 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: John Morton
Date: 2016-12-14 07:53
The wood Dalbergia melanoxylon (or African blackwood) is due to fall under CITES regulations on Jan. 2, 2017. Basically the change in regulations means that documentation for this and many other formally exempt woods will be required for crossing international borders. This is a desperate attempt to stem the traffic in endangered tree species by also regulating hundreds of other species that are similar enough to cause confusion.
This could make things difficult for those traveling with more than a small personal weight allowance. The chief benefit I see is a hypothetical CITES passport which would guarantee protection from seizure. This has been a terrifying prospect for folks facing a 19 yr. old ignorant border guard who doesn't know ivory from bone, or ebony from Bakelite. (I'm not sure I would know either.)
This is where I saw this news:
https://reverb.com/news/new-cites-regulations-for-all-rosewood-species?utm_campaign=FB161129_blogcitesreg&utm_medium=FB
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2016-12-14 11:57
Post Edited (2016-12-14 12:46)
- Matthew Simington
Post Edited (2016-12-14 12:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2016-12-15 04:25
Based on how the ivory ban requires the owner to prove that the ivory they own is legal, I predict the end of the wooden clarinet.
While the CITES regulations should have no effect on those of us who never travel internationally with a blackwood product (this includes rosewood), top musicians will be forced to use non-wooden clarinets, due to the hassle of complying with the law.
Once this happens, wooden clarinets will lose their prestige.
Many years ago, I attended a gun show where raw ivory was for sale. It was expensive even then. Had I purchased any as an investment, I would have found it difficult or impossible to legally resell it, as the ivory ban was backdated to 1976.
Imagine trying to make a Selmer Series 9 comply with the law, that you bought used from an auction site, and did not bother to print the receipt, because it was only $500. While we all know that it has been quite a while since the Series 9 was produced, the burden of proof will be on us, not the Customs officials.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2016-12-15 04:50
All in all I welcome this regulation. And I am sure that prestigious manufacturers will do everything to supply their customer with the required paperwork that proves that the wood is "legit".
(Kudos to Hanson for having had the foresight to get an FSC certification for their instruments)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2016-12-15 05:17
Is mopane affected by the new CITES regulations? It's supposedly a good alternative to mpingo, and Schwenk & Seggelke offers a mopane clarinet option.
It appears, though, that mopane trees, like mpingo trees, take decades to reach maturity.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bassclarinet101 ★2017
Date: 2016-12-15 06:16
I believe synthetic materials will ultimately reign supreme in the clarinet world. I think all woods with a tight grain are slow-growth by their nature, and it just isn't practical in the long term. The material and its properties do matter (I'm not suggesting they don't), but I suspect the craftsmanship matters more, and if we see a rise in the quality of synthetic instruments, this could be a very good shift for the development of the clarinet.
-Daniel
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2016-12-15 06:30
I have to say that I think this is wrong. A clarinet does not make someone a poacher.
A rosewood instrument is in most cases not a luxury item, and it is not immoral or illegal to use these woods for instruments. It doesn't make any sense to persecute musicians. It shows a lack of common sense, and is disproportional to the problem.
In essence, every single musician with an instrument that might look like rosewood to a border guard is being told that their instrument is illegal to transport overseas. The assumption is essentially that the musician is a criminal and that their instrument is contraband, unless proven otherwise. You are guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure that obtaining a certificate would in many cases be impossible, even for people who have had their instruments for decades, and if possible would be a royal pain. And, if you do have a certificate, I'm sure that that it is no guarantee that your instrument will not be taken from you. You don't get to argue with border guards, and have no one to appeal to. A guard will be handling your instrument and examining it without your approval - even if it's plastic or hard rubber, because they can't tell the difference. They can tell you the bell or barrel is illegal, the certificate is no good, you don't have the right documentation, etc.
The following article is about ivory, but the regulations would appear to be the same now for rosewood. It mentions rosewood 3/4 of the way through. It also notes that ivory items (and presumably rosewood) may only be brought into the country at certain places, and only during business hours. If you come after hours you pay what is in essence a fine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/ivory-at-the-tip-of-a-complex-issue-for-traveling-orchestra-members/2015/12/30/fb0c818e-8a49-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html?utm_term=.d4e4cd937be1
I expect the price of new instruments will go up, and some small producers may decided not to export at all. Backun is in Canada, for instance.
