Feds cracking down on many exotic woods. How will it effect knives?

Yep, we have a circuitous construction of laws and regulations in this country. Sometimes they are a hassle. But it's kinda neat to be able to say pretty much what you want, like calling people nazis (like in the above post, or much worse) - freedom of speech is kinda nice. Freedom of expression ain't too bad, either.

Sometimes we also need to be reminded that freedom to emigrate is available to those of us who don't wish to be here.

Best regards,

Bob
 
I hear ya Joe! I have an octogenarian friend who occasionally reminds me: "When dealing with folks it is good to keep the PP (peepee ;)) factor in mind -- personality and politics." :D
 
The individual bureaucrat (law enforcement officer) has the greatest discretionary power in the criminal justice system, he alone makes the decision to charge an individual or not. Unfortunately many individual officers are not highly knowledgeable concerning the laws they endeavor to enforce. Once you are charged get ready to spend big bucks for an attorney. Our courts are courts of law, not justice, being in the right may or may not matter.


I am all for nature and saving endangered species, unfortunately the legal issues are more likely decided on issues of current political correct theory than science.

Our best defense is to stay clear of any potential hassles, they may well prove to be more trouble than they are worth..
 
The average American probably does not fully understand that when you are bringing your carcass or any products into the US from abroad, all bets are off. Many things that are otherwise not illegal can be at the customs counter. You are subject to unwarranted searches of your person and belongings without any cause, probable or otherwise. If the Customs guys decide that they don't like you, they can confiscate your computer or smart phone and hold it for an extended period of time while they search it for naughty material. If they think that material is "contraband" or that you were not totally honest in your declaration, they will take it and you can fight about it later at your own expense. The first time that I went to Belgium, I declared my knives that I was taking to the show with Delta and TSA and they were given special handling like firearms, but I did not fill out some obscure customs form for "business samples" before leaving. The clerk in Atlanta wanted to confiscate or collect duty in them because he was sure that they came from outside the US even though they all had my name stamped on them. Cooler heads prevailed when he called his supervisor over. My dad had some dumb woman at Miami International Airport try to confiscate half of a box of MIAMI MADE La Gloria Cubana cigars when he came back from the Bahamas one time in the early 90's because she figured they had "Cubana" in the name, so they must be from Havana even though there was a US tax stamp on the box. LOL
Samael said:
TUF, I appreciate your outrage and your good intentions. But the constitution doesn't mean what you think it does.

I've briefed (but not argued) a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I've taken so many cases before the Colorado Supreme Court I couldn't even tell you how many. I was married by two Colorado Supreme Court justices (who happened to be husband-and-wife themselves), fer Crissakes (which was totally cool). And, in spite of that, the constitution doesn't mean what I think it does either.

Which doesn't make this any less wrong. Some bureaucrat, with no legislative authority, has decided that I'm a criminal because I own those three undocumented pieces of 40-year-old ebony. How is this any different than having a bean-counter in Washington decide that an assisted opener is a "switchblade?"
Click to expand...
 
The issue here is not endangered species. What's happening is that our government is going way out of it's way to enforce Indian law. Ironic when you consider that the Indians have lot's of loopholes so they can get around their own laws in order to sell us their wood.

It's also about protecting Indian jobs, by keeping the processing of wood in India, which is ironic when you consider how many of our jobs have gone over there. :rolleyes:

What happened here is that someone imported some ebony and rosewood pieces that were 10 mm thick, when Indian law forbids the export of anything over 6 mm thick, that is not a "finished" product. So, some one in India forgot to run a bunch of fretboard blanks through the sander. The horror.

Here's the affadavit by the investigating officer. Nice to read if you're suffering from insomnia.

http://berkowitzguitars.com/pdf/Gibson - Affidavit in Support of SW.pdf
 
supporting lumbering industries that diminish the overall health of the ecosystem of the planet just flat out doesn't make sense.

I don't know what that means in Hawaii but around here that is usually code for "all logging is bad and should be banned. No one has the right to cut the people's trees off private land even if they did plant those trees 40 years before."

From reading the various articles on this new problem, I gather it is up to the owner to prove the wood on anything they bring into the country is not endangered or somehow logged outside their version of P.C. "So you say the handle on your Finn puukko you bought in Helsinki is birch, prove it criminal!
 
A correction to my previous post. CITES does regulate the use of Honduran mahogany, but only old growht trees in its original range in Central America. Pretty much everything we get nowadays is plantation grown outside of the tree's normal habitat. In addition to the rosewood trees grown to shade tea bushes in India, both Honduran and Cuban mahogany are grown in India and also Indonesia and the Philipines. They say that the Honduran mahogany can become an invasive pest because none of the local bugs eat it. Teak is extensively grown in places like Costa Rica and Guatemala and you can even get tax credits for buying farmland and raising teak trees. Apparently the reason that you see more Honduran mahogany and a LOT more of the "false" mahogany like African and Philipine is because they grow a lot faster and get bigger than the Cuban stuff. Cuban mahogany tops out at a little over 100-115 feet in the best climates like St. John, USVI and more like 45-50 feet in South Florida. People lust after old growth Cuban mahogany because it is denser, more slow growing and more highly figured. You can still get the real old growth stuff from trees that have to be removed from the Florida Keys, but is is scarcer than hen's teeth. The super desirable local stuff has been in short supply since after WW2, just like Adirondack spruce.
 
