# Those of you with Dalbergia Nigra



## Fret440 (Jun 6, 2014)

Thought I would post up this link. It's to another forum, but has some disconcerting information for those of you who own BR and want to sell it.

Jacob

http://www.mimf.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3175


----------



## ripjack13 (Jun 6, 2014)

That is such bs. There is no way I can account for all my rosewood....

Making criminals out of us law abiding citizens overnight....


----------



## Schroedc (Jun 6, 2014)

I guess I've got a box full of worthless wood then..... Some documentation but not enough to satisfy the provenance requirements as that change reads.... I suppose at least I can write off the price I paid for it as a tax loss.....


----------



## Mike1950 (Jun 6, 2014)

Schroedc said:


> I guess I've got a box full of worthless wood then..... Some documentation but not enough to satisfy the provenance requirements as that change reads.... I suppose at least I can write off the price I paid for it as a tax loss.....




Yes if you declare it and probably let them confiscate it. I could get political and say a few things here but I will keep my overly large mouth shut.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Sprung (Jun 6, 2014)

Like Mike, I'll keep my mouth shut, but this is just absurd...


----------



## DKMD (Jun 6, 2014)

I may or may not know a guy who has a burl chunk big enough for a nested set of bowls...


----------



## Mike Mills (Jun 6, 2014)

So illegal South American wood is the major problem. I thought it was illegal South American immigrants. Maybe the EPA should enforce immigration.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 4 | Funny 1


----------



## DKMD (Jun 6, 2014)

Mike Mills said:


> So illegal South American wood is the major problem. I thought it was illegal South American immigrants. Maybe the EPA should enforce immigration.


They're drawn over by the lure of their native hardwood...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Mike1950 (Jun 6, 2014)

Mike Mills said:


> So illegal South American wood is the major problem. I thought it was illegal South American immigrants. Maybe the EPA should enforce immigration.



You can bet that the damn government wood thugs will be a lot more vigilant then the border patrol!! :furious: 
I can just see them going house to house- "Ya got papers for that 200 yr ol piano Grandma"

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## SENC (Jun 6, 2014)

DKMD said:


> I may or may not know a guy who has a burl chunk big enough for a nested set of bowls...


If he needs someone to store it for him to help him sleep at night, I'm your huckleberry. Just sayin'.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Cody Killgore (Jun 7, 2014)

Those of you with Dalbergia Nigra, the feds are coming for you. You can just send it to me and I will safeguard it. *:cool2:
*
Edit: I guess when I copied the title it made my font huge. Also didn't want the feds to think I'm coming for them. They listening to everything.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Fret440 (Jun 7, 2014)

Cody Killgore said:


> *Those of you with Dalbergia Nigra, the feds are coming for you. Send it to me and I will deal with them for you. :cool2:*


Just don't tag you in the post!

Makes me think they'll be swabbing anything that even looks like BR.

Jacob


----------



## Mike1950 (Jun 7, 2014)

ripjack13 said:


> That is such bs. There is no way I can account for all my rosewood....
> 
> Making criminals out of us law abiding citizens overnight....



The worst part is felony for buying or selling. Must need to fill some prisons.


----------



## Blueglass (Jun 7, 2014)

I'll have to try to dig through my FB account. Someone posted something on there where they have made provisions for previous imports and instruments.

Of course they have been known to ignore and confiscate in the past... Gibson ha hum.


----------



## ripjack13 (Jun 7, 2014)

I found a way around this crazy law....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-Seeds-Dal...189?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f2ebed205

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## ripjack13 (Jun 8, 2014)

Come on....where's the love? That is a great idea...


----------



## GeauxGameCalls (Jun 8, 2014)

I found ABW seeds also! For when our "wonderful" government makes that "illegal" also


----------



## GeauxGameCalls (Jun 8, 2014)

mja979 said:


> Would that mean all the ABW trees growing in th U.S. would be uprooted and burned?


You know it! Destroyed in a underground bunker to where no one can get it. It falls under the category of a narcotic!


----------



## Mike1950 (Jun 9, 2014)

The craziest part about it is-Does anyone really think this will help preserve the rosewood trees in their home country? What do they think of us in Brazil? I mean we are telling them how to preserve and take care of their resources or at least trying to control it. Not that this is an isolated case. We have been fighting the ivory battle since the 70's- I be we have not saved one damn elephant. And we sure as hell won't save an elephant or a tree by making 100 yr old items illegal......