I have wondered if it is necessary for student models to be wood, and I don't have any particular opinions about what wood should be banned where. I don't want people cutting all the trees down. I just know that treating everyone like criminals all the time is wrong.
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2016-12-15 17:43
before we all get our knickers in a twist, here's what the regulaton article says:
"It does not apply to instruments shipped within the borders of your country or instruments carried for personal use while traveling internationally [unless they contain more than 22 lbs. (10 kg) of the regulated woods]."
So, the burden of proof is on the manufacturer and the dealer, not the consumer.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: claralot
Date: 2016-12-15 19:23
A comprehensive guide to CITES:
http://americanorchestras.org/advocacy-government/travel-with-instruments/endangered-species-material/protected-species-travel-tips.html
also
https://www.fws.gov/international/permits/by-activity/musical-instruments.html
....Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tommo84
Date: 2017-02-28 22:47
I will travel to US soon from Europe with my clarinet.
accordingly to this document
https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/questions-and-answers-appendix-II-timber-listings-December-2016.pdf
at page 16, question 47, it is clearly stated that if we have an instrument under 10 kg we are fine.
Can you confirm that I will no trouble at the US border?
thanks
Tommaso
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-03-01 03:00
There's also a "personal effects" exception that seems to apply to everything except elephant ivory, as long as the wood is (a) dead, (b) for personal use, and (c) part of your baggage. I'm wanting to take my instruments to Germany in the Spring and emailed their customs question people in Dresden, but haven't gotten a reply yet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-03-01 17:47
Heard back from German customs today. They mentioned the 10 kg for personal use exemption, and also said Grenadilla hasn't made it into their regulations yet, but don't count on that at some future date. Wish our government were as responsive and clear as theirs!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2021-06-13 16:09
According to this article, the CITES regulation has been updated at the end of 2019 to exclude musical instruments:
https://www.flutes.com/cites-regulations-of-wooden-instruments-update/
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-06-13 22:40
I must admit I was mortified when I got my new wooden clarinet home and reaslised it had been made from a rainforest tree. I genuinely hadn't realised that that was where they came from. I think that finding a good alternative would be the best thing really.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2021-06-14 05:56
Attachment: 220px-Status_iucn3.1.svg.png (8k)
It sounds like the exceptions above only apply to EU/UK countries.
"League of American Orchestras" (updated) say that US permits are still required in some instances. See "Statements" at the bottom. Updated May 5, 2021. https://americanorchestras.org/cites-protected-species-travel-tips/
It's up to individual customs to enforce CITES. I think the original CITES personal instrument exemption is here: https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2017-078.pdf
I looked at the Fish and Wildlife website, to see what their policy is, but had a hard time. Most of the documents were old.
I don't think anything has changed with regard to the CITES listing itself, just it's just that implementation in the EU has changed. Dalbergia spp. (including malonoxylon / mpingo / grenadilla) are still in Appendix II: https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php
"Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily now threatened with extinction but that may become so [...]. International trade in specimens of Appendix-II species may be authorized by the granting of an export permit or re-export certificate. No import permit is necessary for these species under CITES (although a permit is needed in some countries that have taken stricter measures than CITES requires)." https://cites.org/eng/app/index.php
This means that Appendix II species are subject to export permits under CITES, but not import permits. CITES does not control national policies. Individual countries are free to exert more or less regulation.
Note that grenadilla is NOT threatened:
"It’s also reported by the IUCN as being near threatened. ***Technically it doesn’t meet the Red List criteria of a vulnerable or endangered species***, but is close to qualifying and/or may qualify in the near future." https://www.wood-database.com/african-blackwood/
"Near Threatened" is just below "Least Concern" - and above "Vulnerable".
"Threatened" is a group of several categories, not an individual classification. "Near Threatened" places it outside of the "Threatened" group. In other words, it seems to mean "OK". See the attached image or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_Red_List The equivalent "NatureServe" (whatever that is) status is "Apparently Secure". "Apparently Secure" sounds a lot different than "Near Threatened".
Grenadilla is from a dry savanna climate. https://www.wood-database.com/african-blackwood/
- Matthew Simington
Post Edited (2021-06-14 07:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
