Ok, for the sake of ease of reading, this excerpt is worth embedding here too:

Peter Schu @ Reverb.com writes

What This Means

For manufacturers:

When importing any species of Dalbergia or the other woods mentioned, there must be an accompanying CITES certificate from the country it came from if it arrives after January 2, 2017.

Manufacturers who currently have stockpiles of the newly regulated wood must document their inventory and apply for pre-convention certificates.

For dealers and sellers:

When shipping musical instruments that include any amount (i.e. fingerboard, back, sides, binding) of Dalbergia or the other newly regulated woods out of your country as part of a commercial transaction, each one must be accompanied by a CITES re-export certificate.

Even if the instrument was made with Dalbergia or the other regulated woods that were acquired before January 2, 2017 - such as a used or vintage instrument - it still must be accompanied by a CITES certificate and marked pre-convention when shipping internationally.

For example, a seller in Nashville looking to ship her 2013 Martin 000-28 with East Indian rosewood back and sides to a buyer in Canada must apply for a re-export certificate, pay the application fee, receive the certificate, and include that document with the guitar when shipping.

For sellers in the United States, CITES re-export certificates must be applied for through the US Fish and Wildlife Service. You can download the application here.

Representatives of the agency have said that initial turnaround times on certificate application may be on the order of months.

For more information, you can contact their office at (703) 358-2104 or at managementauthority@fws.gov. You can read the official letter from US Fish and Wildlife here.

If you contact US Fish and Wildlife, please keep in mind that they did not suggest or create this regulation - the parties of the international CITES conference did. The employees of US Fish and Wildlife are trying to work with manufacturers and sellers to develop streamlined processes around this.

Each country has its own CITES Management Authority. If you live outside the United States, you can look up the CITES contact in your country here.

Fady

El Mirage @ ReverbNation

Last edited: Dec 23, 2016 09:21:37

While I'm carrying on my own conversation ;)

...this readers comment on the reverb page feels about right to me. I'd simply lead in with the word "IF" for my personal emphasis. IF the goal is to make rosewood less sought after...

reverb.com readers comment

The goal is to make rosewood less sought after and reduce the use of it.

All cites does for musicians is to add extra paper work and cost if you want to sell or buy a used rosewood guitar. So it will be easier to buy a new guitar with rosewood than a already used one, so from that perspective it's contra productive.

Cites does not apply to instruments made before 1947. Then you only need proof of it's age. Why not change 1947 to 2017? That would make it easier and cheaper for musicians to trade already existing guitars. Let cites only apply for guitars made after 2017, old storages with rosewood and when importing new rosewood. That way you limit cites impact to the industry. Market powers will reduce the use of rosewood due to it being more cost full.

If they really want to make rosewood less sought after among musicians: inform them why they shouldn't buy New instruments with rosewood just like they did with ivory. As far as I know they haven't done that to a big extent yet.

And to limit the use in the industry just increase the tax for rosewood and force the market to buy other kinds of wood!

Fady

El Mirage @ ReverbNation

Without having read very much of the above content (sorry), I have to ask what if any effect this will have on the value of used instruments containing actual rosewood. I don't have any particular preference, but I'd hate for the value of every other guitar I might want to buy used in the future to sky-rocket.

The Mystery Men?
El Capitan and The Reluctant Sadists
SSS Agent #31

Last edited: Dec 23, 2016 13:31:16

For example, a seller in Nashville looking to ship her 2013 Martin 000-28 with East Indian rosewood back and sides to a buyer in Canada must apply for a re-export certificate, pay the Non-Refundable $75 application fee, receive the certificate, and include that document with the guitar when shipping.

Fee edit mine. Link to the USFWS app.

Reading the full letter (from US Fish & Wildlife Service example) here it does seem, for the categories of woods & derivatives they're talking about, this doesn't apply to NON-COMMERCIAL actions - including re-export - in amounts of 10kg (22-lbs.) or less. So why would someone need a permit to sell their personally-owned Martin to another individual party in Canada? Not sure the reverb.com example might be the best (?). Dunno; asking.

Don't know how it works in other countries, and I have no personal stake in it - other than being irked that it seems like another permit mechanism to vacuum money into something that is already getting paid out of a fund a particular country already pays into the UN for the funding of CITES (and the US alone pays nearly 1/4th of the operating costs and individually more than double the next highest contributor). It's like a self-licking ice-cream cone.

Curious to learn if anyone has had to previously go through this process with what should be a grand-fathered item, and what was their experience?

Wes
SoCal ex-pat with a snow shovel

DISCLAIMER: The above is opinion/suggestion only & should not be used for mission planning/navigation, tweaking of instruments, beverage selection, or wardrobe choices.