Looks like Fender has wood legality issues as Gibson does.

[flyingbanana]

Well...I'd say we've got some eco pd right here...pretending to be guitarists.

[Boubou]

I remember reading something about a company having their own tree farm for the wood they need for their products.
Hint hint!

Sent from my iPad using TDPRI

[otterhound]

Originally Posted by flyingbanana

Well...I'd say we've got some eco pd right here...pretending to be guitarists.

Could be .

[otterhound]

Originally Posted by Mike Eskimo

Henry is running the company.

Case closed.

As one that was sued by the local Borough once for not getting a permit for work that did not require a permit , I won't take the guilty because he is Henry tact .
My guess is that the prosecution will be looking for some folks like you if they ever bring a case against Gibson . It will make their jobs much easier .

[boris bubbanov]

What Gibson has (allegedly) done is one matter, involving USA interpretation of USA law.

What is going on with anyone else involves interpretation of, what, German laws, other countries laws? Could be anything. This FMIC matter sounds like what we worry about taking an existing guitar from, say, Belgium to Norway on tour, I mean an existing guitar.

These can be roughly grouped together, I suppose, but what is your motivation in doing so? That's what occurs to me.

[tele12]

Originally Posted by boris bubbanov

What Gibson has (allegedly) done is one matter, involving USA interpretation of USA law.

What is going on with anyone else involves interpretation of, what, German laws, other countries laws? Could be anything. This FMIC matter sounds like what we worry about taking an existing guitar from, say, Belgium to Norway on tour, I mean an existing guitar.

These can be roughly grouped together, I suppose, but what is your motivation in doing so? That's what occurs to me.

I am not grouping them together, FMIC is. Here is the statement on this matter from Fender's IPO filing:

"We may be subject to the enforcement of regulations and laws relating to the importation and use of certain raw materials, which could adversely affect our ability to use certain raw materials and harm our business.
We are subject to a variety of customs and import regulations that, if not properly followed could delay or impact our importation of raw materials, which could adversely affect our business. For example, in June 2011, German officials began a criminal investigation pertaining to less than 500 Fender guitars containing Brazilian rosewood fingerboards to determine if they were improperly imported into Germany between approximately March 2010 and January 2011. We are investigating whether the necks of the subject products may be replaced with materials that are not subject to the import restriction at issue.
One of our competitors, Gibson Guitar Corp., is in litigation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, or Fish & Wildlife, for alleged violations of the Lacey Act, which regulates trade in wood and other plant products. Most recently in August 2011, Fish & Wildlife raided Gibson’s headquarters and seized rosewood from India, alleging that it was exported under an incorrect tariff code and that Gibson was not identified in importation paperwork. Although we believe our sourcing and importation practices are in compliance with the Lacey Act and other applicable regulations, Fish & Wildlife or other applicable regulators could take a different view, which could restrict or prevent our use of specific types of woods from specific countries/regions of the world, and/or subject us to fines and other penalties.
In the case of certain raw materials that we use in our products, including certain types of woods, we may be subject to pressure from environmental groups to use alternative types of materials. These alternative materials could reduce the quality of our products or could be more expensive, either of which could harm our business and results of operations. In addition, negative publicity regarding environmental matters also could harm our brands.
We may also be subject to the enforcement of other new or existing regulations and laws relating to the sourcing, transportation, distribution and use of raw materials and components, including wood, electrical components and adhesives, which could impact our ability to use certain raw materials or components and harm our business."


http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/7...htm#tx293340_2

[unccivil]

What a crazy world we live in. Law enforcement hassling American companies manufacturing products in the US over thin pieces of possibly improperly imported wood.

Meanwhile, you can walk into any World Market and buy cheap coffee tables made of massive slabs of almost assurredly illegally obtained wood, shipped across the pacific and assembled in Southeast Asia by impoverished people working in terrible conditions...and there are no regulations against that.

[PapaBeef]

I know nothing of this case. But unfortunately, I won't let that fact stop me from making a comment on the subject.

Okay. The wood is endangered. And it is a valuable resource that must be protected from over harvesting.
But since this wood has already been harvested & made into guitar parts, what is the sense in confiscating it?
If they could turn it back into living, growing trees that could be harvested at some later time when the species is no longer endangered it would be a good thing to do.
But since that is absolute nonsense, I suspect someone in a certain position of power may have had a little GAS for a few for himself.

[Boubou]

Originally Posted by PapaBeef

I know nothing of this case. But unfortunately, I won't let that fact stop me from making a comment on the subject.

Okay. The wood is endangered. And it is a valuable resource that must be protected from over harvesting.
But since this wood has already been harvested & made into guitar parts, what is the sense in confiscating it?
If they could turn it back into living, growing trees that could be harvested at some later time when the species is no longer endangered it would be a good thing to do.
But since that is absolute nonsense, I suspect someone in a certain position of power may have had a little GAS for a few for himself.

Doing so (confiscating) will/might prevent guilty parties from repeating the offense.
But like I said before, buy a strip of land, plant the trees, wait, harvest, replant. People have been doing it for years with food, it works.

Sent from my iPad using TDPRI

[Dave W]

Originally Posted by Durtdog

I haven't kept up with the Gibson case, but last I remember, no charges were filed, the feds just confiscated a bunch of wood and guitars.

AFAIK, they don't have a case against Gibson, just accusations.

We don't know whether or not they have a case against Gibson. Federal investigations can take a couple of years or more. There could still be criminal charges or civil penalties, or the whole thing could be dropped and the wood returned.