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2014)

I would like to be able to track this thing down the political rabbit hole and see who is actually behind it. We know the why . . . as with all politics follow the money. Someone is making a buck off of the "laws" even if it is just on the enforcement side. Someone is profiting. Some PAC is probably behind it but PACs are front organizations, tools of the lobbyists. Where an investigative reporter when you need one.


----------



## Schroedc (Jun 9, 2014)

Reminds me of the US laws on the importation of tortoise shell, I was in the Cayman Islands and they farm raise them for the shells and meat, so tell me how banning the importation of tortoise products is going to help the wild populations when it's all commercial outside our borders???


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2014)

Not so fast Phyllis. I thought this sounded too far over the top and it didn't take much research to debunk this. Here is a much better (more accurate and more professional analysis of the situation) here's the article - emphasis in original except where I added the red bold twice:

_The death of the Brazilian rosewood guitar market has been greatly exaggerated.

So, here’s the story. Towards the end of May, 2014, well-meaning folks posted all over cyberspace that Brazilian rosewood would become “ILLEGAL IN JUNE.” Yep, in all caps. The posters’ evidence was this bit of language promulgated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency charged with enforcing the Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species:
_
*Exception: If the specimen was lawfully imported, with no restrictions on its use after import, before the species was listed as described in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section, you may continue to use the specimen as indicated for paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this section 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.*
_
*This language is part of a batch of regulations first proposed by FWS on March 8, 2012 and subject to public comment for 60 days, or until May 7, 2012.* Some two years later, on May 25, 2014, FWS posted the final rule which reflected modest changes catalyzed by some of the comments offered by the public. (Nearly all comments were offered by “falconers and raptor breeders.”) After 30 days, or on June 26, 2014, the new regulations become law. Hence the reference in the Internet postings to “June.”

At first glance, the language might frighten owners of guitars containing Brazilian rosewood (or other CITES-regulated material like ivory and Hawksbill sea turtle). On June 11, 1992, the CITES member countries first listed Brazilian rosewood on the Convention’s Appendix I, the most restrictive of the three appendices and the one which bans any commercial use of the stuff, like selling or trading it. So, one might think, and some obviously have, that after June 26, 2014 you can only sell your Brazilian rosewood-bearing guitar if it came into the US before June 11, 1992. Right?

Wrong. FWS has simply created a new exemption that grandfathers in objects that were imported into the US before they were listed on CITES. This gives guitar owners more rights, not fewer. All prior rights to sell or transfer objects containing Brazilian rosewood remain unchanged.

The regulation at issue is section 23.55 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Subpart (a) of § 23.55, provides as it has since 2007, that one may only use for “noncommercial purposes” materials listed in “Appendix I, except for specimens imported with a CITES exemption document listed in paragraph (d) of this section.” That exemption in (d), which remains unchanged under the new regulations, provides that one may use “for any lawful purpose” including sale, an object imported into the US pursuant to a “Pre-Convention certificate.”

Again, this provision has been in the regulations since 2007 and remains unchanged. It allows you to sell, buy, or otherwise transfer your Brazilian rosewood guitar so long as the rosewood was certified as “pre-Convention,” no matter when it was imported into the US.

What does “pre-Convention” mean? Section 23.5 of the regulations provides: “Pre-Convention means a specimen that was acquired (removed from the wild or born or propagated in a controlled environment) before the date the provisions of the Convention first applied to the species … and any product (including a manufactured item) or derivative made from such specimen.” So, if the rosewood the guitar maker used in building your guitar was chopped down before June 11, 1992, and the CITES import permit documents this, the guitar may be bought, sold, and otherwise used commercially.

As FWS observes in its preamble to the new §23.55, “We are not adding new prohibitions here. The restrictions on use after import of certain CITES specimens have been in place since 2007.” The new language in §23.55, FWS states, simply makes clear the agency’s intent to grant grandfather status to things threatened with illegality by subsequent modifications to CITES:

*Since publication of our regulations in 2007, we have given further consideration to the allowed use of a specimen within the United States when the listing status of the species changes after a specimen has been imported. We are amending this section to clarify that the allowed use after import into the United States is determined by the status of the specimen under CITES and the ESA at the time it is imported, except for a CITES specimen that was imported before the species was listed in Appendix I, or listed in Appendix II with an annotation disallowing commercial use, or listed in Appendix II or III and threatened under the ESA. Where an individual can clearly demonstrate that his or her specimen was imported with no restrictions on its use after import, prior to the species being listed under CITES with restrictions on its use after import, we will continue to allow use of the specimens as allowed at the time of import.*

