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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


BTW ... here's the number of *new* guitars sold in the USA (by all
manufacturers)
per year from 2001 to 2010:

2010 2,991,260
2009 3,302,670
2008 3,201,220
2007 2,341,551
2006 1,942,625
2005 1,742,498
2004 1,648,595
2003 1,337,347
2002 1,153,915
2001 1,090,329

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:06:26 -0400, iBoatMore wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:36:13 -0400, iBoatMore wrote:



You have some proof, Kevin, that Gibson is causing the 'decimation of the rain forests'?

I'm not Kevin, asswipe. You're acting as stupid as Don, I hope that
makes you feel good!

PROOF?

I know you can call names.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:06:26 -0400, iBoatMore wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:36:13 -0400, iBoatMore wrote:



You have some proof, Kevin, that Gibson is causing the 'decimation of the rain forests'?

I'm not Kevin, asswipe. You're acting as stupid as Don, I hope that
makes you feel good!

PROOF?

YES!

In article ,
says...

On 8/27/11 5:45 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:36 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:14:10 -0400, X `
wrote:



On 8/27/11 2:55 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 27/08/2011 12:32 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 8/27/11 2:29 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 27/08/2011 10:14 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 8/27/11 12:05 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:16:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Sounds like the Obama admin is taking it's business que from the
Middle
East. This is kind of like the "flash mobs" robbing retailers in the
city... Yep, I am sure plenty of them will be "lost" as you said...

I've seen the vids on the 'flash mobs' amazing how they can storm in
and pick a convenience store clean and nothing, or little can be done
about it....

===

Inner city stores have been dealing with issues like this for a long
time. Many end up installing electric locks on the front door so
everyone has to be buzzed in one at a time.

In the corporate world, of course, the crooked bankers, brokers and
corporate execs don't need to be buzzed in to steal your money...you
entrust it to them.

Idiots like you who mindlessly vote are the problem here. When was the
last time you voted with integrity and honor over color and party?

Canuckles thinks McCain and Palin represented integrity and
honor...snerk...

There in is your problem. You don't understand integrity and honor as
you have none yourself.

Canuckles thinks McCain and Palin represented something beyond senility
and self-promotion.

He would be right. They represent everything that is wrong with morons
in public service.

We now know that the reason they were raided is because Gibson
contributes to Repubs. Martin Guitars uses the exact same wood but
contributes to Dems and did not get raided.
http://landmarkreport.com/andrew/201...ublican-donor/
What did you expect from the Obamunists.


"We now know..." What a crock of crap.

Do all you righties depend upon crackpot sites for your info?

Look, it's part of the Cowardly Duo! How's that special Georgia crop,
loogy?

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.

On Aug 26, 8:48*am, JustWait wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

This is only one part of the article that gets me, Scott.


"Consider the recent experience of Pascal Vieillard, whose Atlanta-
area company, A-440 Pianos, imported several antique Bösendorfers. Mr.
Vieillard asked officials at the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species how to fill out the correct paperwork—which simply
encouraged them to alert U.S. Customs to give his shipment added
scrutiny.

There was never any question that the instruments were old enough to
have grandfathered ivory keys. But Mr. Vieillard didn't have his
paperwork straight when two-dozen federal agents came calling.

Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

On Aug 29, 8:16*pm, Tim wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:48*am, JustWait wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

This is only one part of the article that gets me, Scott.

"Consider the recent experience of Pascal Vieillard, whose Atlanta-
area company, A-440 Pianos, imported several antique Bösendorfers. Mr.
Vieillard asked officials at the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species how to fill out the correct paperwork—which simply
encouraged them to alert U.S. Customs to give his shipment added
scrutiny.

There was never any question that the instruments were old enough to
have grandfathered ivory keys. But Mr. Vieillard didn't have his
paperwork straight when two-dozen federal agents came calling.

Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

Oh yeah. this too!

"If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be
made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border
with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better
have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the
instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—
not to mention face fines and prosecution.

John Thomas, a law professor at Quinnipiac University and a blues and
ragtime guitarist, says "there's a lot of anxiety, and it's well
justified." Once upon a time, he would have taken one of his vintage
guitars on his travels. Now, "I don't go out of the country with a
wooden guitar."

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:21:52 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Aug 29, 8:16*pm, Tim wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:48*am, JustWait wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

This is only one part of the article that gets me, Scott.

"Consider the recent experience of Pascal Vieillard, whose Atlanta-
area company, A-440 Pianos, imported several antique Bösendorfers. Mr.
Vieillard asked officials at the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species how to fill out the correct paperwork—which simply
encouraged them to alert U.S. Customs to give his shipment added
scrutiny.

There was never any question that the instruments were old enough to
have grandfathered ivory keys. But Mr. Vieillard didn't have his
paperwork straight when two-dozen federal agents came calling.

Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

Oh yeah. this too!

"If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be
made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border
with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better
have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the
instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—
not to mention face fines and prosecution.

John Thomas, a law professor at Quinnipiac University and a blues and
ragtime guitarist, says "there's a lot of anxiety, and it's well
justified." Once upon a time, he would have taken one of his vintage
guitars on his travels. Now, "I don't go out of the country with a
wooden guitar."

============================

What nonsense. Does anyone remember voting for a government like
this? How did it happen? How do we fix it?

On 8/29/2011 9:16 PM, Tim wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:48 am, wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

This is only one part of the article that gets me, Scott.


"Consider the recent experience of Pascal Vieillard, whose Atlanta-
area company, A-440 Pianos, imported several antique Bösendorfers. Mr.
Vieillard asked officials at the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species how to fill out the correct paperwork—which simply
encouraged them to alert U.S. Customs to give his shipment added
scrutiny.

There was never any question that the instruments were old enough to
have grandfathered ivory keys. But Mr. Vieillard didn't have his
paperwork straight when two-dozen federal agents came calling.

Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

And they won't give back his piano...