Gibson Factory Raided

We don't even know if this wood is illegal either. It's the DOJ saying it is, and that's according to some Indian law they say was violated. But if that law was violated, why did India allow it to begin with? That's what the CEO was basically saying.
True.

Something's fishy here. Either Gibson is trying to cover something up, or the DOJ is targeting them for a reason they won't admit to.
I agree that something is fishy. I'm going to guess that it's the DOJ. They've been known to make questionable decisions. (Fast and Furious.)

Plus, this is Gibson. They're a beloved American icon. In the court of popular opinion they will win, and that means some politicians will fall in the backlash. Unless it's proven beyond a doubt that Gibson illegally imported endagered wood (it would have to be endangered or something, because people will not care about this obscure act that nobody even heard about until this), this will end badly for some politicians. Who exactly I don't know, but the current administration does not need any more reasons for people to be angry with it.
Agreed. To go along with causing backlash are the professional musicians who use those guitars. I doubt that they're going to go down without a fight.
 
Andrea Johnson, director of forest programs for the Environmental Investigation Agency in Washington, says the Lacey Act requires end users of endangered wood to certify the legality of their supply chain all the way to the trees. EIA's independent investigations have concluded that Gibson knowingly imported tainted wood.
How is that possibly legal? Innocent until proven guilty. If a type of wood can be either legal or illegal depending on where it came from, then it is on the government to prove you got your self da wacky wood.

Has this been challenged yet on Constitutional grounds?? I cannot fathom (well actually I can with the way SC justices sell out the country and Constitution on a regular basis) this passing Constitutional muster.
 
The issue appears to be that Gibson refuses to use anything other than rosewood and ebony for their guitars, while other American guitar manufacturers have switched to cherry:

The great Gibson guitar war

Recently on Lukather’s website, the guitarist tweeted, "The illegal guitar wood issue is FINALLY getting some attention."

There are other issue as well of course, as to why some only play American made guitars, other than the craftsmanship, which can be very inconsistent in Korea. There’s the wood rarity issues that have been brought up with the Gibson raids, and the Martin and Ibanez guitar companies have also turned to using cherry wood with their guitars as well.

Then there is the way that Gibson attorneys and Fox News are trying to spin the story as intentionally taking jobs from American workers, and even as a conspiracy against a noted Republican while insinuating the companies that have apparently switched the wood they use to be legal are not being prosecuted because they are Democrats:

Is Fed Raid on Gibson Guitar Company Enforcing Policy . . . or a Push to Target 'Made in the USA'?

Now here’s the rub. While the feds say the wood – as imported – is illegal, had it been ‘finished’ by workers in India, it would have been perfectly legal to import. The wood itself was not banned, just the manufacturing process – or lack of it.

“I think they’re taking the position that we should be shifting these jobs overseas,” says Bruce Mitchell, the chief legal counsel for Gibson. “We have – probably 40 people in our factory here just at USA who are doing the inlays into the fingerboard … that are putting the fret on. If all that was to be done over in India, then …. those jobs would be lost.
The chief legal counsel "thinks" the current administration is in favor of shipping jobs overseas? Doesn't he have them mixed up with the businessmen themselves who are typically Republicans which have been shipping American jobs overseas for over a decade now to reduce costs?

I would expect if the wood was illegal that it simply wouldn't matter what form it was in. This sounds like sheer speculation to me.

Outside observers see a more sinister possibility in all of this. Henry Juszkiewicz, Gibson’s CEO, is a Republican, who has contributed to Republican candidates (as well as some Democratic candidates). Other guitar companies, which have not been targeted, are led by Democrats. Is there a political motivation to all of this? Neither Mitchell, nor Juszkiewicz will offer an opinion, but consider what Juszkiewicz told Neil Cavuto on "Your World."

“You know we've been pretty low key. We're a guitar company. We've been manufacturing guitars. We've been involved in the environmental movement. We’ve been trying to do the right thing in terms of sourcing. We really don’t know why they are picking on us.”

If Gibson is really trying to do the "right" thing as far as sourcing is concerned, why can't they simply prove the wood doesn't come from endangered trees, which is apparently now the requirement for them to do so? Why have they already been caught once violating the law and they still can't provide the necessary documentation? Perhaps the answer is quite simple. That rosewood and ebony have been illegally farmed for decades now, and the US government is finally reacting under a Democrat administration, as usual.

Illegal logging in Madagascar

Illegal logging in Madagascar has been a problem for decades and is perpetuated by extreme poverty and government corruption. Often taking the form of selective logging, the trade has been driven by high international demand for expensive, fine-grained lumber such as rosewood and ebony. 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.

