[texaslonghorn]

Granted this story concerns guitar manufacturing, but the fundamental issue is completely applicable to speaker cabinet wood/veneers.  If you are relying on your supplier and their "sustainable" wood certification/programs, you need to consider conducting a few audits on your own to prevent violations from occurring.  Self-serving as it may be, I happen to be in the environmental management business when I am not tweaking my audio system.  Feel free to contact me with questions.

Feds Raid Gibson Guitar Plant
 Wednesday, November 18, 2009

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Federal agents on Tuesday raided a Gibson guitar manufacturing plant and seized guitars amid concerns about where the Nashville-based company obtains the fine woods that go into its instruments.
 
Television stations reported that authorities seized wood guitars and other items, but no one was arrested.  The U.S. Attorney's Office and Gibson officials did not return a call to The Associated Press for comment.
 
But Gibson did issue a statement saying the company is "fully cooperating with agents of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as it pertains to an issue with harvested wood."
 
Guitars and other musical instruments are often built from tropical hardwoods. Amid rainforest depletion, such woods are increasingly the focus of tight controls.
 
"Gibson is a chain of custody certified buyer who purchases wood from legal suppliers who are to follow all standards," the statement said. "Gibson Guitar Chairman and CEO sits on the board of the Rainforest Alliance and takes the issue of certification very seriously. The company will continue to cooperate fully and assist our federal government with all inquiries and information."
 
Gibson Guitar Corp. manufactures acoustic and electric guitars. The company also makes pianos through its Baldwin brand.
 http://www.chem.info/News/2009/11/Feds-Raid-Gibson-Guitar-Plant/
 

[lonewolfny42]

A little more in depth.....

http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2009/11/17/gibson_guitars_raided_by_fbi

[Wayner]

A little more in depth.....

http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2009/11/17/gibson_guitars_raided_by_fbi

Did Gibson not pay for the wood? The Lacey Act is more BS. Go after the harvesters if you want, but raiding businesses that are trying to make products is stupid. Of course, ignore all of the illegals working in our remaining factories.

Wayner

[pjchappy]

Please keep politics out of this.

Paul

[Doublej]

Granted this story concerns guitar manufacturing, but the fundamental issue is completely applicable to speaker cabinet wood/veneers.  If you are relying on your supplier and their "sustainable" wood certification/programs, you need to consider conducting a few audits on your own to prevent violations from occurring.  Self-serving as it may be, I happen to be in the environmental management business when I am not tweaking my audio system.  Feel free to contact me with questions.

Feds Raid Gibson Guitar Plant
 Wednesday, November 18, 2009

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Federal agents on Tuesday raided a Gibson guitar manufacturing plant and seized guitars amid concerns about where the Nashville-based company obtains the fine woods that go into its instruments.
 
Television stations reported that authorities seized wood guitars and other items, but no one was arrested.  The U.S. Attorney's Office and Gibson officials did not return a call to The Associated Press for comment.
 
But Gibson did issue a statement saying the company is "fully cooperating with agents of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as it pertains to an issue with harvested wood."
 
Guitars and other musical instruments are often built from tropical hardwoods. Amid rainforest depletion, such woods are increasingly the focus of tight controls.
 
"Gibson is a chain of custody certified buyer who purchases wood from legal suppliers who are to follow all standards," the statement said. "Gibson Guitar Chairman and CEO sits on the board of the Rainforest Alliance and takes the issue of certification very seriously. The company will continue to cooperate fully and assist our federal government with all inquiries and information."
 
Gibson Guitar Corp. manufactures acoustic and electric guitars. The company also makes pianos through its Baldwin brand.
 http://www.chem.info/News/2009/11/Feds-Raid-Gibson-Guitar-Plant/

I think this belongs under industry ads....

"you need to consider conducting a few audits on your own to prevent violations from occurring.  Self-serving as it may be, I happen to be in the environmental management business when I am not tweaking my audio system.  Feel free to contact me with questions."

[jackman]

I think this Nazi-like policy is total BS (going after Gibson).  Let me get this streight, we go after one of the last companies making guitars in the USA (all Gibsons are made in the US, this does not include epi or sister co's.) because there is a question abt wood?  I read recently there was a question about the wood used in Akea products (100% from China).  I'm sure the Chinese are sticklers for environmental standards and sustainiable growth.     Too bad the feds are too scared to offend a foreign owned company selling foreign made goods when there is a Gibson to go after. 

I believe I will live to see the day when there are no guitars made in this country (aside from botique variety).  When that happens, we'll have to rely on the Chinese govt. (a trustworthy group I'm sure) to make sure the wood meets our environmental standards and the paint is lead-free.  Sickening.

