For bow makers, it is also a real issue.  For quality bows there is no substitute for pernambuco.  It simply has flexibility and resiliance that no other wood or substitute has.  My own bow is a lesser bow, and I can do what needs to be done with it, but it takes much more effort.

The old wood is simply gone, and the wood from trees grown in plantations simply is not as good as what grew in the wild.  Greed has indeed made the situation miserable, and the future looks fairly bleak.  Pernambuco is a rare South American wood (IIRC), and of necessity is very tightly controlled now.  At least the carbon fiber bows are improving (but also remains expensive, often close to $1,000 and up per bow).

ampfixer
I think somebody is trying real hard to smack down Gibson, but I don't know why.
 
 
 
 
 
Hmmmm?......There is another guitar company that makes a big deal about the wood it uses and ............ ,Gibson sued  'em.
 

"Regulations and complying with them and now proving that you're complying with them is killing American business. 

This will not stop the cutting of trees in Madascar or anywhere else. If they can't sell the woods here in the US due to the regulations, there are many other countries willing to buy them so it accomplishes nothing."



Herb I agree that the regulations may not effect the change desired... but consider that


"I think it would be better to allow the woods to be harvested and encourage a replanting program for sustainability. Yeah, I know some trees grow slow, but start planting today and our great great grand kids will still be able to buy a guitar made from wood.""


The countries where the wood is stolen from may not agree with you. For example; they may simply not want any wood stolen from their National Park.


What we are really speaking about is that there is a voracious demand for wood... and a lot of the woods, that are rare enough to have appeal as seeming exclusive, are quite simply stolen property.


The fact that other markets may buy stolen wood and support the stealing of wood does not make for a good reason for the USA to say that we should ignore the enforcement of legal wood trading. We certainly shouldn't start ignoring the fact that the wood is stolen just so as to allow the USA compete with countries that do look the other way.


For example; John explains that he makes amplifiers but finds the paperwork too bothersome when it comes to exporting his product from Canada. He says it would cut into profits too deeply. That all makes sense to me.

But the hardships he faces in that regard do not make it OK for us to act like once the stolen wood leaves it's country of origin that it's fair game to the market.

It seems to me that if you buy the wood from someone that does all the paperwork then you just copy the paperwork and move forward. I'm sure there's some frustrating extra I have not acknowledged... I am not trying to make light of the extra hassle. I acknowledge that the extra steps must seem like a deal killer.

But consider that:

People don't legally ship cars across borders without complete and proper paperwork.

People don't legally ship container loads of stolen TV sets without forged paperwork.

etc. etc.

That's what this is about... it is an international attempt to curtail an industry that happens to enjoy access to a large quantity of stolen product.

The international treaty is an effort to make it difficult to circulate stolen property.

Compliance in the treaty is voluntary. We volunteered to help with the effort to not trade in stolen property.





BTW, I read that article a second time... I am repulsed by the balance of the total lack of news it contains versus the number of salacious one liner zingers. It's non-news... and more like "a day in a life stuff" for any company trading internationally and dealing with customs.




all the best,
mike

 

 

jbow

Have you ever had whale meat with gravy, it is really good.

Pfft.

I once ate an entire aquatic eco-system, and I had two visits to the salad bar.

mike_mccue

It seems to me that if you buy the wood from someone that does all the paperwork then you just copy the paperwork and move forward. I'm sure there's some frustrating extra I have not acknowledged... I am not trying to make light of the extra hassle. I acknowledge that the extra steps must seem like a deal killer.  

But consider that:

People don't legally ship cars across borders without complete and proper paperwork.

People don't legally ship container loads of stolen TV sets without forged paperwork.

etc. etc.

That's what this is about... it is an international attempt to curtail an industry that happens to enjoy access to a large quantity of stolen product.

The international treaty is an effort to make it difficult to circulate stolen property.

Compliance in the treaty is voluntary. We volunteered to help with the effort to not trade in stolen property.





BTW, I read that article a second time... I am repulsed by the balance of the total lack of news it contains versus the number of salacious one liner zingers. It's non-news... and more like "a day in a life stuff" for any company trading internationally and dealing with customs.




all the best,
mike

Mike there is a disconnect here:

I agree wholeheartedly with the need to comply with and enforce CITES. But that doesn't mean the law designed to do this isn't terribly written. Just identifying and agreeing there is a problem does not automatically justify any proposed solution.

The problem with the amended Lacey Act (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/background--redlinedLaceyamndmnt--forests--may08.pdf) in question here is that it:

1. Is vague, which allows prosecutors to use it capriciously if they so wish. Also, it can be used to enforce not just CITES and other treaties the US has agreed to, but any foreign law involving wood production

2. Allows for government seizure of questionable wood with very little burden on their part. The civil and criminal penalties have a much higher burden, but they can just seize things containing a potentially prohibited wood with the burden essentially being on you and not on them to prove it is legal. And potentially this applies not only to imported or exported wood, but locally purchased or transported finished products as well. 

