Official Luthiers Forum!

Ok, I have 200+ BRW bridges that I purchased about 6+ years ago from either LMII or Allied. I tossed out the receipts years ago. Can I still use them on a guitar and not get "busted"? What about Honduran Mahogany? I have 200 neck blanks I got from Gilmer about 8 years ago. Do I have to stop using these neck blanks if I can't "prove" I purchased this wood from them? I process my own nuts and saddles from cow femurs purchased from the local butcher. Are those banned now as well? I used to use MOP position markers that I bought 10 years ago from LMII. I've recently stopped using them until I figure out this Lacey act crap. I also have 200+ African Ebony fingerboards that I purchases in 1999. Are those now banned? Any one else confused about this crap?

Everyone is confused on this stuff. Here is my take on it. I need to know this stuff because I sell my mandolins in the USA (or at least I used to!).

The BRW bridges are fine to use so long as the guitars never leave the USA, although in principle interstate trade is illegal it is not enforced. Don't even think about exporting if you don't have CITES documentation. The Honduran Mahogany is listed in CITES Appendix II so is fine in finished instruments, and should be fine to export out of the USA in a finished guitar. Just don't try to export a neck blank. Cow bone is exempt becasue it is a domesticated animal. Just make sure it is documented in the relant F&W document if you export a guitar. MOP is no problem to use in the USA. To export a guitar with MOP you need to get an import/export permit from F&W, fill out and lodge the relevant F&W forms, and pay the fees. As far as I know there should be no problems with African Ebony. In any case if the guitar is worth more than $2500 USD, to export it you will need to lodge the F&W form that documents all the wood species, weight of each wood species contained in the guitar, and country of harvest. I think that covers it.

Check the article by Chuck Erikson which can be downloaded from the GAL web site.
http://www.luth.org/downloads/download.htm
Chuck put a lot of effort into this and there is lots of information on Lacey

_________________
Fred Tellier
http://www.fetellierguitars.com
Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/FE-Tellier-Guitars/163451547003866

Ok....... So if I were to make an instrument with a spruce top, EIRW back and sides, Spanish cedar neck, linings and back braces, Hondo mahogany blocks inside, WA Ebony fretboard and bindings, MOP dots, etc etc and ship it within the US, what is the rundown of the documentation I would need to fill out for it? (And why? Like anyone knows......)

There is a good chance that Allied and LMII keep records of what they ship to customers. If it matters, you might want to asked them for duplicate documentation.

I think that such receipts in themselves do not constitute CITES documentation, but I don't know for sure.

My take on this is similar to Peter's above. If anything is innacurate here I'd appreciate clarification, but facts only not speculation :

"Ok, I have 200+ BRW bridges that I purchased about 6+ years ago from either LMII or Allied. I tossed out the receipts years ago. Can I still use them on a guitar and not get "busted"?"

These can be used on guitars which will be sold only in the US assuming they have no Cites certification, or sold as blanks within the US and not internationally.

" What about Honduran Mahogany? I have 200 neck blanks I got from Gilmer about 8 years ago. Do I have to stop using these neck blanks if I can't "prove" I purchased this wood from them?"

Fine for use in the U.S. and export in a finished form such as a guitar neck. Cities Appendix II only limits trade in mahogany logs, lumber and sawn veneer. Lacey does apply in terms of a declaration of species and origin for export"

" I process my own nuts and saddles from cow femurs purchased from the local butcher. Are those banned now as well?"

In case of export you would list the latin name of the species (domestic cattle) to differentiate it from something that is regulated.

" I used to use MOP position markers that I bought 10 years ago from LMII. I've recently stopped using them until I figure out this Lacey act crap."

No problem with sales in the US there may be a regulation which states that you have to declare the presence of wildlile products (MOP is perfectly legal) for interstate shipping. FF&W requires a license to export MOP. the cost of this ($75.) is why suppliers no longer sell small quantities of shell internationally.

" I also have 200+ African Ebony fingerboards that I purchases in 1999. Are those now banned? Any one else confused about this crap? "

Same applies as mahogany in domestic sales and export.

The thing that seems to be mis-interpreted here is that inter-state restrictions apply only when materials have been illegally imported (whether cities restricted or in violation of Lacey) into the US.
Import and Export is really the main problem.

Here's the part I don't get about the whole thing. Going back to the first example, suppose I buy 15 Mahogany necks from Gilmer every year ovrer the last 15 years. I've been in business for myself more often than not and am pretty good about keeping receipts. How would anyone but me know which receipt goes with which neck blamk? Especially once it is on a guitar. Not only that but the paperwork for compliance has been a moving target over those last 15 years and I have to believe that it will continue to be. So what do I need and what do I keep? While my receipt will show when I bought it and from whom, it is not a CITES certificate. I also have no idea what paperwork will be required in the future.

