Gibson and Lacey: Round II

Too many compliments too litlte space, thanks!

AKAIK you've got the ansewr in one!

Enlhitegning the world, one helpful article at a time.

The form can be filled out. One large ocean freight provider told me two weeks ago that 10-15% of its furniture industry shipments were already making Lacey declarations, so the form must not be impossible to fill out.

That story can be found here:

www.furnituretoday.com/article/542690-Gibson_raid_raises_attention_on_Lacey_Act_enforcement.php?intref=sr

The issue with Gibson is that its shipment had the wrong HTS code - a red flag for customs.

I know our industry has an issue with imported particleboard shipments not subject to Lacey declarations yet, but that's not what we're discussing here. Gibson and Lacey is the topic of this blog.

Mr. Combs,

I don't know why you keep asking me to change the subject via dialectic engagement. I simply asked you if it was possible to fill out a Declaration Form against a guitar or other musical instrument?

You have indicated through your willingness to change the subject that you cannot do this.

I still do not understand how you support the prosecution of laws over others that you cannot abide by yourself.

This is all I am asking. If the form cannot be filled out, then the law cannot be complied with. I would not personally expect anyone to comply or do something that I could not do myself. I don't see how this is any different.

Have a nice day.

That impetus is on you Strange. I'm not about to take apart any of my guitars. They've got spruce tops and ebony fingerboards.

I notice you haven't said a word about the effects of illegal logging. How do you feel about that? Or that the Lacey Act has helped save American jobs? Or which woods are costing Gruhn millions? Are they protected species?

I said there's four or five genus in most guitars, something you did not contest, but was a guess on my part. Is that a fair assumption? Also, that the Gibson case hinges on a pallet, not a guitar.

Lets say I import a Saga banjo. One thousand at a time. If I had a standardized formula for one banjo, couldn't I carry that over into my declaration for one thousand?

I said that some luthiers have been able to standardize market values.

Here is the declarations form below again. What is the specific difficulty in filling it out?

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/declarationform.pdf

And, a copy of the Gibson warrant for the raid, for anyone who wants to reference it.

ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wtvf/PDF/GibsonAffidavit.pdf

Mr. Combs,

Take a look at something like an electric guitar. The wood is painted. How would you know genus and species? Furthermore, how would you know the exact dimensions (including weight, as specified) without destroying the instrument to get those measurements?

Furthermore, if you look at actual information available from most manufacturers, they do not list all genus and species of all woods used in their guitars, or exact weights. At this point the burden falls to the consumer reselling the guitar, or retail outlet. You are also assuming that everyday people are going to possess the knowledge to correctly identify all genus and species of all woods.

Even music industry people are having great difficulty in complying with the law. I've cited that in multiple articles.

I think instead of debating me, the challenge is put back again: Can you accurately fill out a Declaration Form? If you cannot, how can you expect anyone else to? This is not a question of placing the burden upon others...Is a 3 page Declaration Form workable?

If it's not, then how can this law be just, or fair, and how can anyone rationally side behind the prosecution of others over paperwork they cannot effectively fill out themselves?

We're not talking about an assumption on the music industry in reference to a guitar either. As Madebydave below said, the Gibson case was not an imported guitar, it was a pallet of raw wood under the wrong HTS code. What about that? And it was wood from the same exporter as they got busted for the first time back in 2009.

I find it interesting you're trying to discredit the questions I'm asking Mr. Strange. The furniture industry is no stranger to wood. How many different types of wood would you say go into the average Fender? Or the average Gibson. You are the one who said the declarations are impossible, why is that? That is my question. How many woods in the average every blue collar guitar?

Actually, I never said it would be no problem defining the weight and genus and filling out the declarations form. I said that some makers have been able to standardize their declarations. Here is a reprint of what i wrote from the Guild of American Luthiers.

"Several luthiers have now figured out typical quantities for each model of guitar they make and use these saved files for completing their border clearance documents. Sure it’s a hassle, but it’ll help keep trouble from knocking on your door!"

Mr. Combs,

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about the music manufacturing industry, and the actual paperwork that is being applied to all parties. I find this is a bit disconcerting in light of how you are supposed to be supplying knowledge and a level of expertise as a representative of the furniture industry.

You yourself have stated that it would be no problem at all defining the exact weight, dimensions, genus, and species of all of the components of your instruments. If this is the case, perhaps something that might be of more use is for you (for the benefit of poor, stupid people such as myself) to fill out a Declaration Form against one of your own instruments, showing how it is possible to get the exact dimensions of all components.

Thank you.

Mr. Combs,

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about the music manufacturing industry, and the actual paperwork that is being applied to all parties. I find this is a bit disconcerting in light of how you are supposed to be supplying knowledge and a level of expertise as a representative of the furniture industry.