So if you buy/transport (even within the US) a guitar made with perfectly legal pre-CITES B. Rosewood, the government can potentially seize it and store it here if they don't feel you have 100% proper (in their eyes) documentation:




I'm not sure if Gibson has even been accused of using prohibited woods, or whether they are accused of not following "proper procedures" somehow for the wood they import. Even if they attempted to comply with the proper procedures, the government can still just seize things if it feels they filled out the paperwork wrong or something like that.

drewfx1

mike_mccue

It seems to me that if you buy the wood from someone that does all the paperwork then you just copy the paperwork and move forward. I'm sure there's some frustrating extra I have not acknowledged... I am not trying to make light of the extra hassle. I acknowledge that the extra steps must seem like a deal killer.  

But consider that:

People don't legally ship cars across borders without complete and proper paperwork.

People don't legally ship container loads of stolen TV sets without forged paperwork.

etc. etc.

That's what this is about... it is an international attempt to curtail an industry that happens to enjoy access to a large quantity of stolen product.

The international treaty is an effort to make it difficult to circulate stolen property.

Compliance in the treaty is voluntary. We volunteered to help with the effort to not trade in stolen property.





BTW, I read that article a second time... I am repulsed by the balance of the total lack of news it contains versus the number of salacious one liner zingers. It's non-news... and more like "a day in a life stuff" for any company trading internationally and dealing with customs.




all the best,
mike

Mike there is a disconnect here:

I agree wholeheartedly with the need to comply with and enforce CITES. But that doesn't mean the law designed to do this isn't terribly written. Just identifying and agreeing there is a problem does not automatically justify any proposed solution.

The problem with the amended Lacey Act (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/background--redlinedLaceyamndmnt--forests--may08.pdf) in question here is that it:

1. Is vague, which allows prosecutors to use it capriciously if they so wish. Also, it can be used to enforce not just CITES and other treaties the US has agreed to, but any foreign law involving wood production

2. Allows for government seizure of questionable wood with very little burden on their part. The civil and criminal penalties have a much higher burden, but they can just seize things containing a potentially prohibited wood with the burden essentially being on you and not on them to prove it is legal. And potentially this applies not only to imported or exported wood, but locally purchased or transported finished products as well. 

So if you buy/transport (even within the US) a guitar made with perfectly legal pre-CITES B. Rosewood, the government can potentially seize it and store it here if they don't feel you have 100% proper (in their eyes) documentation:




I'm not sure if Gibson has even been accused of using prohibited woods, or whether they are accused of not following "proper procedures" somehow for the wood they import. Even if they attempted to comply with the proper procedures, the government can still just seize things if it feels they filled out the paperwork wrong or something like that.

Edit to add: I now see the part about the lacey act... I still hope you can see that I haven't lent any approval of any particular domestic law

no longer valid:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Did you get a chance to read the article?

I don't think it ever mentions any particluar domestic law.... and I hope you can also see that I haven't lent any approval of any particular domestic law that hasn't been mentioned.
::::::::::::::::::::::::

I even agreed with Guitarhacker that I doubt enforecment so far removed from the source is effective.

I do, however, support the long term goal of the international laws.

The article does mention Gibson and Madagascar Ebony specifically.

As I mentioned, the two events reported on sound like a routine day in a customs house.

I imagine the parties that have the most to lose can argue against any bad laws and help formulate good laws. I referred to that mechanism as "society".

Do any other countries have a better system? Would we use a better system if we knew that some other country had one?





If the law kicks down my door some day and asks me for my guitars *documentation*.... I'm calling both of my Senators and a handful of Representatives.







If I started thinking about all the stinky self service laws that have been passed in the past decade I'd get sick to my stomach.




best regards,
mike

BTW, after taking a moment to reflect on your previous post... I pretty much agree with you... I just didn't like how that article made so many exasperated claims while providing so little info.


all the best,
mike
 

drewfx1

mike_mccue

Do any other countries have a better system? Would we use a better system if we knew that some other country had one?  

No, because, sadly, in the US people are always 100% sure our system is better than anyone else's - even though they have no clue how anyone else does things.

That's where you're wrong.....of course I believe you know that.
Of course there are plenty that still think the sun moves around the earth....but we voted for them.

Let business sectors police themselves and if someone gets out of line then step up...

I really want to agree with and support this statement but … unfortunately I can’t.

I spent several years working as a research scientist in a field that that was heavily regulated by the FDA.  I literally would sit in meetings where the objective was to interpret the letter of the FDA monograph (i.e., the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law) to better understand how to move a project forward.

In other words, the regulations were viewed by many to be obstacles that needed to be creatively circumvented …

Well, well.

Bitflipper, it only took a moment of research to see that Andrew Lawton, the author of the article is over looking facts that undermine his thesis.

http://www.opensecrets.or...xywm&submit=Submit


Here you an see that in addition to making small contributions to Mike Hukabee (R), that Mr. Juszkiewicz also makes similar small contributions to Jim Cooper (D).


The contributions to the Consumer Electronics Association seems to be a perfunctory $5,000 per year. As noted the CEA gives money to both parties... as almost every lobby for business and industry in the USA does.

It's hard to consider the article or it's biased author as credible.



Apparently, C.F. Martin is a actual real life democrat... or at least wants his union shop to think he is... as he has made numerous small contributions... as small as $250 to an array of democratic party politicians.



best regards,
mike

It appears George Orwell was simply off by a few years in his book...sigh.