Lastly, I am a Gibson guy so take my comments with grain of salt!  Their new guitars are as good as any Gibsons i have ever tried.  I'm also a fan of weight relief in solid body guitars (although they are no longer solid at that point).  Also, the new necks on Les Paul guitars are amazing.  Much better than the Gibsons I grew up wanting. 

[rollo]

There is more to this than meets the eye. There is an agenda , unfortunatly we cannot discuss politics,  so do some research to get the truth.


charles

[doug s.]

Please keep politics out of this.

Paul

how?  sustainable wood certification/programs is a political issue.  eco-friendly manufacturing is a political issue.   

doug s.

[texaslonghorn]

I can discuss facts about the existing regulatory framework and trends without getting into politics.  In the US, environmental laws are pretty much focused on manufacturers. There are certain exceptions, but for the most part the manufacturers/commercial users are held responsible in terms of enforcement.  A recent enforcement example is what EPA has done in the past year on pesticides.  US retailers who purchased incorrectly labeled (by US standards) pesticides were the the subject of enforcement.  But EPA cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond our borders, so it cannot enforce directly against those manufacturers.  Interestingly, for as long as I can remember (I have been in the environmental business almost 25 years), enforcement has never looked into the supply chain aspects as much as it is currently doing.  In other words, EPA and the states have focused on manufacturing processes and not nearly as much about what went into those processed.  Current trends clearly show that enforcement direction has expanded to include a serious look at the raw materials going into manufacturing/retail, especially where those materials originate outside the US.  Perhaps this somehow connected with the "lead paint in toys" debacle from a couple years ago.

So, while certain of the comments here may have validity in the realm of common sense, the regulatory structure in place may differ from common sense.

[doug s.]

sorry, tex.  don't get me wrong - i enjoy this type of discussion.  but, anything dealing w/govt regulations is political.  govt regulations do not exist in a wacuum.  they were not created in a wacuum - they were created by politics.  their enforcement is political.  note your last statement in you last post - with it, you directly contradict the first statement of that same post.   

the wery first line in the article you cite in your first post is political - when fed agents raid anything, it's political.

in order for any topic like this not to be political, you cannot discuss anything relevant about it.

doug s.

[texaslonghorn]

Doug - yeah, I understand your point.  But there also comes a time when issues - whatever their origin - become a business risk.  And that is really why I posted this.  I am an audiophile who loves to support a wide range of audio manufacturers (uh, much to the dismay of my bank account...  ). I also have a son who is an accomplished guitarist so I also actively support those manufacturers with my wallet.  In this case, US consumer demands for "green" or "sustainable" products/content is having some unintended business consequences - some of which have been pointed out in the above comments.  Again, my intent was to try to help US speaker builders be aware of this emerging business risk so they could evaluate if they should take some action to prevent regulatory enforcement.

[rollo]

A business risk for sure. our corps are buerdened by strict laws which is transferred to us with addtional cost to the desired item. granted most laws are a necessity but most are overkill. which is killing our companies.
  With the new endangered species list future development is being thwarted. It is amazing that these newly discovered endangered spcies somehow live in areas that can be developed for natural gas and oil. Further many have come back like the Polar Bear for example and others to numerous to mention. So are they being removed from that list NO.   So if the opportunity is shrinking whats left[ no pun intended] GREEN is. Now C02 is a poison. hold your breath. Do not trees consume CO2 and make oxygen? Plant more trees.
 Gee why not save a bait fish and starve the Valley people. No build a canal at billions of dollars instead and punish those manf's, makes one think about things in a different light.

   Buckle up this is only the beginning.


charles         

[Wayner]

sorry, tex.  don't get me wrong - i enjoy this type of discussion.  but, anything dealing w/govt regulations is political.  govt regulations do not exist in a wacuum.  they were not created in a wacuum - they were created by politics.  their enforcement is political.  note your last statement in you last post - with it, you directly contradict the first statement of that same post.   

the wery first line in the article you cite in your first post is political - when fed agents raid anything, it's political.

in order for any topic like this not to be political, you cannot discuss anything relevant about it.

doug s.

Sorry, doug, but you don't have it quite right. Laws are made by folks in the legislate branch of the government. Laws are enforced by the judicial branch of the government. Enforcing a law is not political, therefore, discussion of law enforcement is not of a political nature, either.

Legislature dreams up the law, the executive signs the law into effect, the judicial system enforces the law.

Therefore, any discussion of the EPA executing an action is not of a political nature.

Wayner

[Kevin Haskins]

All the more reason to have them made in China.   You don't have to convince me.   The US has been an unfriendly place to manufacture for a long time.    This is nothing new nor is it political in terms of Donkey vs. Elephant.   There are high unskilled labor cost, tight environmental regulation and high taxation.    It is a bad combination and in a global economy you are never going to win trying with all those strikes against you.     