You yourself have stated that it would be no problem at all defining the exact weight, dimensions, genus, and species of all of the components of your instruments. If this is the case, perhaps something that might be of more use is for you (for the benefit of poor, stupid people such as myself) to fill out a Declaration Form against one of your own instruments, showing how it is possible to get the exact dimensions of all components.

Thank you.

But I don't know of any cases to this point where any one has had a hefty fine or been carted off to jail. Can anyone name any? Or to where guitar manufacturers have been shut down. Taylor has seen no impact on its business in trying to comply with Lacey and has seen no impact on its employment. In fact, right now, I've been listening to a teleconference right now where one of the speakers said thousands of American jobs have been saved in the paper products industry by acts like Lacey. What kind of wood is costing Gruhn the $2 million?

Mr. Strange, Gibson did not have a problem filling out the paperwork on an imported guitar. Gibson had a problem filling out the paperwork on a pallet of raw wood. Gibson, Fender and all other guitar companies have to play by the rules. They just got caught!

CITES is one issue: Lacey Act doesn't offer the same exemptions. I've read those articles, and I've read the law to attempt to get a better grasp of it. It's fruitless. In Gibson's case, there is the implication that if you are going to purchase wood from overseas, you require expertise in all of their laws since apparently any buyer of wood, under the Lacey Act is now punishable under the laws of all nations whether those nations themselves follow those laws or not. Good luck proving that the Braz wood is "good" under CITES, or the Lacey Act. The chances are higher you'd get your property siezed, pay a huge fine, and go to jail.

Another article for you: www.newschannel5.com/story/15483917/music-industry-weighs-in-on-laws-affecting-gibson-guitar

Quote: "Few people know guitars like George Gruhn. His clients include Eric Clapton, Vince Gill and other well-known musicians. The who's who of the music industry from all over the world come to him for vintage guitars.

While made legally, vintage guitars have wood that now comes with stiff restrictions.

Exporting them, formerly a large part of his business, is now virtually impossible.

"It's costing me in lost business at least $2 million a year," Gruhn explained.

Similar federal laws that are restricting Gruhn's overseas business are the ones being cited in Gibson's investigation. The laws specify how specific types of wood should be imported and exported. The laws were enacted in hopes of preventing the exploitation of other countries resources.

"This is an issue that was poorly thought out when the laws were enacted," Gruhn explained."

The bottom line is that this law is so vague, and so difficult to comply with it's going to cripple the industry. Even NAMM has asked for clarification: www.namm.org/public-affairs/articles/letter-national-association-music-merchants-namm-p

CITES is one issue: Lacey Act doesn't offer the same exemptions. I've read those articles, and I've read the law to attempt to get a better grasp of it. It's fruitless. In Gibson's case, there is the implication that if you are going to purchase wood from overseas, you require expertise in all of their laws since apparently any buyer of wood, under the Lacey Act is now punishable under the laws of all nations whether those nations themselves follow those laws or not. Good luck proving that the Braz wood is "good" under CITES, or the Lacey Act. The chances are higher you'd get your property siezed, pay a huge fine, and go to jail.

Another article for you: www.newschannel5.com/story/15483917/music-industry-weighs-in-on-laws-affecting-gibson-guitar

Quote: "Few people know guitars like George Gruhn. His clients include Eric Clapton, Vince Gill and other well-known musicians. The who's who of the music industry from all over the world come to him for vintage guitars.

While made legally, vintage guitars have wood that now comes with stiff restrictions.

Exporting them, formerly a large part of his business, is now virtually impossible.

"It's costing me in lost business at least $2 million a year," Gruhn explained.

Similar federal laws that are restricting Gruhn's overseas business are the ones being cited in Gibson's investigation. The laws specify how specific types of wood should be imported and exported. The laws were enacted in hopes of preventing the exploitation of other countries resources.

"This is an issue that was poorly thought out when the laws were enacted," Gruhn explained."

The bottom line is that this law is so vague, and so difficult to comply with it's going to cripple the industry. Even NAMM has asked for clarification: www.namm.org/public-affairs/articles/letter-national-association-music-merchants-namm-p

The government wants you to know your supply chain, there's been initiatives since Sept. 11 like CTPAT to help suppliers better understand their supply chain. I would guess that: "a purchaser should be able to rely on the assurances of his suppliers and his government" went out the door with Sept. 11.

If I receive documentation from a provider with proper OK's from the source government, how far does the domestic manufacturer have to go to assure his supplier and the suppliers government are on the up and up? This is the problem with regulations of this type. A purchaser should be able to rely on the assurances of his suppliers and his government. Otherwise, remove the obligation from the providers and place the burden solely on the purchaser.

Bottom line is this is much ado about nothing.

Unless, of course, you believe in Chicken Little.qhvrk

How many woods make up the average guitar? Five woods? Four woods? There are pretty creative woods and ways to create guitars. I own a couple guitars, a banjo and a fiddle myself.

