Gibson plant raided

John Drury · Post by **John Drury** » 18 Nov 2009 5:48 am

Thinkin about a Gibson Dobro or lap? Might better dive in while they are still around.

If you'll excuse me I need to go out back and hump a tree.

Tom Pettingill · Post by **Tom Pettingill** » 18 Nov 2009 6:26 am

I read where the allegation seems to be that Gibson was part of a deal that was funneling illegal woods out of Madagascar, through Germany, then to the US.
Since the overthrow of their government earlyer this year, Madagascar has been turning a blind eye to timber cutting in the protected forests.

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 18 Nov 2009 6:39 am

People "must" have guitars with ebony fretboards, etc. Thus there will always be a market of some kind.

But, when I saw the headline, I assumed it must have been for illegal workers, not for "illegal woods".

Post by **Brad Bechtel** » 18 Nov 2009 8:03 am

Moved to Music from Steel Without Pedals.

John Drury · Post by **John Drury** » 18 Nov 2009 8:53 am

Jack Stoner wrote:People "must" have guitars with ebony fretboards, etc. Thus there will always be a market of some kind.

But, when I saw the headline, I assumed it must have been for illegal workers, not for "illegal woods".

Jack,

You mean that illegal ebony on my new Phil Leadbetter may have been put on by illegal aliens?

Oh! The humanity!

I better chunk that thing into a limb shredder before the feds get here! LMAO!

The classic, " Hello, I'm from the government and I am here to help you"

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Nov 2009 10:05 am

Please don't get me going. Feelgood environmentalism - while locals for many years have been turning rain forest wood into charcoal, we're worrying about a few logs of exported rosewood for guitars. My opinion, of course.

Les Anderson · Post by **Les Anderson** » 18 Nov 2009 10:47 am

I wonder if I am in trouble up here in Canada because I have a solid, rosewood table (4' X 6' with an extension leaf) that has been in our family for somewhere around 100 years. The table's solid top is a little bit better than 3/4" thick.

I also have a six foot length of rosewood plank (2" X 6") that I bought in the mid sixties. It's stored in my attic where it is safe from bugs and moisture and I know darn well what it is worth. So what would happen if I chose to sell this plank to Gibson, Fender or whomever else? Am I doing something illegal?

The point is here, many of these endangered tree species have been replanted and are once again growing in sustainable numbers. Some of this banning another country's products has as much to do with politics as it does with tree huggers crying wolf.

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 18 Nov 2009 11:16 am

I had to have rosewood on my steel, so my Franklin has genuine "nevamar" imitation rosewood covering.

John Drury · Post by **John Drury** » 18 Nov 2009 12:31 pm

Les Anderson wrote:I wonder if I am in trouble up here in Canada because I have a solid, rosewood table (4' X 6' with an extension leaf) that has been in our family for somewhere around 100 years. The table's solid top is a little bit better than 3/4" thick.

I also have a six foot length of rosewood plank (2" X 6") that I bought in the mid sixties. It's stored in my attic where it is safe from bugs and moisture and I know darn well what it is worth. So what would happen if I chose to sell this plank to Gibson, Fender or whomever else? Am I doing something illegal?

The point is here, many of these endangered tree species have been replanted and are once again growing in sustainable numbers. Some of this banning another country's products has as much to do with politics as it does with tree huggers crying wolf.

A Rosewood 2"x6" six? No tellin what that baby is worth!

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 18 Nov 2009 12:38 pm

quoth the raven, 'nevamar'!

Roger Miller · Post by **Roger Miller** » 18 Nov 2009 2:14 pm

Maybe Gibson will just jack up the prices of their already overpriced guitars just to pay the fine. Lets face it Best Buy and Guitar Center in gonna be the only places to buy a pricey Gibson. I own a worn Lester, I believe in Gibson, but anymore I'd rather have a PRS instead. Do I have a "AMEN"

John Drury · Post by **John Drury** » 18 Nov 2009 7:01 pm

I think I'll stick with the maple neck NAFTAcaster.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 19 Nov 2009 7:06 am

Chris Ivey, you a funny man.

Les Anderson · Post by **Les Anderson** » 19 Nov 2009 12:27 pm

John Drury wrote:
A Rosewood 2"x6" six? No tellin what that baby is worth!

