prior to June 1992 and only after you have obtained one of the new permits and paid the associated fee.

I'm all for protection and sustainability, but I don't like the effect this has had on honest instrument manufacturers and touring musicians. I've heard horror stories from people having holes drilled in their guitars (FWS sample collection) to outright seizures of completed instruments.

In my personal opinion, I think it would be great if luthiers (and artists in general) just stopped using this wood altogether. There are SO MANY other options to consider, I think people really just need to open their minds when it comes to tonewood. Some people just seem to think that it's some sort of magic guarantee that a guitar will turn out to be epic if built with BRW. In reality, most of us know there are plenty of BRW dogs out there. The skills of the builder and their ability in selecting appropriate tonewood to achieve a desired result is the only thing you can count on and even then it seems to be a moving target.



keith -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 29 2014 16:31:57)

anders, i concur about using illegal wood. the problem is many people bought wood they believed to be legal but did so in those days when paperwork was lacking--especially if you bought wood harvested in the period before paperwork was required. it would be akin to someone using a species of wood to build a boat and then find out three years from now that wood is protected. unless you kept paperwork for the materials you would be out of luck.

the problem also goes beyond just two guys selling wood from the trunk of a car. i use cocobolo for making cejillas as well a pens and other projects (wood turning). i asked the large internet dealer where i get my wood for paperwork and was told they do not have paperwork to give. i also have requested similiar paperwork from a violin supply house with the same result. yeah i may have done my due diligence but will that fly with the fish and wildlife henchmen? what if tomorrow cocobolo became illegal-- i would be out of luck other than an e-mail response for the cocobolo stash i have--all purchased legally as of this moment.

ralexander raises a good point about the feds and the use of bore drills. what about the border dude who wants to make a name for himself with his boss and grab anything that looks like d. nigra. here in massachusetts we have a great example of a trigger happy employee who wants to shine for whatever reason--annie dookan who screwed so many people and is now screwing the tax payers.



estebanana -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 29 2014 22:58:59)

No further comment from me, but this is far from whining.



Anders Eliasson -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 30 2014 6:59:13)

Keith, Dalberghia Nigra has been illegal for decades.



estebanana -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 30 2014 12:57:24)

Anders you clearly don't understand and the issue, the law or it's implications for commerce and touring musicians.



Ricardo -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 30 2014 13:18:05)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralexander

I had to fill out a FWS form a few years ago for an acoustic guitar I sent to the US. Luckily, everything went smoothly although I'm fairly sure the bridge on that guitar was brazilian rosewood. If I understand this new development, you can import/export musical instruments containing Brazilian RW/Dalbergia Nigra provided that it was harvested prior to June 1992 and only after you have obtained one of the new permits and paid the associated fee.

I'm all for protection and sustainability, but I don't like the effect this has had on honest instrument manufacturers and touring musicians. I've heard horror stories from people having holes drilled in their guitars (FWS sample collection) to outright seizures of completed instruments.

In my personal opinion, I think it would be great if luthiers (and artists in general) just stopped using this wood altogether. There are SO MANY other options to consider, I think people really just need to open their minds when it comes to tonewood. Some people just seem to think that it's some sort of magic guarantee that a guitar will turn out to be epic if built with BRW. In reality, most of us know there are plenty of BRW dogs out there. The skills of the builder and their ability in selecting appropriate tonewood to achieve a desired result is the only thing you can count on and even then it seems to be a moving target.


Somebody fill me in. So any guitar built AFTER 1992 is subject to danger (if it has no documentation) from US customs upon re-entering the US from an international flight? Is that correct? Or are there other ways this thing is enforced such that the "horror" story becomes reality?



Anders Eliasson -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 30 2014 14:35:39)

quote:

Anders you clearly don't understand and the issue


It could be that there are parts that i dont fully understand, but some of them I do understand. There has been a lot of cheating and trying to not have to follow rules and laws going on for a long time. This includes wood cutters, wood sellers, instrument builders, instrument sellers and instrument buyers. It has been a box full of worms for a long time.



keith -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 30 2014 14:58:14)

ricardo--the below is from the link i posted. the problem is not so much an instrument will be seized if you the owner are traveling with it, at least that is my interpretation of reading the law. i guess it is that "non-commerical clause" that is a little fuzzy. does that mean you cannot play your guitar to make money?

the problem is that if you, the owner of said guitar, decide to sell said guitar then you may be breaking the law by doing so. imagine the brw guitar built in 1993. it is doubtful any documentary evidence was provided with the guitar stating when the brw was harvested and the only documentary evidence is a label that states: "espana, 1993"--clearly after June 1992. you may then be out of luck to sell the guitar. i doubt the federal henchmen know the brw in that guitar may have been cut during the summer of love (1967) or during jimmy carter's presidency.

another question is, will the usps, fed-ex, ups, etc. begin to open your package to determine you are not shipping illegal wood across state lines? a weird variation of the mann act--instead of taking women across state lines for impure reasons one is taking wood across state lines (ok, bad pun). across country lines? will e-bay forbid brw guitars from entering onto the auction block? will foroflamenco be in some way affected by this law?

here is the quote:

"....provided you can clearly demonstrate (using written records or other documentary evidence) that your specimen 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 specimen may be used only for noncommercial purposes......"



Tom Blackshear -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 30 2014 15:24:18)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson

quote:

Anders you clearly don't understand and the issue


It could be that there are parts that i dont fully understand, but some of them I do understand. There has been a lot of cheating and trying to not have to follow rules and laws going on for a long time. This includes wood cutters, wood sellers, instrument builders, instrument sellers and instrument buyers. It has been a box full of worms for a long time.


I agree, in part with what you say, this is the reason I have but a a couple of sets left and have not renewed my stock with it. My last sizable purchase was in the late 70's and I have grown accustomed to E. I. rosewood for most of my builds.

But I believe that a lot of this ecological trend is being put in motion by those who would gain power to tax every living and animate thing we own. I'm sure some of it is to finance and support the system's management but I hope it is balanced by law to mandate a fair representation.

The point in taxing something (cut wood) that has been in existence, since before the Cites Treaty, is somewhat over-kill, imho. If the wood can be dated, then it should not be taxed, even with today's building programs. There is no sense, whatsoever, to deny the wood its place to be built into something wonderfully artistic.



Anders Eliasson -> RE: For anyone with D. nigra on their guitar (May 31 2014 7:42:12)

The world is full of laws that have little to do with reality. laws which are been made because of the lobby from those who have the money to do the lobby, laws which clearly shows that the politicans are laymen and dont know what they are doing, laws made because of populist pressure and so on.
I can imagine that this ligislation is in one of these categories as well, BUT I think its high time something is being done to this because its been an overabuse for decades and it has not helped anyone.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET