Rutabagared Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Not trying to start a political debate . . . just an item of interest. The link below is to an article alleging Gibson Guitars may be illegally smuggling wood from India to make fretboards. Joe http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110826/NEWS01/308260088/Gibson-Guitar-chief-denies-wrongdoing-after-raids?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lighthearted Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 That would suck if it were true. Thanks for the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckkisser Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 i dont know if this sounds bad or not but i want to know what they end up doing with the seized lumber. can i have it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan S Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 The bit about our government interpreting other countries laws really irks me, let the other country handle their laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWW Posted August 26, 2011 Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 I can speak somewhat intimately on this issue as they are a client of ours. More than likely the seized materials will be destroyed. This has been done in the past with other Lacey violations. I can't say anymore because anything relating to the Lacey Act just pisses me off. It's unconstitutional. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric. Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 The only thing I can say with certainty is...I love my Gibson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckkisser Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 seems like a waste to destroy something like this. at least auction it off and put the money towards preserving the worlds forests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapid Roger Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 seems like a waste to destroy something like this. at least auction it off and put the money towards preserving the worlds forests. I think that it is because it is still illegal to own. No matter who owns, buys or sells the wood it is illegal to have according to the country of origin. For the same reason they don't auction illegal drugs when they are confiscated to support rehab projects. Think about it. Rog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckkisser Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 i know but just the thought of rose wood and ebony being tossed in a furnice makes me feel bad. actuly have a pain at the thought. perhaps they could auction off and put the money to restoring the country or origins forests like if the wood came from south america the money could go to brazil's forestry survice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric. Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 I think that it is because it is still illegal to own. No matter who owns, buys or sells the wood it is illegal to have according to the country of origin. For the same reason they don't auction illegal drugs when they are confiscated to support rehab projects. Think about it. Rog I'm not sure that analogy works. Drugs are dangerous and can damage people's lives. Harvested lumber is just an object that can potentially enrich people's lives...illegal or not, it poses no threat. I like the idea of auctioning it off. No point in wasting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapid Roger Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 OK, I grant you that drugs are dangerous and wood is not. So if the authorities confiscate your ebony and auction it off to me or even if you win the bid at auction (thereby paying for it twice) it would be all right with you? Illegal is illegal and there is no way it should be resold or used by anyone else. It is a tough proposition at best. Rog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckkisser Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 ok so i reread the artical and it say that its not illigal to own the wood. what is illigal is that india does not want wood to leave its country in log/partial finished form. they will only export wood after indian workers have finished making fret boards. problem with that is you have no control over what the material is that you end up with. gibson might end up with a sub standard wood. and they would be forced to pay a large amount to get the fretboards. plus now instead of having a job that intailes the manufacture of a product and increasing the skill of the american citizen at a craft we are just a assembler which takes no skill or imagination. reminds me about how england would not let us use the timber from our own country but instead we had to ship it to england to make into boards which were then shiped back but instead of geting the good lumber we would get the stuff that no one wanted in england at a far greater price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric. Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 OK, I grant you that drugs are dangerous and wood is not. So if the authorities confiscate your ebony and auction it off to me or even if you win the bid at auction (thereby paying for it twice) it would be all right with you? Illegal is illegal and there is no way it should be resold or used by anyone else. It is a tough proposition at best. Rog It's a tough question to answer, because if I try not to by cynical, I have to assume most laws in most countries are in place to promote responsible harvest...that's not always the case I'm sure. But either way, it's a sin to just destroy that lumber and not put it to use somewhere. The trees have already been cut down...no point in wasting it now. I'd rather see it sent back to India than burned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWW Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 duckkisser, you hit on one of the points that steams me the most inthis particular case. One of Gibson's call to arms about their value is the craftsmanship and "made in the USA" value. The way the Lacey Act is structure, Gibson could move their entire operation offshore and none of this would be illegal. Moreover, they could ignore sustainable harvesting practices and take whatever wood they wanted, however they wanted. Once the guitars come to the US it is no longer flora which the Lacey Act protects, but rather a consumer product that just happens to be made from wood. In other words, there is no reason for Gibson to maintain it's factory here in the US. This act will eventually cost more American jobs and produce a substandard product in the long run. On a more global scale, once manufacturers take that leap, they will no longer be bound to the Lacey forestry concerns and protection of the forests is in jeopardy. Realistically, most countries have their own environmental protection for their natural resources, but decidedly less (with the possible exception of Brazil) regulation so these manufacturers would be held in check (if not by their own conscience). What is scary is all the checks and balances and paperwork trail (actual paper, ironic isn't it) that is force upon us all by CITES and Lacey is no longer in effect offshore so these company's suppliers can give them anything with no regard to the environment and the manufacturer has no way to verify or track the source anymore. Adding lumber to the Lacey act a few years ago only compounded the flaws inherent in this legislation and will eventually lead to disaster. Unfortunately it is not about protecting the natural resources anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMarcel Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 I read an article about this, but maybe not the one in this thread. If the problem is that Gibson imported unfinished fretboards, who is applying the definition? It is a part of a bigger product. The law seems to be complaining that the boards are unfinished, but in fact they are finished as far as that part is concerned in that stage of the assembly. The part needed is rough dimensioned stock because it needs to be fitted to a guitar. It seems that at least in some cases that's what was imported. It would make no sense to have India cut the rough fretboard to some dimensions, cut fret slots, and finish sand it before mailing it over. The premise of the law is a good one: to not promote illegal harvesting elsewhere; its application is faulty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckkisser Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 ok so we have all griped a little what is a solution. its easy to point finger and throw a fit but much harder to sit down talk and figure out a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric. Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 ok so we have all griped a little what is a solution. its easy to point finger and throw a fit but much harder to sit down talk and figure out a solution. Make fretboards out of walnut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie56005 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 The solution to this is to call your local congressman (woman) and voice your support for Gibson and let them know that what they have done has not hurt America, India, or anyone else, instead it has HELPED America. They have added over 500 jobs since this storm of bad weather has been parked over the US. If the charges stick, America will punish 500 families just like that! We do not need this and we do not want this! Here is a link that is very insightful as to what is going on. Also there was an interview last night with Alex on his show. It is probably on youtube if anyone else wants to listen to that.http://www.infowars.com/gibson-guitar-corp-responds-to-armed-federal-raid/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim DaddyO Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 For another perspective.....Banning the import of any "harvested" material makes it worthless as a crop. So, if you are living in an area where these trees grow, and have a whole forest of them, the ban would be a good incentive to clear cut what has now become weeds so you can plant potatoes for McD's french fries, or some other crop that you can make money on. Slash and burn time? The farmer still has to make money and eat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben@FineWoodworking Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 I'm so in the middle on this one. I think the Lacey Act has it's heart in the right place. Like Paul-Marcel said... it's just mis directed. I KNOW that Gibson is a crazy company and I wouldn't put anything past them though. They are HORRIBLE to work for and have a history of doing insane and irresponsible things. I love their guitars. Boy do I love their guitars. I fall in the middle of every part of this thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.