John, the last offer I had for that piece of Brazilian rosewood was from a cabinet maker in Vancouver was $800.00.

By the way, there are still lots of specialty wood suppliers in Canada that sell Brazilian rosewood; however, most of it is end cut, wood from rosewood tree stumps and roots. The higher end specialty wood stores still have grade "A" rosewood in stock.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 19 Nov 2009 6:00 pm

A friend of mine in the UK recently imported a 1911 Martin 0-28 with Brazilian rosewood back and sides AND an ivory bridge!!! He was on tenterhooks for days until it was finally passed through UK Customs with no questions asked.

There's a story - apocryphal, perhaps - that a seriously valuable guitar was destroyed by the Customs guys as it was being shipped in contravention of these ridiculous laws. (I'm with Dave M. on this issue.)

The problem now, apparently, is attempting to ship the stuff across borders, although what difference it can make once it's already a plank of wood is beyond me!

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 20 Nov 2009 10:55 am

I don't pretend to have knowledge of the realities on the ground regarding the alleged potential extinction of these tree species due to over-cutting, but I wonder if you guys who scoff at these laws do have that information to an extent that backs up your opinion.

We all love instruments made with these fine woods, so it would seem to be in the long-term interests of musicians to approve of consideration being given to taking measures to ensure that future instrument builders will have these materials available. If that means regulation that restricts the present availability, is that not a price worth paying?

Mind you, I'm not talking "tree-hugger" here about leaving forests pristine; rather I'm arguing enlightened self-interest.

Again, I don't have--would be interested to have--information about how threatened the existence of these hardwoods is, but I think it would be regrettable for people to dismiss laws concerned with this issue as "ridiculous" out of narrow, short-term self-interest in the absence of solid knowledge of the realities of the situation. I'm not alleging that anyone expressing such views here is thus uninformed--but I'm asking. I think it would require quite a bit of research to get a good handle on the issue.

Of course, wood that's "already a plank" is beyond saving. But the point of regulating the trade in such wood is surely to discourage the hasty cutting of the hardwoods that have not yet been cut--that is, to slow the rate at which standing trees become "already a plank". No point in cutting it if you can't sell it.

Just my $.02. Perhaps I'm naive.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 20 Nov 2009 11:11 am

I'm suitably chastened, Brint - I spoke too quickly and without enough thought. I meant that a law that results in the destruction of a fine instrument needs rethinking.

I think that instruments that are already in existence should be allowed free passage, and shipped wherever they may be bought and sold. Restricting that sort of commerce won't do anything to save the rainforest. Things are perhaps fine as they are - some luthiers have limited stocks of Rio rosewood (for example) and charge a justifiably high price for it. That's how it should be - knowing that there'll be no more will ensure that they'll carefully husband their meagre stocks.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 20 Nov 2009 11:18 am

I certainly agree that instruments already in existence have nothing to do with this issue.

Graham · Post by **Graham** » 20 Nov 2009 11:43 am

Good point, Roger.

My 1970 Fulawka S-10 had solid 3/4 inch Brazillian rosewood aprons and a rosewood neck. I sold it to a young fella here in Canada but I wonder what the outcome would have been if it had been sold and shipped to the states?

Would hate to think they would have destroyed such a fine instrument.

Alvin Blaine · Post by **Alvin Blaine** » 20 Nov 2009 12:05 pm

The thing Gibson is in trouble for is for importing RAW wood. This case is based on a new law that went into effect in May, and Gibson is the first case for Fish & Wildlife to test the new statute.

This law, and all current laws on "endangered" wood, DOES NOT apply to instruments or any finished product. It is NOT illegal to own, use, trade, sell, or buy an instrument made from "endangered" wood.

Les Anderson · Post by **Les Anderson** » 20 Nov 2009 12:08 pm

Brint Hannay wrote:
Of course, wood that's "already a plank" is beyond saving. But the point of regulating the trade in such wood is surely to discourage the hasty cutting of the hardwoods that have not yet been cut--that is, to slow the rate at which standing trees become "already a plank".

Brint, though your comment have some validity, a rosewood tree is not a human life!! You seem to take some disdain in this by using the word "plank" as though it were a demeaning word.