Last edited:
Regulation protects sustainability. I am of the opinion, thinking knifemakers and/or craftsman should seek to use (or promote) the natural resources of their environment. I have no preference of exotic woods or materials, over our own indigenous species.
David
 
Last edited:
Actually, on this side of the pond, money protects sustainability in a lot of the timber industry as much as anything else. That is why recycling paper has become a bit of a farce. It takes about the same amount of water and electricity to make paper from farmed pulpwood as it does from recylcled materials. Pine trees for paper and cellulose fiber for Pampers are ready to cut in as little as 12-15 years. Same deal for glass since we feel the need to remelt everything instead of washing and reusing like we did with old Coke bottles and milk jugs. Pretty much the only recycling that we do over here that uses LESS energy than making stuff from raw materials is metal recycling, particularly aluminum. About the only time that paper companies get ahead using wate is when they get stuff like trimmings from newsprint because it is clean(no ink), shredded, baled and has no coating on the stock and they buy it cheap.
2knife said:
Regulation protects sustainability. I am of the opinion, thinking knifemakers and/or craftsman should seek to use (or promote) the natural resources of their environment. I have no preference of exotic woods or materials, over our own indigenous species.
David
Click to expand...
 
Joe,
I was not speaking strictly "conservation".. To put another way, thinking more "regionally"? American makers using more American traditional hardwoods. Clyde Fischer used Texas mesquite.
David
 
A lot of us use black walnut, ironwood, redwood burl, curly maple, etc. I have probably used more of Don Hanson's walnut than any other wood over the last 2 years or so. Maybe more than all of the other woods combined since I have been using so much stag lately. With that said, there is no local subsitute for a nice piece of blackwood or amboyna.
2knife said:
Joe,
I was not speaking strictly "conservation".. To put another way, thinking more "regionally"? American makers using more American traditional hardwoods. Clyde Fischer used Texas mesquite.
David
Click to expand...
 
Fascinating discussion, and a little scary on a couple levels. We all do need to do our part to make sure our knife making or collecting doesn't contribute to the elimination of species. I don't want to be part of the problem, but I don't want some bureaucrat arbitrarily determining that I am suddenly a criminal.

I certainly couldn't document the source of my ebony, rosewood, ivory, etc. Could desert ironwood be next?

Cheers!
Mike
 
If they're allowed to retroactively decide that things that were legal 20 years ago are now illegal, I see nothing stopping them from deciding the same thing in the future about things that are legal now. Ironwood would be a safe bet, as would amboyna.
 
I know a man who has three knives. Two of them are the old Wootz. One of them has what looked like a cheap white plastic handle on it, the wootz T backed blade has a gold inlay in it and it is a beautiful and historic knife. It was on a dealers table for years with a $65.00 price tag on it. He gave it to him as no one would buy it. It turns out that the handle is a Norwall spike. Neither had any idea what the handle material was.

One of the other knives has a Rhino horn handle. The knife is over 200 years old, made in Celon.

The third knife is old Wootz, handle material unknown.

Where does the owner stand legally? Can he sell them? Trade them off or keep them without being liable to prosecution? I honestly don't know, but as a maker I feel a strong obligation to those who purchase my knives and while I have used iron wood that came my way via garage sales and second hand stores. At the time I used it there was no concern, but today I worry about those knives with the iron wood, I love it dearly but as has been stated we never know what the mere possession of one of these knives can mean to owners years down the road. We are a minority and easy prey to future legislation about materials that are of little consequence today.

Simple traps that await the maker and the consumer.
 
Yes, and at what point does some bean-counter in Washington decide we shouldn't be allowed to own stag or ram's horn either? This is the most disturbing part of the whole thing to me.
 
As a lawyer, I'm often asked if I believe there are any "bad" laws. My answer has always been that any law that turns an honest man into a criminal is a "bad" law.

The joke is, this isn't even a law. Much like Homeland Security deciding that AO knives are switchblades, this is just pencil-pushers run amok.
 
Everyone is stating the gist of my concerns and reasons for starting this topic. I don't appreciate the ambush/sensationalist style of law enforcement these days. All we can really do now is get forearmed with the necessary knowledge to keep out of the jurisdiction of these leeches.
 
Several posts have made reference to bean-counters, beauracrats... as the enemy. Or, vote the politicians out. - While i cannot claim to know, i would guess the more strict enforcement of the Lacey Act must be result of long term abuses in the industry (furniture, or music) and trade of these exotic woods. - i doubt that "knifemaking" is or has ever been the biggest target of the regulations, but has fallen into the wider "net" cast, to enable the implementing of these laws. Meaning prosecuting those who have done the real damage, unchecked. People tend to want to squiggle out of a tight spot, or find loupeholes. For any unethical business it would profit them to exploit any avenue, defy the system.. It stands to reason the rules would need to be tight to catch the criminal element. But, as someone else has said it is unfortunate, if not unfair, the ethical people will suffer too. I dont see this as a fault of naive lawmakers, just a bad situation without clear directives. And those left to enforce, left to making their own judgements of what constitutes the contraband.
David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top