Originally Posted by otterhound

Prove that Gibson was trying to avoid compliance .
This is a huge assumption on your behalf .

People are entitled to their opinions about whether or not Gibson was trying to avoid compliance. It's not up to anyone here to prove anything.

Originally Posted by tele12

Here is the statement on this matter from Fender's IPO filing:...

Keep in mind that IPO statements put things in the worst possible light as a warning to potential investors and to prevent future shareholder lawsuits.

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by Mike Eskimo

Henry is running the company.

Case closed.

As an owner of Henry J era L-5CES, ES345TDCV, LP Custom, L-4CES and a recently sold Super 400CES, do you mean the guy who salvaged the company from Norlin and reissued all the cool '50's/early '60's Gibsons that we wanted all along and then brought out cool versions of established models alongside the odd freaky one....

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by flyingbanana

There is no shortage of rosewood. Don't believe what they say.

I'm not hugely up on the global state of rosewood (or any wood, for that matter). Can you elaborate?

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by PapaBeef

Okay. The wood is endangered. And it is a valuable resource that must be protected from over harvesting.
But since this wood has already been harvested & made into guitar parts, what is the sense in confiscating it?

What other option is there? Let the company keep it anyways and make guitars out of it? What sort of message does that send?

I totally understand what you mean....what's the point in wasting it? That said, the company needs to feel some bite, otherwise they will have no reason to comply. Maybe fines would have been sufficient (but less dramatic).

[flyingbanana]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

What other option is there? Let the company keep it anyways and make guitars out of it? What sort of message does that send?

I totally understand what you mean....what's the point in wasting it? That said, the company needs to feel some bite, otherwise they will have no reason to comply. Maybe fines would have been sufficient (but less dramatic).

What's left of the old growth is for the most part protected. The rosewood we get for use on guitars comes from sustainable farm grown trees.

[jwsamuel]

Originally Posted by JDO

I don't know enough about this to talk intelligently but I'll say that this seems a little odd to me. Generally a business made from a product will try to keep that product in existence to keep their business going.

That's not what happened with Brazilian rosewood or ivory. I think you are being to altruistic here.

Originally Posted by JDO

For instance, cows will never go extinct because it is in the beef industries best interest to make sure new cows are born as regularly possible.

Poor example. How long does it take cattle to grow to maturity vs. a tree? It can take decades to hundreds of years for trees to grow to the point at which they can be felled.

The wood industry is using tree farming to build a continuous supplies. However, that is going to take decades before some types of wood are available. The guitar industry has been working with those kinds of woods (i.e. - the Martin Sustainable Woods series, but the market wants traditional woods that are in short supply.

Jim

[MrCairo46]

I'm not sure about what will happen to Fender or Gibson and their USE guitars, but the huge irony here seems to be that Fender imports, Gibson imports etc that are shipped here are exempt from the US law. This could mean that another US industry could move fully overseas (again) Does somebody in this wise organization have copy of the regs that the Government is imposing and could they post it here?
Thanks

[MrCairo46]

OOhh OOhh I found this :
http://leestranahan.com/the-horrible...n-guitar-raids

And this: The Lacy Act. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_heal...sts--may08.pdf




Originally signed into law in the early 1900's bans importation of some animals, plants, that may violate international or that nations laws.
If India said it was cool, what is the beef?? (not meant to insult Hindus)
Interesting that Native Americans may be exempted under this law if product is delivered and handled at a Reservation. Things that make you say
HHHMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Please read and give your imput and maybe we all start writting our representatives....

[Mike Eskimo]

As an owner of Henry J era L-5CES, ES345TDCV, LP Custom, L-4CES and a recently sold Super 400CES, do you mean the guy who salvaged the company from Norlin and reissued all the cool '50's/early '60's Gibsons that we wanted all along and then brought out cool versions of established models alongside the odd freaky one....

No, I mean the guy who had (via a company directive my friend saw) district managers harangue/pressure my buddy, a low-level Epiphone dealer, weekly until he finally put his hands up and bailed.

The guy who hamstrings the talented folks in Montana every time they turn around so that the era of great (not good) Gibson flattops recedes further and further into the distance.

The guy whose M.O. toward decent Les Paul's turned into "Just how high can we price them and have them still sell ?"

The guy who showed up on *** News last year every time you turned around.

That guy.

I know it's tempting to romanticize a "great" old American company like Gibson but - that company basically ceased to exist past 1970 or so...

[BLAM]

I understand that there are many rosewoods (Bolivian was one IIRC) that can still be harvested and are not subject to CITES restrictions so I'm not sure what the game is and who's the bad guy here. If Rosewood is now being grown legally even in some parts of the US -I read Florida but there may be others- presumably this creates a business opportunity elsewhere?

Gibson got around the Mahogany problems by going to Fiji and becoming planters (30 per one harvested) so I presume Fender or someone in the middle could do the same.

[tele12]

Originally Posted by Dave W

We don't know whether or not they have a case against Gibson. Federal investigations can take a couple of years or more. There could still be criminal charges or civil penalties, or the whole thing could be dropped and the wood returned.



People are entitled to their opinions about whether or not Gibson was trying to avoid compliance. It's not up to anyone here to prove anything.



Keep in mind that IPO statements put things in the worst possible light as a warning to potential investors and to prevent future shareholder lawsuits.

It would appear that FMIC believes that there is a possibilty that the US regulators may differently interpret the law they think they are in compliance.

Henry has long insisted the wood he imports is the same as what everyone else imports.

Why would FMIC think there is a possibility the Gov't would declare their wood non-compliant unless they know of an example where this has happened?