masterrig 1 #26 August 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAren't the enviros all over the world? Why aren't they 'policing' things in Madagasgar or wherever? Why are they just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer? Are you actually being serious? You get the drift... You are being serious? Because honestly, if you actually think the only thing happening worldwide in the fight against illegal logging is that Gibson has had some fretboards confiscated by a federal agency acting on the whim of some vindictive anti-guitar environmentalist groups then I don't think it's even worth attempting a conversation. No! I do not think that Gibson is the only thing on their agenda. I just feel that having Gibson on their agenda is ridiculous. I think too, they are picking on Gibson to get $$$$. They have to fund their activities some way. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #27 August 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAren't the enviros all over the world? Why aren't they 'policing' things in Madagasgar or wherever? Why are they just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer? Are you actually being serious? You get the drift... You are being serious? Because honestly, if you actually think the only thing happening worldwide in the fight against illegal logging is that Gibson has had some fretboards confiscated by a federal agency acting on the whim of some vindictive anti-guitar environmentalist groups then I don't think it's even worth attempting a conversation. No! I do not think that Gibson is the only thing on their agenda. I just feel that having Gibson on their agenda is ridiculous. I think too, they are picking on Gibson to get $$$$. They have to fund their activities some way. OK... so you don't think that environmentalist groups aren't trying to police things in Madagascar and you don't think they are just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer. You're not making it easy for anyone to understand your point of view.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #28 August 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAren't the enviros all over the world? Why aren't they 'policing' things in Madagasgar or wherever? Why are they just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer? Are you actually being serious? You get the drift... You are being serious? Because honestly, if you actually think the only thing happening worldwide in the fight against illegal logging is that Gibson has had some fretboards confiscated by a federal agency acting on the whim of some vindictive anti-guitar environmentalist groups then I don't think it's even worth attempting a conversation. No! I do not think that Gibson is the only thing on their agenda. I just feel that having Gibson on their agenda is ridiculous. I think too, they are picking on Gibson to get $$$$. They have to fund their activities some way. OK... so you don't think that environmentalist groups aren't trying to police things in Madagascar and you don't think they are just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer. You're not making it easy for anyone to understand your point of view. I believe, I have stated my view and asked questions to which I recieved no response. It's your twisting what I say that makes my point of view difficult to understand. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #29 August 27, 2011 Quote .... (Note: I'm a guitar player and a huge Gibson fan) I support unbiased, even-handed and fair enforcement of the law. If Gibson is being treated like anyone else, so be it. If Gibson's being unduly singled-out, I'd like to know why. Agreement here. 1966 J-45 Cherry Sunburst Late 40's L-48 1939 Recording King Archtop All gone now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #30 August 27, 2011 Quote Quote Quote I'm curious... this is not the first time the environmentalists have 'hit' Gibson. Do those folks really believe, a company as big as Gibson would illegally import various woods for their guitars and mandolins? Are the enviros looking for a huge, out-of-court settlement? Why arent these goody-goods chasing-down the people selling the wood? A lot of this just doesn't make sense. Chuck I agree This is more like a politician sicking the IRS on a political enemy Or like the fed going after Microsoft I was clearing some old, fallen, dead, timber from my property, awhile back, when a neighbor stopped me as I was hauling the dead timber to the community 'brush pile'. He sternly told me how I had destroyed a habitat for some insect. I told him, those insects had just been evicted and how I didn't want that dead timber smoldering for days in the event of a fire! Where I live, there's plenty of dead, fallen timber. This is the impression I get of 'environmentalists! Chuck "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #31 August 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAren't the enviros all over the world? Why aren't they 'policing' things in Madagasgar or wherever? Why are they just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer? Are you actually being serious? You get the drift... You are being serious? Because honestly, if you actually think the only thing happening worldwide in the fight against illegal logging is that Gibson has had some fretboards confiscated by a federal agency acting on the whim of some vindictive anti-guitar environmentalist groups then I don't think it's even worth attempting a conversation. No! I do not think that Gibson is the only thing on their agenda. I just feel that having Gibson on their agenda is ridiculous. I think too, they are picking on Gibson to get $$$$. They have to fund their activities some way. OK... so you don't think that environmentalist groups aren't trying to police things in Madagascar and you don't think they are just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer. You're not making it easy for anyone to understand your point of view. I believe, I have stated my view and asked questions to which I recieved no response. It's your twisting what I say that makes my point of view difficult to understand. What questions? The only ones I can see are impossible to answer as they're based on false assumptions (as you've admitted). My question to you would be how the 'enviros' will be getting funding from Gibson when it's the Feds prosecuting them? And as for twisting what you say? I just used your exact words! If they weren't what you meant then you should express yourself more clearly, or stop throwing around accusations you don't think are accurate.