the use of exotic and/or endangered materials

I'll start by saying I'm new to this forum so I'm going to try to be careful and not ruffle any feathers, if possible. While I'm not at all sure this is a proper discussion for this venue I thought it might be interesting to get people's ideas on the subject. This posting was prompted by something I read on a thread concerning using Rhino horn for a saddle. It came as a recommendation to improve tonal quality and, to tell the truth, I almost fell out of my chair when I read it. To be honest, I found the recommendation to be completely repugnant. I realize, however, that many of the materials used in luthier work may be considered at the very least scarce and/or rare and many of them are only becoming more scarce every day. I also want to offer that I am not a luthier. I am a woodworker and new uke player and I love rare and interesting materials as much as the next guy. I have materials down in my shop that I have salvaged from older items, some of which I could not even use if I incorporated them into a piece for sale. Legally, anyway. I have some 50 year old wood that is now protected under CITES schedule 1 protections and is considered an endangered species. I love it but owning it, I feel, comes with an awesome responsibility. I try hard to make sure I'm not being hypocritical concerning this subject. The use of some materials creates a huge dilemma in my conscience. A personal thing we all must deal with to one extent or another, I suppose. However, I find the recommendation of using a material so rare, not to mention so illegal, as rhinoceros horn to be beyond irresponsible. I know I'm expressing a strong opinion here and that I run the risk of getting pilloried, ostracized, labeled as a shameless hypocrite, burned at the stake or run out of the group on a rail. So be it. I'd still like to get your thoughts on the subject. What say ye, group? Are there any materials that you would not use in your projects or believe should not be used? Please forgive me if this thread doesn't exactly fall within the usual scope of this forum. I'm sure some of you will let me know if I'm way off base. Thanks.

Can't say I disagree, and I not even sure why anyone would want to use Rhino bone in a uke. Whatever superior properties it has to other bones or more common materials are probably in the category of the supposed aphrodesiac properties of the same substance. The 50 year old wood you have has already been cut. Its water under the bridge. You may as well use it. Give it the respect and honor it deserves and make some instruments from it.

That said, its nice that Koa is a renewable resource now. The Europeans long ago wiped out huge forests of it, but its now grown and harvested in sustained yield plots in Hawaii. Likewise, the Australian Hoop Pine tops on most Fleas and Flukes is made from sustainable forests of the stuff.

Rino Horn ...Disgracefull I say..I wouldn't use it...But Armadillo hide..Thats got good sound qualities I believe.. cos theres 1000's of instruments made of that.

For what it is worth, I try to make sure everything I use is from a responsible source. Whether it is driftwood logs, urban tree removal, FSC certified wood, or trees that were supposedly dead when harvested. It makes me feel a little better. BUt I cant help but to wonder if I used more commonly known woods would it be easier to sell instruments? That is the delima... Luthiers want to sell instruments and customers want to buy koa, mahogany, endangered rosewood species etc. etc. etc.... Do you let the other guys use the "good stuff" while you sit there and starve because of your principles. That is what I have been doing so far. We will see how long it lasts.

Take care,
Thomas

Methinks also you may be a troll..

So SweatwaterBlue it was the Europeans who nearly wiped out the koa was it? just like it was the Europeans who wiped out first Nation people in North America and Europeans who are responsible for the problems of the world? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Is that the sort of xenaphobia that is taught where you live? I'm just glad I'm English. At least my ancestors who were labourers, farm workers, miners and blacksmith had nothing to do with it Not a stick of koa in our house until I cam e along and by that time, logging was being carried out by the good citizens of Hawaii.

Re-opening thread. Please, keep it civil.

That's funny; my troll sense isn't tingling from this at all. It seems like a legitimate discussion.

If the damage has already been done, it's not a big deal. Let's say you have some ivory or rhino horn laying around that was harvested before it was made illegal. No additional harm will be done in using it for building, so sure, why not use it? If I were a luthier and I had some old materials with a sordid past, I'd say that any potential buyers have the right to know the story behind it.

But I would never support a maker who is currently involved in the buying/selling of materials harvested from endangered or grossly unsustainable sources, because I wouldn't want to fund destructive business practices. I think it's pretty neat that some makers take pride in using mostly local materials that are harvested sustainably. It's like getting a piece of where the instrument was made! (I would feel silly ordering an instrument built in Hawai'i out of wood grown in Maine.)

Hope this thread doesn't become overly political or mean-spirited, because I don't see any bad intentions in the original post.

haole said:

Hope this thread doesn't become overly political or mean-spirited, because I don't see any bad intentions in the original post.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I think it is better not to use a questionable material even if you had it lying around since before cites or whatever. I have some honduran mahogany that is 50 years old and it is a dream to work with and makes great sounding ukuleles. The planks will last for at least 30 more ukes if I want.

Still, if I my ukes are seen they might inspire others to ask for honduran mahogany ukes. (The risk is not great since I am a hobby builder, my conscience is far bigger than my production.) So I am currently building from swedish alder and cherry. Maybe one or two ukers will see them and not want a mahogany uke.

Same with ivory, using it will increase the demand even if that exact piece you are using came from a legally autopsied elephant 50 years ago.