The unsustainable exploitation of these tropical hardwoods, particularly rosewood from the SAVA Region, has escalated significantly since the start of the 2009 Malagasy political crisis. Thousands of poorly paid Malagasy loggers have flooded into the national parks—especially in the northeast—building roads, setting up logging camps, and cutting down even the most difficult to reach rosewood trees. Illegal activities are openly flaunted, armed militia have descended upon local villages, and a rosewood mafia easily bribe government officials, buying export permits with ease. These illegal operations are funded in part by advance payments for future shipments (financed by Chinese expatriates and Chinese importers) and by loans from large, international banks. Demand is fueled mostly by a growing Chinese middle class and their desire for exotic imperial-style furniture. European and American demand for high-end musical instruments and furniture have also played a role. However, public scrutiny has put significant pressure on shipping companies involved in the trade, and the United States is starting to enforce the Lacey Act by investigating companies with suspected involvement in the illegal trade of Malagasy precious woods.

Logging in Madagascar's tropical rainforests has had many secondary effects, beyond the risk of depletion of rare, endemic trees. Habitat has been disturbed, illegal mining has begun, local people have turned in desperation to the forests for resources, and poaching of endangered wildlife has escalated. Lemurs, the most well-known faunal group from the island, have been captured for the exotic pet trade as well as killed for food. Even the most critically endangered species have been targeted, primarily to feed a growing demand for delicacy food in up-scale restaurants. The local villagers have also suffered as tourism has declined sharply or ceased almost entirely. Some have resorted to working as loggers for minimal pay, while others have spoken out against it, often receiving death threats from the rosewood mafia in return.
 
Really, I doubt these kind of laws are going to help. The ivory trade was curtailed only after much more draconian import/export restrictions which did include finished products.
So long as there is a legal market for finished products made with those woods, there will be logging.
If the government of Madagascar won't do anything about it, I don't see how the rest of the world can, short of banning use of those hardwoods altogether. And I'm not convinced that it would be reasonable to do that.
 
Saw this on the news today. Apparently it's a problem with indian rosewood (not madagascar ebony) and it's illegal to import the wood as unfinished wood, but legal to import it as finished necks, which is really just the addition of frets and some adornments.

So it's legal to import the wood if someone in another country did the work of building the neck, but illegal if someone here did the work. Umm, WTH.

I also know there's a big question over why Gibson is being targeted and not the other major guitar manufacturers that use the same woods.

Citation? The OP didn't mention that.


I find the mention that the law is "retroactive" (Ex post facto) to be the most onerous part of this. I thought the US Constitution outlawed such, but to my surprise found that for criminal/penal provisions ex post facto law enforcement is legal. That will probably outlaw a lot of antiques.
 
How is that possibly legal? Innocent until proven guilty. If a type of wood can be either legal or illegal depending on where it came from, then it is on the government to prove you got your self da wacky wood.
Not really. The same thing applies in many industries, and with many laws. In the diamond industry, for example, it's illegal to sell diamonds that don't have what's known as a Kimberley Certificate, which means that it has not been acquired illegally. This Kimberley Process was absolutely necessary and right, given the massively immoral trade in "blood diamonds". It pretty much wiped out the market for diamonds mined at gunpoint, though of course that stuff still happens. The burden of proof is on the diamond miner, then the jewellery manufacturer, then the jewellery store to ensure that a Kimberley certificate has been produced for all your diamonds. It's a truly great process and absolutely necessary to prevent the kinds of horrific abuses that used to go on in the diamond industry.

That being said, I think the law in question has gone too far. There's a balance to be struck between ensuring that companies aren't figuratively or literally raping foreign countries' people and resources, and allowing companies to make genuine investments in poor countries. I think that this law is on the wrong side of that balance.

For the particular case, though, it looks like Gibson is on the wrong side of the law AND on the wrong side of where I want the law to be (i.e. on the wrong side of morality). If they were illegal to log they were illegal to log and a company shouldn't be buying things that have been acquired illegally in another country... The law is the law.
 
Endangered trees? Another problem I can only assume is easily solvable by the free market: if the trees were privately owned, owners would have an incentive to plant, regrow, and ration the current supply of trees.
 
Man this is weak, Gibson guitars sound so good they should be exempt :P.
 
If Gibson is guilty, the government should throw the book at them.

Endangered trees? Another problem I can only assume is easily solvable by the free market: if the trees were privately owned, owners would have an incentive to plant, regrow, and ration the current supply of trees.

On the contrary, the free market caused the problem in the first place. When trees take decades to mature, and require very specific conditions to grow at all, you can't simply plant them all over the place, wait a couple of years, and then sell the wood for a tidy profit. It's much more profitable to chop 'em all down now and use the land for farming instead, which is exactly what has been happening.
 
Oh my gosh. Gibson has been violating the law for several years now, and the mean old government wants to punish them for it.

Fascism!

I know right!

(I actually like the sound of Fender guitars more, blame Hendrix for that one I think)
 
Oh my gosh. Gibson has been violating the law for several years now, and the mean old government wants to punish them for it.

Fascism!

IF they're guilty of breaking the law they should be punished. But why would anyone trust what the government says given its long history of scandalous behavior and all the times they've been caught lying to us?
 
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for my Les Paul
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
 
The only reasonable alternative to Ebony is Rosewood.

I don't know what Forma is smoking, but ebony and rosewood are still used by many.
 
Back
Top Bottom