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #32 August 27, 2011 QuoteThis is the impression I get of 'environmentalists! Well, that's unfortunate, and probably overkill. It's no more accurate to paint environmentalists with a negative broad brush than it is to do that with, say, Texans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 140 #33 August 27, 2011 If it is OK to buy hardwoods illegally harvested from rain-forests which supply 20-30% of the world's oxygen, then I guess it is also Ok for us to kill whales for blubber, elephants and Rhinos just for their tusks and sell the ivory. There is a line to be drawn somewhere. Life would be great if everyone followed the rules, but some do not. We have law enforcement to deal with that. If the law is stupid, then lobby your congress to change it. I am Ok with the occasional such act to keep these guys thinking about where their supplies are coming from. Do people still buy clothes without at least thinking about the child-labored sweat-shop in SE Asia that might have made them? You bet they do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #34 August 27, 2011 QuoteIf it is OK to buy hardwoods illegally harvested from rain-forests which supply 20-30% of the world's oxygen, then I guess it is also Ok for us to kill whales for blubber, elephants and Rhinos just for their tusks and sell the ivory. There is a line to be drawn somewhere. Life would be great if everyone followed the rules, but some do not. We have law enforcement to deal with that. If the law is stupid, then lobby your congress to change it. I am Ok with the occasional such act to keep these guys thinking about where their supplies are coming from. Do people still buy clothes without at least thinking about the child-labored sweat-shop in SE Asia that might have made them? You bet they do. The lines have been drawn with respect to these hardwoods. Illegal deforestation is just that ...illegal. My problem is that the burden of proof that illegal rosewood is being used in products should lie with the feds ...not with the manufacturers who are following the rules. If Gibson knowingly solicited and imported illegal wood then bad on them! But the feds need to prove the wood is illegal. Gibson shouldn't have to prove that it is not. The problem for Gibson (and probably others) seems to be that it is intermittently legal to export rosewood from Madagascar. Looks like it is ultimately imported into the US from China. Gibson must rely on the scruples of 2 or 3 (or more) foreign governments for it's supply of presumably legal hardwood. I think Gibson, et al. are held to a "reasonable" responsibility under the Lacey Act to ensure that they are not using illegal imports. With respect to rosewood from Madagascar, it is impossible to know which tree was harvested legally and which was not. IMO, it is the responsibility of that gov't to oversee their industry and their exports ...not the end user. Question 1: Knowing that the government of Malagasy is corrupt and that China has a less-than-steller record of moral ethics in it's exports, should Gibson drop that source for wood? Does that knowledge meet the "reasonable" condition? Is it reasonable to expect Gibson, a company, to "police" or second-guess the ethics of foreign governments? Or is it our government's responsibility, through foreign policy and trade agreements, to predetermine what is a legal import and what is not? Question 2: Does the Lacey Act prevent the import of species which are endangered or protected (as defined by US government agencies) regardless of the legality (or illegality) as determined by the exporting country? Question 3: Are my guitars (or any other rosewood items or artworks that I may have) that predate the 1992 ban on Brazilian rosewood now considered contraband because I can't prove that any rosewood components were, in fact, incorporated into the items before 1992? Same with ivory. I have some examples that predate that ban. Also, other types of artwork that were banned after they were made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #35 August 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteThis is the impression I get of 'environmentalists! Well, that's unfortunate, and probably overkill. It's no more accurate to paint environmentalists with a negative broad brush than it is to do that with, say, Texans. That was just one example. I could relate many more . I know, they aren't all alike and to generalise isn't good and I'm not trying to. I'm all in favor of saving our environment and feel that we should. It's the zealots that seem to stand out. I think that we need to save, protect or whatever, our environment but with some common sense. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 August 27, 2011 QuoteThere is a line to be drawn somewhere I agree. And that line should be that the government proves that the possession of the wood is illegal, and not that items are summarily confiscated unless it can be proven the wood it NOT illegal. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #37 August 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAren't the enviros all over the world? Why aren't they 'policing' things in Madagasgar or wherever? Why are they just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer? Are you actually being serious? You get the drift... You are being serious? Because honestly, if you actually think the only thing happening worldwide in the fight against illegal logging is that Gibson has had some fretboards confiscated by a federal agency acting on the whim of some vindictive anti-guitar environmentalist groups then I don't think it's even worth attempting a conversation. No! I do not think that Gibson is the only thing on their agenda. I just feel that having Gibson on their agenda is ridiculous. I think too, they are picking on Gibson to get $$$$. They have to fund their activities some way. OK... so you don't think that environmentalist groups aren't trying to police things in Madagascar and you don't think they are just centered on a big U.S. musical instrument manufacturer. You're not making it easy for anyone to understand your point of view. I believe, I have stated my view and asked questions to which I recieved no response. It's your twisting what I say that makes my point of view difficult to understand. What questions? The only ones I can see are impossible to answer as they're based on false assumptions (as you've admitted). My question to you would be how the 'enviros' will be getting funding from Gibson when it's the Feds prosecuting them? And as for twisting what you say? I just used your exact words! If they weren't what you meant then you should express yourself more clearly, or stop throwing around accusations you don't think are accurate. Allow me to re-process all this through my pea-sized brain and I'll get back with you. