On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 05:11:46 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:43:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:00:14 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"X ~ Man" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will? Have you seen how the rain forests are decimated and will never
return to what they were? What about poisons in your drinking water, are
you okay with that?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Harry, (assuming your *are* Harry)

The USA signed the International CITES agreement in 1973 that is designed
to
protect overharvested and therefore
endangered species ... most wood. Since then only the protected wood that
was harvested before 1969 or thereabouts
can be used. It's not just guitars. It's furniture, picture frames...
etc.

In 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service unilaterally decided to expand
the interpretation and enforcement to cover
virtually anything that was once alive. This is includes abalone inlays
in
guitars, more wood species (as they
deem fit) and, of course, anything else that was once alive. It's a
little
bit carried away because much that they are
"protecting" isn't any where near being endangered.

The amount of material used in guitars is minor compared to furniture and
other products. Problem with guitars
is that if you happen to travel out of the country with your beautiful and
favorite Martin D-35 that happens to have
some abalone in it's rosette or headstock inlay and then try to return ...
it may be confiscated and destroyed.

Protecting endangered species is one thing, but those with the badges are
getting a little carried away.

Eisboch

Perhaps, perhaps not. They had a history of violations, apparently. It
will likely be sorted out in court don't you think?

As to degree, imagine what happens to someone who smuggles in an
exotic bird. It's just one bird, but how many had to be caught for
that to happen.

-------------------------------------------------------

My bet is that Gibson will produce all the necessary CITES certifications
to
prove that the materials they were using were perfectly legal.
Same thing that happened in the last raid, as I understand it. It's legal
to use Ivory for example as long as it was purchased from a
particular, approved source.

My problem with all this is that there are millions of private citizen
guitar owners who could have their expensive instruments confiscated
because
they are not aware that they must prove that the materials used were
legally
obtained and used. I have a custom built 12 string guitar made of
legally obtained Brazilian Rosewood ... but I don't have the certs to prove
it. Very few people do.

Some common sense is required.


Millions? That seems like an exaggeration. Are there really that many
Gibson guitars out there or even other makes that are really
expensive? How many travel outside the country? I doubt it's millions
or anything close.

I don't believe the 2009 court action has concluded. If they can prove
the material is legal, they should be able to recover damages.

----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, millions. The materials that the Fish and Wildlife Service is looking
for at Gibson is commonly used
in all but the cheapest of guitars by virtually all manufacturers. Abalone
is common, as is Indian Rosewood, ebony,
and many other "exotic" but common wood species that are legally obtained.
There are Taylor guitars, Martin guitars,
higher end Gretch guitars, Guild guitars, Fender guitars and several others,
all made in the USA and all using the same kinds of
materials that Gibson is using. There's no date period either, so any
guitar built whenever is potentially subject to
the expanded material enforcement.

It's only an issue if you leave the country with the guitar and then try to
re-enter with it, but indeed, there are millions.

As of a couple of a couple of years ago the market for guitars in the USA
was approximately $8B/year. I haven't
researched the current market .... I am sure it is down somewhat as is
everything else, but it's still huge.

As for the 2009 court action .... what court action? The government has
never charged Gibson with anything.
The only court action has been initiated by Gibson, attempting to get half a
million dollars worth of material
returned.

Eisboch


The civil court action to recover the money... that's what I'm talking
about. That's how it usually goes. Fines could be imposed if the court
thinks the gov't acted inappropriately.

As you said, millions are not brought into the country, so having one
in your living room is probably not an issue. Do you really believe
that customs officials are going to confiscate guitars, even if you
try to bring one back? How many people actually travel with guitars?
That's a bit much even for conspiracy theorists.