View Full Version : Gibson's CEO on the Lacey act

11-13-2011, 04:54 AM
Interesting read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104576655273915372748.html?m od=opinion_newsreel

11-13-2011, 08:40 AM
To me, the only thing interesting about this article is its in-your-face right wing bias. Blaming the Gibson situation on "environmental activists making their bones" and not "donat(ing) enough to the Democratic party" with no substantiation whatsoever is a journalistic travesty. IMO. Making a partisan wedge issue out of the inconsistent and poorly targeted enforcement of the Lacey Act is NOT part of the solution.

11-13-2011, 01:26 PM
" Last month Rep. Jim Cooper (D., Tenn.) and two co-sponsors introduced legislation to modify the Lacey Act with the so-called Relief Act—which could indemnify many guitar makers and performers who now fear being arrested because their instruments were made with imported wood or exotic materials." Sounds like they have the support from the left side as well. The most disturbing part of this to me was the over powering gun-drawn enforcement method used at the Gibson factory. When less force is used to remove people who are illegally occupying and destroying public property there is a public uproar. That is what makes me wonder if something is fishy.

Rick Turner
11-13-2011, 02:25 PM
By the insider accounts I've heard, this latest bust is basically about a clerical error and an interpretation that "fretboards" need to have slots in them whereas perhaps "fingerboards" do not. Then there is the issue of whether the pieces are being considered raw lumber or component parts, and that could even get down to the exact dimensions to which the fingerboards were cut. Too thick, and one interpretation is that they are lumber. Of course, if they are too thick, then that's because the Indian sawyers don't care too much about saving wood. I've seen raw fingerboard blanks at close to 1/2" thick...which then get final surfaced to about 1/4". The waste is horrific...and it's not Gibson's fault.

The very idea that our government is charged (under the Lacey Act) with interpreting and enforcing laws of foreign countries is simply absurd. Does this mean that we need to uphold Sharia law if raw materials come from Islamic countries?

Perhaps if some of the foreign aid we supplied was with the idea of renewing renewable resources we might do a lot better in this world. I'd happily pay 10% more for imported wood if that went into good forestry management and replanting of trees.

And, a question for you Aussies... How are things with Gunn's and Tasmania these days? I hope that's getting better.