|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 2, 2016 9:00:12 GMT -6
"Gibson was neither accused nor charged with illegally importing ebony lumber. (In fact, the company was never formally charged with anything at all.) The dispute was over the technical definition of “fingerboards” which are legal to import. After extorting a $250,000 settlement from the company, which likely didn’t cover a fraction of the cost of the SWAT team raid and fishing expedition investigation – which turned up nothing – the confiscated fingerboards were returned to Gibson. This case was about protectionism, not conservation. And while you may believe it is “bad” to important anything from Madagascar, the company broke neither its laws or ours. The question is, who fomented this raid? Was it really lumber union activists, as Henry believes, or could it have been a competitor in the guitar business? We will never know as the records are sealed. We can only hope a whistleblower steps forward to shed more light on the story."
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 2, 2016 9:07:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 2, 2016 9:15:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 2, 2016 9:46:38 GMT -6
Charles is right. First, Why should US timber workers have to compete with organized criminal logging in foreign national parks? It's clear that Martin and Taylor pulled out of Madagascar in order to not violate the 2008 amendment, but Gibson didn't. Read the deferred prosecution settlement. www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Gibson-Comments-on-Department-of-Justice-Settlemen.aspxWhile this seems like a case of government overreach in the raid itself, i.e. the excessive style of enforcement and confiscation, and the law has since been qualified to allow travel of vintage instruments, only Gibson chose to source wood in this way without diligence to ensure compliance with the law, and lacked competence in customs declarations. Turns out they did in fact import wood obtained illegally, hence the deferred prosecution. Whereas Taylor and Martin did not. The rest about political payback and so on are just assertions without direct evidence and Juszkiewicz's attempt to gin up conspiracy sentiments to sway public opinion. It appears what happened is the EIA group passed on the results of their investigations to the Justice Department, who chose to act on them. Export documents linked Roger Thunam's (R.T. in the settlement) operation to Gibson, who turned out to be the guitar maker sourcing the wood, and Martin and Taylor were not. They were in compliance with the law, simple as that. Also this is pretty damning! www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Gibson-Comments-on-Department-of-Justice-Settlemen.aspx"Q.4. The statement of facts includes Gibson's official acknowledgement that you could have and should have exercised greater due diligence in regard to the importation of the questionable wood from Madagascar. Doesn't this amount to an admission that the company violated the law, notwithstanding all your previous protests? A.4. Gibson is strenuously dedicated to continuous environmental improvement. We want to be leaders in our business, and our business includes protecting the environment. We can always do better." - Laws and agreements on the sourcing of materials and trade of animal products are a complex environmental and humanitarian issue, with no easy solutions, and unscrupulous China as a constant bad actor. Here is another example www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 2, 2016 10:47:30 GMT -6
Honduran mahogany isn't listed either, but try getting your hands on that! Honduran Mahogany is a beautiful tonewood and one of the lightest forms of mahogany around but sadly, extremely difficult to acquire. Instrument makers believe in sustainability of forests because they (and we, by extension) want those woods around forever!!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,978
|
Post by ericn on Jun 2, 2016 11:42:57 GMT -6
You need a degree in horneculture to figure it out!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 2, 2016 12:28:50 GMT -6
When I visited Gibson around eight years ago I was told most of their guitars go to Japanese collectors.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jun 2, 2016 13:51:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 2, 2016 15:28:55 GMT -6
Charles is right. First, Why should US timber workers have to compete with organized criminal logging in foreign national parks? It's clear that Martin and Taylor pulled out of Madagascar in order to not violate the 2008 amendment, but Gibson didn't. Read the deferred prosecution settlement. www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Gibson-Comments-on-Department-of-Justice-Settlemen.aspxWhile this seems like a case of government overreach in the raid itself, i.e. the excessive style of enforcement and confiscation, and the law has since been qualified to allow travel of vintage instruments, only Gibson chose to source wood in this way without diligence to ensure compliance with the law, and lacked competence in customs declarations. Turns out they did in fact import wood obtained illegally, hence the deferred prosecution. Whereas Taylor and Martin did not. The rest about political payback and so on are just assertions without direct evidence and Juszkiewicz's attempt to gin up conspiracy sentiments to sway public opinion. It appears what happened is the EIA group passed on the results of their investigations to the Justice Department, who chose to act on them. Export documents linked Roger Thunam's (R.T. in the settlement) operation to Gibson, who turned out to be the guitar maker sourcing the wood, and Martin and Taylor were not. They were in compliance with the law, simple as that. Also this is pretty damning! www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Gibson-Comments-on-Department-of-Justice-Settlemen.aspx"Q.4. The statement of facts includes Gibson's official acknowledgement that you could have and should have exercised greater due diligence in regard to the importation of the questionable wood from Madagascar. Doesn't this amount to an admission that the company violated the law, notwithstanding all your previous protests? A.4. Gibson is strenuously dedicated to continuous environmental improvement. We want to be leaders in our business, and our business includes protecting the environment. We can always do better." - Laws and agreements on the sourcing of materials and trade of animal products are a complex environmental and humanitarian issue, with no easy solutions, and unscrupulous China as a constant bad actor. Here is another example www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnestyWhen did they pull out? I'm sitting here looking at a Madagascar Rosewood D-28...2014
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 2, 2016 18:36:49 GMT -6
I think Martin purchased large quantities of wood before the sourcing of it became suspect and prohibited by the Lacey Act, but I may be wrong. That doesn't mean Martin doesn't own any questionably harvested stocks of wood, but they probably obtained it before 2008. In any case, the illegal wood harvested from national parks after the amendment was traced to Gibson, who did not properly inquire as to its provenance. All 3 companies now appear to be in compliance, but Taylor and Martin acted more prudently. See these threads for discussions www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=351477www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-313697.html
|
|