And, even more clearly, FWS notes in the preamble that the new exemption is designed to make sure that your rights are not affected by the upgrading of species’ CITES status after the species have entered the US:

*Under this final rule, if an Appendix-II specimen is imported with no restrictions on its use (i.e., it is not protected under the ESA and it is not subject to an annotation requiring that it be used only for noncommercial purposes) and the species is subsequently transferred to Appendix I, if you can clearly demonstrate that your specimen was imported prior to the Appendix-I listing, use of the specimen within the United States will not change (i.e., it will not be restricted to noncommercial use) with the change in the status of the species under CITES.*

The new regulations do but one thing: create an exemption (including a documentation requirement for domestic sales) for stuff imported before it was listed on CITES. Stuff imported post-ban, like Brazilian rosewood imported after June 11, 1992, must be imported with a pre-CITES exemption certificate. This has been the law since 2007. The law does not require that a copy of this certificate or any other documentation accompany the sale of an instrument into which that wood was incorporated. There is no requirement in the law that a buyer or seller in any domestic transaction involving that wood produce or transfer any paperwork.

*Except for the new pre-CITES exemption, nothing has changed. You can live your guitar buying, selling, and playing life as if you'd never had the misfortune of stumbling in cyberspace upon the pronouncement that Brazilian rosewood was about to become illegal.*

So, don’t be alarmed by the alarmists. Ignore folks like the major US dealer in vintage guitars who has told folks he’s not accepting for consignment guitars containing Brazilian rosewood “because on June 26, it will become a felony to sell them.” Bask in the notion that, at least this time, FWS has your back … and sides, fingerboard, and bridge.

As Mark Twain famously said, “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”

*ABOUT THE AUTHOR*
John Thomas
John Thomas is a Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University and the Fretboard Journal's Field Editor. His recent book, Kalamazoo Gals, chronicles the women behind Gibson's wartime "Banner"-era guitars.

_

And *HERE* is the article link. So, we have fallen prey to yet another internet "_inaccuracy"_ to say the least. Let's do our homework out there before posting this stuff guys. Well I have to go now, I just read on a forum that hordes of 3-headed aliens are attacking earth and I need to clean my guns . . . .

Reactions: Like 1 | Thank You! 1


----------



## Schroedc (Jun 9, 2014)

So if I read this correctly, 

_The law does not require that a copy of this certificate or any other documentation accompany the sale of an instrument into which that wood was incorporated. There is no requirement in the law that a buyer or seller in any domestic transaction involving that wood produce or transfer any paperwork._

I may have to show paperwork for any rough stock I may have on hand but once I turn it into a pen or other item I don't have to provide any paperwork to the purchaser........


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2014)

Schroedc said:


> So if I read this correctly,
> 
> _The law does not require that a copy of this certificate or any other documentation accompany the sale of an instrument into which that wood was incorporated. There is no requirement in the law that a buyer or seller in any domestic transaction involving that wood produce or transfer any paperwork._
> 
> I may have to show paperwork for any rough stock I may have on hand but once I turn it into a pen or other item I don't have to provide any paperwork to the purchaser........




I would direct all such questions to John Thomas - the guy who wrote that article. He's a law professor and could give you a qualified answer, if he will. We are just guessers here.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2014)

Colin, check out the comments section below the article I linked. There's a lot more info in it and Professor Thomas joins in as well. .


----------



## Schroedc (Jun 9, 2014)

Kevin said:


> I would direct all such questions to John Thomas - the guy who wrote that article. He's a law professor and could give you a qualified answer, if he will. We are just guessers here.




Thanks Kevin, I didn't mean it to sound like I was asking for a legal opinion, more trying to state how I read it. But who knows, I may just be an idiot 

I don't have a lot of it left so I may just use the last of it for some new tool handles for a few 100 year old planes and build a set of finger planes for myself and not worry about it at all


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2014)

Colin here is a quote from Mr. Thomas' comments below the article. I think you are fine.

_Mark, (curiously) this requirement of documentation only applies if you claim your Brazilian rosewood came into the US before June 11, 1992. That is, it's part of the new "grandfather" exemption. It does not apply to 23.55 "pre-Convention" rosewood imported post-Convention.

Make sense? It doesn't to me, but that's how it reads. Simply put, other than the "grandfather" exemption and its related documentation requirement,*the law is unchanged*._

Reactions: Like 1


----------

