basically, if you don’t have a CITES certificate on your flute that has ivory on/in it (remember those little crown stems and cork holders?) you’ve got a problem.
This is basically nutty overkill. All for protecting against the illegal harvesting, but what’s a 200-year-old flute have anything to do with it?
This is not a very good situation.
The article implied that the same severe restrictions will apply to CITES listed wood products as well are ivory! If this is the case, it could have a much broader impact on flutes than just ivory restrictions. Does this really mean that we will be forced, by law, to stop selling or traveling with flutes that contain even the slightest amount of materials such as rosewood, cocuswood, ivory, etc?
Are flutes with these materials going to become worthless in the next few months?
Should flute makers be anticipating the addition of other vulnerable materials onto this list, and rather than risk their future flutes becoming worthless by law, instead bite the bullet now and move to commonly available materials? i.e., this law would make the stockpiling of materials that are anticipated to be CITES-listed in the near future, a very bad idea financially.
I think that’s all well and good if you have a magnifying glass and a tusk in front of you. I don’t think it’d be so helpful when you’ve got a flute ring or carving you’re trying to identify.
It’s not meant to be a criticism of anyone in this thread, but if that’s what CITES has to offer, that’s scary. At the very least I don’t think it’d be very helpful to anyone who can’t already identify different types of ivory.
Yeah, better hope whoever is in charge of confiscation has more training than that handout. But don’t count on it. When in doubt, they will take anything you have that looks remotely like ivory, unless you have some pretty convincing proof to the contrary.
I have a Bb Dave Williams chanter with ivory fittings. Dave used to buy old ivory billiard balls back in the late 70’s early '80’s when he saw them in bric-a-brac shops, flea markets etc. I’ve only crossed the border into Denmark and taken it to England & Ireland. I would’nt risk flying with it to England or Ireland now though.
Thanks for the alert. I was not aware of these impending changes. But selling ivory has been quite tricky for awhile now. I know because I have wanted to sell a set of ivory mounted highland pipes for several years, but every time I look into it, the situation seems awfully complex. Now I guess it will be virtually impossible. I would support this virtual ban if I thought it really would save elephants. But what happens with banned products is that they get used domestically. So instead of making nice guitars, Brazilian rosewood now makes nice Brazilian floors and the forests continue to dwindle. I think conservation programs like protected reserves are a better way to go, but I can accept that at least the intention here is good. What I did find hard to believe in the NY Times article is the government official’s assertion that the US is the second largest market for ivory. Maybe in size, but I doubt that would be true in terms of consumption. More than India, Japan, Russia, and every African country? Seems doubtful to me.
The League of American Orchestras web site provides some additional information on how to get a “musical instrument certificate” (aka “instrument passport”).
Do any of you know which wood species are also covered by this law? The article included the following statement, which I think could have a much more significant impact on fluter makers and players than the ban on ivory: “The new rules will also apply to rhino horn, whale teeth, tortoise shell and certain woods that are also regulated under the 1973 Endangered Species Act.”
OK for now–but uncertainty about the future is a valid concern even if it would not stop me from buying flute made out of any of the woods Casey mentioned.
