I'm curious. Do you disagree with protecting endangered species in general? Or do you have a better plan in mind?
I've been thinking about this question, since you asked it.
Demand drives illegal markets just as it drives legal markets. In the face of high demand, there are profits to be made, and as long as those profits are high for the illegal stuff, you will see the law violated.
The assumption behind the CITES (as well as other prohibition) bans is that you can reduce demand by passing a law. The problem with this assumption is that it is based on the notion that demand is a rational process, where people weigh the consequences of what they do carefully, and come to a well-reasoned decision about what they want.
The fact is that demand for goods that are not basic needs is not rational, it's emotional.
Our country's experience with alcohol and drug laws, and the experience of other countries around the world, makes me question the sanity of the assumption that passing a law will prevent a bad thing from happening, because not only has it demonstrably not worked, it
creates illegal industries that have very high profit margins.
Take the basic need for transportation as an example. Why is it also necessary for many folks to also have a car that is cool-looking, luxurious, etc.? The answer is that the product's success depends not only on the rational need for transportation -
it depends on the product's irrational appeal to the emotions.
Is the urge to acquire a lot of beautiful guitars rational or emotional? Does the average player really need a gorgeous BRW guitar to express him/herself? Is the desire to own "the best" a product of reason or emotion? I'm not talking about Segovias here, I'm talking average guy who plays at home or in a bar, where the type of the guitar matters more for the emotional effect of how the player feels than for the rational purpose of making music, let alone the rational purpose of making music for listeners to enjoy.
If we believe that something is "better," we want it, and we want it regardless of whether it makes rational sense. We desire things on the belief that something is better, and we act on that belief. This is how human beings are. If we believed something wasn't "better," there would be no demand for it.
Once we realize that demand for a very high percentage of the world's goods is not the product of reason, but is the product of emotion, we can begin to understand why laws designed to work on the theory of prohibition, like CITES, will be relatively ineffective.
I think the better plan would be to establish a serious program that would preserve endangered species at the source, not at the end product: discourage Brazil from burning its rain forests, coupled with an effective program to cultivate new BRW trees. Right now there are no effective sanctions to stop the burning of the rain forests. Nor does there seem to be a good plan to plant and grow BRW.
It's all left to nearly nonexistent enforcement of the cutting ban in the regions where the trees actually grow, and to the stricter enforcement of the government agencies in the importing countries that actually respect CITES. This is backwards, because by then the tree is already dead and will not reproduce, and it accomplishes nothing. And the government agencies really can't do all that much to stem the tide.
Our drug importation laws are much more seriously enforced, with stiffer penalties, and it's clear how ineffective that has been.
Instrument makers use a tiny percentage of the wood that's grown. I'm not a fan of Bob Taylor cornering the market on ebony, but I do think his plan and ideas to preserve the species are a good idea. There should be more of this, and less of the thinking behind CITES, which tries to reduce demand in consuming countries.
All that making sale of BRW instruments illegal accomplishes is to make it more desirable, and therefore more profitable to defy the ban, fake the necessary paperwork, etc.
If you want a species to continue to exist, the answer is to grow more of the stuff, and harvest it responsibly.
One other point I'd like to make, and this may just be me: I've had BRW fingerboards, and other kinds of rosewood, including Honduran, Indian, etc., and I've played BRW, IRW, and Cocobolo acoustic guitars. All sounded great, to my ears, and I would encourage folks to think for themselves about whether the BRW thing is all that important.