I am all for using renewable and sustainable materials (if they have a great sustain... ba-bom tisch!)

Sven

I have a friend in Finland who uses Finish alder.I've got some and it's great for necks. So body and neck wood is OK. Next problem to solve is fingerboard and bridge wood. I found laburnum which is great but it is an ornamental tree that is not felled commercially. Walnut is suggested but it just isn't as hard as those tropical exotics. And then do I but cheap but very good reproduction tuners from China? There comes a point when you have to face the compromise position and somehow take the thorny path...

Yup I use violin pegs... They're ebony. I have small pieces of laburnum, some have a greenish tint. Also liliac is said to be hard, have you any experience of that Pete?

(Alder bends nicely. But it doesn't look as good as the honduran mahogany.)

Cut a tree, plant two...

That's all it would take to deal with the wood issue...

The elephant ivory mostly goes to China now, and the rhino horn is for dagger handles and is also ground up as a folk Viagra recipe, and all that just stinks. The elephants get taken down with AK-47s...rhinos as well. The animals don't have a chance, and the poor Africans and Asians doing the poaching don't understand the permanent damage they're doing...and they see their other resources as having been plundered by whites for centuries. And that's not politics; it's simple history.

Koa is sustainable now so can use with a clear conscience though I'm sticking with cheaper woods at first. I do have a special Koa log about 4feet long about 18 to 24 inches in diamter from my dad's back yard. My first 'ukulele I'm planning on using the very dense and solid Kiawe (key-yah-veh) wood for fretboard material it being non native, very common so easy to get even for free, and can be very pretty. Kiawe was introduced from New Spain (Mexico) via cattle stomach from cattle that came over with the Mexican Vaqueros in the early 19th century and known there as Mesquite. Great for pulehu (BBQ) too.

Let me just say, that if I offended anyone, that wasn't my intent. Like many Americans I tend to carelessly? use the word European to include the English. Being of English and Scottish ancestry, that pretty much includes me too. My understanding of why most of the old Hawaiian Koa forests were felled, wasn't so much to make furniture. It was to clear pastures for grazing cattle. My only knowledge of this comes not from something I was taught in the schools, but from part of a book (the section on "What Happened to the Koa Forests") on Koa farming you can read here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=J0-uxZN9SVMC&printsec=frontcover&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Once again, if I offended anyone, it wasn't my intent.

From a consumer's standpoint, I don't think I could support a builder who knowingly used endangered or illegal materials. Ivory especially.

I like the idea of using materials that were "recycled" in a sense but I can see how that does give the idea of supporting the use of materials by means of illegal acquisition. An example: I bought a pair of ear muffs one winter that were made from fox hair. The catch? The designer made them from old fur coats. I didn't mind since I knew she didn't go out and slaughter an animal for them.

f the damage has already been done, it's not a big deal.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. When I was in Zimbabwe a couple of years ago, a ranger explained that when elephants die in the wild, the ivory tusks are collected and stored. When the warehouse is full, the ivory is burned. That's because the use and sale of even ivory collected in a sustainable way or before restrictions creates a market that poachers will try to satisfy. Keeping all materials from threatened or endangered species off the market helps discourage those who would harvest fresh material and pass it off as legitimate.

And at the risk of setting Pete off on a cantankerous rant, there is no doubt that the ruling imperialists of European empires from the 16th through 20th centuries wreaked all sorts of havoc throughout the world. That is historical fact, and contrary to Pete's apparent interpretation of the OP, it does not imply any sort of guilt by association for anyone alive today.

Can someone explain what makes Koa a sustainable wood? I'm not challenging anyone, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to know.

mzuch said:

I respectfully disagree.

Click to expand...

And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

Brazilian rosewood is highly prized for back/sides on classical guitars. Now that it's protected under CITES, prices for guitars made with BR have skyrocketed. But there is still pre-CITES BR out there, so why shouldn't it be used? Should luthiers burn their BR stashes on a bonfire because it's no longer okay to harvest it? I say NO. Should we destroy instruments already made with BR so we don't perpetuate/encourage the market for BR? Hell, NO!

I recall some other forum where someone detailed the hassles they had to go thru with the Fish & Game Dept. (I think that's who handles it) over importing a guitar that had abalone shell in the rosette. Many moons ago when I moved to California and stayed with my aunt/uncle, my cousins were avid divers and we ate a lot of abalone that they harvested. Now that it's regulated, they don't do that, and I wouldn't buy it because even the sustainable variety (if there is such a thing) would be way out of my budget. That, and I became mostly vegetarian and developed an allergic to shellfish.

alec534 said:

Can someone explain what makes Koa a sustainable wood? I'm not challenging anyone, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to know.

Click to expand...

From reading the section of the book I posted, I believe it is because they only harvest what the forest can grow back over a period of time. They also are actively protecting it from pests and livestock. Its sort of like the pine we grow in Southern Georgia to make paper. We cut em, and plant them back. If you plant 1000 acres, and it takes 10 years to grow a harvestable tree, you only cut 100 acres at a time. I suppose any wood could be managed that way, but I don't know which other ones are. Some woods are also very slow growing, so it would take a society with a very long term outlook to sustain it.