Because I have dealt with ivory over the last 10 years, I have seen paperwork that have accompanied product, that I would not trust and am amazed that anyone would. The first question that came to my mind is the one above, How do I know this paperwork goes with this piece of material? I have also received metal that was routed through China, mainly because US regulations shut down the mills here, that I am pretty sure were misrepresented. They were opened and inspected by customs, I made things from it, sent them to a house that specialized in furnace work, and the parts were returned shipped to the original party in Malaysia. Now, I would not take responsibility for the return shipping and not sure how the paperwork was filled out but am I to assume that anything and everything that makes it through customs is legal? I know I don't. I do wish that if this is going to be the new rule, that those rules would be enforced at the point of entry rather than turning me into a criminal, or hiring someone just to stay up on the onerous paperwork.

Tim

Right, and hope that no mistakes were made by anyone in that supply chain.

If I am recalling correctly, the government agents responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Cites, Lacey and FF&W restrictions who spoke at ASIA stated that their working assumption about old stocks of wood that are present in the US is that they were legally imported and thus legal.

I think they are only concerned about activity from this point forward insofar as the movements of those materials.

Check out Chuck on facebook, he made an offer to send some of the information he has and part of it was a PDF of the FWS agent's application for the search. I received this info from him and it is very interesting. They have gone to a lot of trouble to make this all happen, I wonder if this is a test case for them.

Chuck ( Duke of Pearl ) has done a lot of work on the research and is probably the Luthier communities best advocate on all this. He was raided a while back over shell products and thus his interest.

Fred

_________________
Fred Tellier
http://www.fetellierguitars.com
Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/FE-Tellier-Guitars/163451547003866

until they change their minds.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

Fred, I had a very nice talk with Chuck at ASIA, seems we have a lot in common having nothing to do with instruments etc.

His organizing the Cities/Lacey/FF&W presentation on behalf of ASIA was a big service to it's members.

It's important that accurate information gets shared on this subject. Otherwise no one is going to gain an understanding or will be able to negiotiate this complex situation.

Folks blowing off steam helps no one.

All these rules just make me want to stay in bed and sign up on the dole. Those well meanning people will take care of a simple man like myself.

That corresponds well with the info that John Thomas gave at his Healdsburg presentation. The main thing that is unclear to me is what documentation, if any, is required for interstate shipping.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

I have a message from Chuck that I can share the info I received from him, send me an PM with your Email address and I can forward what I have.

This is big!! and it is not going away by its self, we need to be involved and informed.

_________________
Fred Tellier
http://www.fetellierguitars.com
Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/FE-Tellier-Guitars/163451547003866

None of the shell currently used in the industry is "listed" (threatened, endangered, or protected), but border agents have more than once confused it with the couple of species which are, such as white ocean pearl oyster (Pinctada maxima) for the banned White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni), or Paua ab. (H. iris) for the protected Black ab. (H. cracherodii). An expert could easily distinguish these but border agents can't possible be specialists in all the thousands of things they need to deal with. Even if paperwork is correctly submitted it can still be challenged and the material sent to a government lab for testing (and you can be charged over $1000.00 for the lab work and a "storage" fee even if the government was wrong).

Lacey requires interstate shipments of fish or wildlife materials/products to be labeled as such on the outside of every container, with a full description attached either outside or inside (common and Latin species names, country of origin, and amount of each in metric volume or weight). No one has ever yet bothered to enforce this law, but if ever challenged that wouldn't be accepted as a defense. The interstate marking regulation does NOT apply to plant materials such as instrument woods.

Some things to keep in mind on all of this are that 1) CITES only applies at the international border; 2) the Lacey Act concerns materials already in the U.S., but along with demanding conformance to domestic tribal, state or federal laws (Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, etc.) it also requires that no international laws were violated (such as CITES) or those of any country involved in the material’s origin or chain of custody.

The way this plays out in practice is that for any material already here in the states (which isn’t just outright illegal) it’s up to the U.S. agencies to prove that a violation has been committed, and that can’t be done without them producing either a paper trail or witnesses. So for any Brazilian rosewood that lacks paperwork, it might be questioned but can’t be confiscated or banned from use or sale. But as soon as that wood (or anything made from it) tries to leave the country the burden of proof changes and it’s then up to the owner to provide a paper trail proving it was imported legally or pre-ban.