 

[Bemopti123]

a

[Bemopti123]

The way the authorities or representatives of the nation as a whole act or decide to enforce the laws is sometimes regulated by created interests.  Be it the left or the right, everyone claims that the authorities are overstepping on their true authority when laws are "enforced".  The issue with these laws or treaties and especially their rhythmic implementation can be misconstrued as a violation of the American principles of what is fair or not. 

Sorry to say this, there is nothing fair/sensible about anything that happens when it comes to law and its implementations. 

No to hose anyone, but depending of the special interests "clubs" that dominate the halls of power as of late or even before, none are really friendly to any sort of long term health or interests of our country as a whole.

The issue of being "ethical" is really a hazy area that no law abiding manufacturer in the US can truly guarantee of their supply chains. 

While Gibson got "caught" this time around, I wonder how many more retailers sell products thinly disguised under their motto of "paying a fair wage and also made under ethical manufacturing conditions overseas."

The worst part of it all, people purchasing these goods with their labels accepting it at face value.  Please. 

[Kevin Haskins]

The problem with many of our laws, are that responsible and ethical people can still be in violation.     It is like the tax code.   I look at all that mess and I hire someone to tell me what I owe but at the end of the day I still lose sleep over it because it is so damn complicated that it would be pretty easy to be wrong about something. 

Once following the law becomes so difficult that ethical and responsible people have to worry about violation, then it is well past the point of being practical, effective or fair.   

[jackman]

All the more reason to have them made in China.   You don't have to convince me.   The US has been an unfriendly place to manufacture for a long time.    This is nothing new nor is it political in terms of Donkey vs. Elephant.   There are high unskilled labor cost, tight environmental regulation and high taxation.    It is a bad combination and in a global economy you are never going to win trying with all those strikes against you.   

Hi Kevin, I usually agree with you and I do agree with most of your post except for the conclusion.  The US actually polices environmental standards and this policy gives foriegn (Chinese) manufacturers an unfair competitive advantage because countries like China are more interested in industry and building a strong industrial base than the environment or worker safety in many cases.  We need to make sure that our trading partners adhere to some reasonable standards instead of regulating all manufacturing businesses out of business in the US. 

The attached article really pissed me off because Gibson has a great reputation for environmental standards.  We'll see if this case is legitimate but either way, if it was a Chinese company, we would never know.  This type of unfair practice cannot be tollerated.  Forcing these issues underground doesn't make them go away, it just makes them disappear from view.  The underlying issues (destruction of rainforests, pollution, etc.) still remain. 

Cheers,

Jack

[Bemopti123]

Man, the only way to ensure that precious things such as the rain forests are not being destroyed due to our immense desire to "possess" or "own something" in the pursuit of acoustic nirvana, perhaps we should make our guitars out of salvaged wood off a construction curb or something.   

But seriously, if Gibson has a reputation of environmentally conscious manufacturing, there are plenty of others who are much much larger that decide to turn their eyes away from the fact that with their free market practices are destroying other places without blinking. 

This whole thing is much bigger than simply a guitar manufacturer who was "caught" by the Feds.  Perhaps they did not have the friends that other companies do in the Halls of Power.  That sucks.   

[Kevin Haskins]

All the more reason to have them made in China.   You don't have to convince me.   The US has been an unfriendly place to manufacture for a long time.    This is nothing new nor is it political in terms of Donkey vs. Elephant.   There are high unskilled labor cost, tight environmental regulation and high taxation.    It is a bad combination and in a global economy you are never going to win trying with all those strikes against you.   

Hi Kevin, I usually agree with you and I do agree with most of your post except for the conclusion.  The US actually polices environmental standards and this policy gives foriegn (Chinese) manufacturers an unfair competitive advantage because countries like China are more interested in industry and building a strong industrial base than the environment or worker safety in many cases.  We need to make sure that our trading partners adhere to some reasonable standards instead of regulating all manufacturing businesses out of business in the US. 

The attached article really pissed me off because Gibson has a great reputation for environmental standards.  We'll see if this case is legitimate but either way, if it was a Chinese company, we would never know.  This type of unfair practice cannot be tollerated.  Forcing these issues underground doesn't make them go away, it just makes them disappear from view.  The underlying issues (destruction of rainforests, pollution, etc.) still remain. 

Cheers,

Jack

You have to take 99% of what I say tongue in cheek.     

If I had my druthers, I'd have the same environmental standards worldwide.   The problem is... that will never happen.   The rest of the world looks at the rich developed countries, the world's largest consumers of resources and they say "why should we have to play by rules that the USA didn't have to follow when they were developing?"

They have a good point too.   We didn't play by the rules we want them to use and we are the largest consumers of resources.   Asking them to behave by a new set of standards is sort of like asking your illegitimate kids to be faithful to their spouses.   You just don't have a lot of moral authority when you are a pig and a whore yourself.