As I stated earlier, Brazil has had a reforestation program going on for some time now and have many thousands of acres of rosewood forests growing again. Yes there is no denying that rosewood took a beating for some time because of its fine furniture qualities and sound reproducing abilities. However, wood as a renewable product. The problem with many of the countries where these woods grew naturally, did not have reforestation programs. So don't blame the people who have used these wood products for whatever reason.

By the way Brint, do you have any oak cupboards or furniture in your house? Your area was once noted for its oak forests. Are those forests still there and have you stopped buying anything that has oak wood in it?

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 20 Nov 2009 1:06 pm

Les, I thought I was quite careful to avoid the appearance of being polemical.

My use of the word "plank" was quoting from Roger's post. Anyway, I don't see the word as demeaning.

The problem with many of the countries where these woods grew naturally, did not have reforestation programs. So don't blame the people who have used these wood products for whatever reason.

I don't. The problem, to the extent that there is one, would be with people who now exploit rare hardwoods without regard for reforestation, and thus by extension with those who do business with those people.

By the way Brint, do you have any oak cupboards or furniture in your house? Your area was once noted for its oak forests. Are those forests still there and have you stopped buying anything that has oak wood in it?

Are oak trees in danger of disappearing?

Webb Kline · Post by **Webb Kline** » 20 Nov 2009 3:15 pm

Deciduous (hardwood) forests typically reproduce themselves at a rate of between 2 and 4 to one without the help of man. Because of mismanagement, most timber stands are overstocked by at least 20%.

It was discovered about 10 years ago, by a Sierra clubber of all people, that the claims about the depletion of the South American rain forest grossly exaggerated. The guy spent quite a bit of time doing flyover surveys and then computed the Sierra Club's claims and computed that at the rate they had claimed the forest was being depleted, the last of the forest would have been gone by the early 1900's.

Some people build entire political careers out of scaring people and making them hate each other. My guess is Gibson's woes are political.

Les Anderson · Post by **Les Anderson** » 20 Nov 2009 3:58 pm

Brint Hannay wrote: Are oak trees in danger of disappearing?

Brint, the oak forests of the eastern seaboard of North America are minuscule if one compares their density to 100 or 150 years ago. Where there were once huge stands of oak, there is now poplar or evergreen trees. With that being said however, there are growths of oak that have been commercially planted all over the place.

The old growth red maple has been replaced by commercially grown maples and so on. Never the less, the maples are in abundance because in most of the US and Canada there are government enforced reforestation programs.

In Brazil, it was open season on mahogany, rosewood and the once wild, pearl maple with no thought of replanting. In the past 25 years, Brazil has put a lot of money into reforestation programs and the rose wood tree is far from being extinct. In fact, in about 25 to thirty years from now, the growths of rosewood trees that I saw will be ready for commercial harvest.

Now, let me ask you. I have a 2" X 6" X 6" rough cut Brazilian, rosewood plank that I bought in the mid sixties. Would it be illegal for me to take that plank across the border into the US?

Alvin Blaine · Post by **Alvin Blaine** » 20 Nov 2009 8:35 pm

Les Anderson wrote:
Brint Hannay wrote: Are oak trees in danger of disappearing?

Brint, the oak forests of the eastern seaboard of North America are minuscule if one compares their density to 100 or 150 years ago. Where there were once huge stands of oak, there is now poplar or evergreen trees. With that being said however, there are growths of oak that have been commercially planted all over the place.

The old growth red maple has been replaced by commercially grown maples and so on. Never the less, the maples are in abundance because in most of the US and Canada there are government enforced reforestation programs.

In Brazil, it was open season on mahogany, rosewood and the once wild, pearl maple with no thought of replanting. In the past 25 years, Brazil has put a lot of money into reforestation programs and the rose wood tree is far from being extinct. In fact, in about 25 to thirty years from now, the growths of rosewood trees that I saw will be ready for commercial harvest.

Now, let me ask you. I have a 2" X 6" X 6" rough cut Brazilian, rosewood plank that I bought in the mid sixties. Would it be illegal for me to take that plank across the border into the US?

I don't think anyone is going to give you a problem over a 6 inch by 6 inch piece of wood. Now if it was a big enough piece to make something out of they may ask for you to provide documentation of when and where you purchased it.