If using paperless B.R. you should probably get the buyer to sign off on a statement saying they understand that the wood is legal within the U.S., but that it cannot be legally exported and that you will not be responsible for anything that happens if it is ever presented at the border. Include this on the invoice and/or on a document that stays in the instrument case (or maybe on the label?).

APHIS recently issued guidelines for getting exemption certificates on pre-2008 items (including guitars) which contain unknown woods or lack other information (but only if the wood is really not identifiable!): http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/lacey-act-special-use-codes.pdf

It’s also possible, at least theoretically, to get exemption certification on old paperless “legacy” or “estate” woods such as Brazilian by using the Plant and Plant Product Declaration Form PPQ-505, and this is the same form used to register pre-ban wood that has legitimate documents. The APHIS agent who spoke at June’s ASIA meeting asked for a show of hands among the hall full of luthiers of anyone who had attempted to get certification based on a simple written statement of fact, and no hands went up. He said that although uncommon, there have been allowances made for a clear and detailed written history when no actual paper trail was available, and that the luthier community should give this a try. Write up as much detailed history on your old wood as you can recall, noting names, dates, locations, the amount involved in the original transaction, and the exact amount of wood now being held; if possible, contact anyone involved in the original deal, or any other witnesses, and get them to write up and sign supporting statements. Have this material notarized and submit it, along with the required application fee, and see what happens. I have a luthier friend who at this moment is doing exactly that, so we’ll see what happens!

For information on the current state of affairs with the Gibson raids, send me your email address and will reply with several attachments, including a long and very interesting affidavit used in getting the search warrant for the latest raids of August 24th in Nashville and Memphis.

I was hoping Chuck would check in after I sent him a link to the discussion

_________________
Fred Tellier
http://www.fetellierguitars.com
Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/FE-Tellier-Guitars/163451547003866

Be very careful about how you recall this concept.
I was not there to hear what they said but I don't think anywhere in CITES is there authorization for an "Agent" to give Pre-CITES certificates to stock that does not have proof of it's time line. I doubt any F&W officer has the authority to legalize old undocumented inventories of BRW just to satisfy the owner, group of owners or the agencies desire to make a problem disappear. Unless the officer has some tangible form of evidence to support the issuance of a certificate how can they justify it? The officers must be careful so they don't wind up personally in violation of CITES and abuse of authority.

If you can't prove your old BRW is legal then neither can the F&W.

_________________
Lance Peck

Although the advice came through George A. Balady (APHIS Staff Agriculturist Officer, in Riverdale, MD), it's not individual agents who would be certifying undocumented wood -- it's an agency issue that's dealt with through the submission of a document in the form of a sworn statement on the Plant and Plant Product Declaration Form PPQ-505 application. According to Balady, although this approach is unusual it has been approved at times and should be the first thing tried before getting involved in more complicated attempts. He also said if this met with failure to contact him personally at his private office number (given at the workshop) and he'd talk to his superiors about what could be done to work with luthiers on the problem.

Lets face it folks....we're all dealing in illegal substances here according to our government bureaucrat overlords.
All the documentation in the world won't matter when they come for you. Just ask Gibson. Evidently, they can just take the wood and never file charges....legal or illegal doesn't apply anymore.

My question would be why APHIS is offering to certify CITES species? APHIS has no juristiction over CITES wouldn't this have to be done by USFW?

Note that this is a question and not a statement of fact.

_________________
Lance Peck

Yes, APHIS does get involved with some CITES. Isn't it nice that some government agencies are coordinting effort so as not to have too many duplicate requirements?

At the GAL convention last month LMI had a sign out on their table saying "Ask us about our CITES program". Being interested I took took LMI seriously and asked them. Here is how the actual conversation went"

ME: Your sign says to ask you about your CITES program, so please tell me about it.

LMI: You don't have to worry at all about CITES for items you purchase from us. If you are audited we will furnish all the chain of custody records you reqluire.

ME: So you have all the records?

LMI: Yes

ME: So do you have them in your office records? I mean, could I see the records in your office?

LMI: Not exactly, our suppliers have the records.

ME: So you just trust that the suppliers have the records?

LMI: Oh no, no. We don't just trust the suppliers.

ME: So do you go into the suppliers office and spot check their records for compliance?

LMI: We have contracts that require the suppliers to properly keep the records.

ME: Do you QA checks in suppliers office to make sure the suppliers comply with your contracts?

LMI: No, our suppliers are too far away in other countries to go check them.

ME: So you just trust them then.

LMI is now silent with no response.

Mmm Just goes to show how unworkable the current situation is.