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,351 #38 August 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteThere is a line to be drawn somewhere I agree. And that line should be that the government proves that the possession of the wood is illegal, and not that items are summarily confiscated unless it can be proven the wood it NOT illegal. Wow. It's really rare that I disagree with you this much, but you're way wrong here. The laws about these kinds of products are really specific. Because there is no way to prove what is illegal and what is legal from the items themselves, there is a very strict and specific requirement for provenance (the paperwork that proves it is legal). Possession of the controlled items (especially by a manufacturer like Gibson) without the correct paperwork is a crime. Like ivory mentioned above (also including endagered furs like tiger or snow leapord) even consumer possession without the proper provenance can get sticky. Crossing international borders without it is dangerous. You may or may not agree with the necessity for the laws protecting the environment. You may or may not agree that corrupt governments make the laws inneffective. But the laws requiring proper documentation are pretty clear. The article in the OP calls it a "paperwork problem" and implies that it was a minor detail. No. The lack of proper paperwork is the crime. And it's not a minor one either."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #39 August 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere is a line to be drawn somewhere I agree. And that line should be that the government proves that the possession of the wood is illegal, and not that items are summarily confiscated unless it can be proven the wood it NOT illegal. Wow. It's really rare that I disagree with you this much, but you're way wrong here. The laws about these kinds of products are really specific. Because there is no way to prove what is illegal and what is legal from the items themselves, there is a very strict and specific requirement for provenance (the paperwork that proves it is legal). Possession of the controlled items (especially by a manufacturer like Gibson) without the correct paperwork is a crime. Like ivory mentioned above (also including endagered furs like tiger or snow leapord) even consumer possession without the proper provenance can get sticky. Crossing international borders without it is dangerous. You may or may not agree with the necessity for the laws protecting the environment. You may or may not agree that corrupt governments make the laws inneffective. But the laws requiring proper documentation are pretty clear. The article in the OP calls it a "paperwork problem" and implies that it was a minor detail. No. The lack of proper paperwork is the crime. And it's not a minor one either. "Proper documentation" will not ensure that rosewood harvested in Madagascar was done so legally. "Historically, logging and exporting in Madagascar have been regulated by the Malagasy government, although the logging of rare hardwoods was explicitly banned from protected areas in 2000. Since then, government orders and memos have intermittently alternated between permitting and banning exports of precious woods. The most commonly cited reason for permitting exports is to salvage valuable wood from cyclone damage, although this reasoning has come under heavy scrutiny. This oscillating availability of Malagasy rosewood and other precious woods has created a market of rising and falling prices, allowing traders or "timber barons" to stockpile illegally sourced logs during periodic bans and then flood the market when the trade windows open and prices are high." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_logging_in_Madagascar It should not be Gibson's responsibility to figure out which is which when no one can. Maybe Gibson can be guilty of not having proper documentation but I don't see how they can be guilty of using illegal lumber unless they have been proven guilty. Not here, anyway. However, Gibson can (and probably will) stop using these woods in the interest of environmental conscientiousness ...and survival of the company as a manufacturer. It really does their company no long term good to depend on an increasingly hard-to-get resource for whatever reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 140 #40 August 27, 2011 QuoteHowever, Gibson can (and probably will) stop using these woods in the interest of environmental conscientiousness ...and survival of the company as a manufacturer. It really does their company no long term good to depend on an increasingly hard-to-get resource for whatever reason. +1, finding a substitute for the wood would be a better choice for Gibson, remove the speculation and maybe even get to use it as a marketing tool, promoting their green product - everyone else does.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #41 August 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteHowever, Gibson can (and probably will) stop using these woods in the interest of environmental conscientiousness ...and survival of the company as a manufacturer. It really does their company no long term good to depend on an increasingly hard-to-get resource for whatever reason. +1, finding a substitute for the wood would be a better choice for Gibson, remove the speculation and maybe even get to use it as a marketing tool, promoting their green product - everyone else does.... Yep, one of the articles I read says that guitar buyers as a group tend to be generally more environmentally tuned in than the overall population and are beginning to shun rosewood guitars. I don't know if that was a fabricated "observation" or if it was based on actual data. Since this thread started I've seen several guitar-related sites where players are beginning to look for instruments made from less exotic species. Some are going as far as refusing mahoganies, too (OTOH, I wonder if the tons of legal pre-ban rosewood furniture that is already out there in homes and offices is being looked at by instrument makers as a "new" source ...even if it is for small parts like fingerboards, bridges, etc and maybe for the occasional back or sides. If imports are totally banned the prices/values of these pieces could spike.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #42 August 27, 2011 QuoteI wonder if the tons of legal pre-ban rosewood furniture that is already out there in homes and offices is being looked at by instrument makers as a "new" source ...even if it is for small parts like fingerboards, bridges, etc and maybe for the occasional back or sides. I've read/heard exactly that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #43 August 27, 2011 Quote Quote I wonder if the tons of legal pre-ban rosewood furniture that is already out there in homes and offices is being looked at by instrument makers as a "new" source ...even if it is for small parts like fingerboards, bridges, etc and maybe for the occasional back or sides. I've read/heard exactly that. Hmmmm ....might be time to begin hitting the local Goodwill and Salvation Army stores and yard sales and scarf up and hoard all the rosewood I can find. Mahogany and teak, too. I'll just make sure I get receipts ...proper documentation and all in case I get raided. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