I'll cede to you that there are a lot of laws in place that can make life difficult for luthiers when it comes to wood favored by the "guitar aristocracy."

Here's a good article from Fretboard Journal talks about the CITES Appendix 1 woods, which it looks like you've really got to worry about is you've got a nice vintage.

www.fretboardjournal.com/features/magazine/guitar-lover%E2%80%99s-guide-cites-conservation-treaty

It states:

"If your guitar checked out for tortoiseshell, ivory or Brazilian rosewood, you’ll not be able to legally get it in or out of any of the 172 member countries without a permit. And, because these are Appendix I species, you’ll only get a permit if your guitar predates CITES’ application to the species in question. For ivory, the application date is June 1, 1947. Hawksbill turtle was included when CITES first came into effect on July 1, 1975. Brazilian rosewood was added on June 11, 1992.

Guitars built before these dates are eligible for an exemption. Yet, the crucial date isn’t the manufacture date of the guitar or the harvest date of the CITES-protected stuff on the guitar. The controlling date is actually the date when the protected stuff was fashioned into its current form."

Also, from the Guild of American Luthiers, I found this:

www.luth.org/cites.htm

"Since May 1, 2010, when filling out import forms and documents APHIS has been requiring that exact quantities for each species of material in a shipment must be tallied and listed separately using only standardized metric units.....Several luthiers have now figured out typical quantities for each model of guitar they make and use these saved files for completing their border clearance documents. Sure it’s a hassle, but it’ll help keep trouble from knocking on your door!"

And, as for rosewood for sale in the U.S., unless they're out of business, there's a vendor called Hanover Brazil that offers pre-CITES Brazilian rosewood. It offers stumps that are pre-convention rosewood.

Also, it remains true that this is Gibson's second offense here and at this point it's speculation to say that there is wholesale disregard of Lacey. I think you've got to offer some proof of that.

Oh, and my maple goodtime banjo sounds just fine.

leather uph. is next and after the china syndrome dry wall and other recalls we are in for a future of many new laws and tarrifs etc. whats next baby cribs,oh that also is a problem.....quality continuse to go down hill in china imports

This article is a little confusing. Don't think the points were well made.

Brazilian rosewood was put on the endangered list in 1969. US manufacturers have not used it since. CITES doesn't appear to make exceptions over Brazilian rosewood. Neither does the Lacey Act. Is the implication of your argument that this specific maker harvested the wood 42 years ago? I find this a bit difficult to believe.

I was talking to a luthier friend of mine about this. What he told me was this: Right now? As far as the music manufacturing business, (and retail and repair), it's akin to an interstate freeway where technically, EVERYONE is breaking the law by driving over the posted speed limit. Why? This is the flow of traffic.

I'm of the impression that if laws are valid, they are appied to EVERYONE, not just in specific instances. And as far as the form itself? Stated...unless there is some sort of revision that makes it possible to fill out the form, then people are not going to fill it, break the law, and be faced with severe fines and possibly jailtime. Many people I know in the business do not have the deep pockets Gibson does to address this, or a public platform in which to argue how this law will do little over time but wholesale destroy one of the few bastions left of manufacturing in the United States.

In my opinion the whole mess with Gibson is secondary to the point that there is a law in place that people can't abide by because no one can fill out the paperwork.

Brazilian wood aside, I would challenge anyone out there to get a guitar, or any musical instrument made out of wood and make an attempt towards completing the form. (If anything, it would certainly be a boon to me because I would like to see how this is possible. Thank you.)

Mr. Strange, are you saying this guitar was imported into the United States after the Lacey Act amendments were passed in 2008? Also, are you saying that there are absolutely no legal sources of Brazilian rosewood - including wood that was pre-CITIES harvested - that can enter the U.S.?

The original comment would not allow me to post links. My youtube video describing my own issues with it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_2FQY12GpM

It is technically impossible to list exact genus, species, and dimensions of all wooden components on a guitar w/o physically destroying it in the process. I have yet to see a successful declaration form filled out (and I don't expect "concert performance" to be allowed indefinitely on all instruments.)

Here is an example of a guitar loaded with Brazilian rosewood:

www.musiciansfriend.com/guitars/manuel-rodriguez-model-d-exotic-madagascar-cedar-top-spanish-nylon-string-acoustic-guitar/423598000000000?src=3WFRWXX&ZYXSEM=0&CAWELAID=544394670

This guitar technically had to ENTER the US through customs (Brazilian wood and all), and teh chances of it leaving...through customs are very high. Umm...how can anyone claim selective enforcement isn't being upheld here?

The original comment would not allow me to post links. My youtube video describing my own issues with it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_2FQY12GpM

It is technically impossible to list exact genus, species, and dimensions of all wooden components on a guitar w/o physically destroying it in the process. I have yet to see a successful declaration form filled out (and I don't expect "concert performance" to be allowed indefinitely on all instruments.)

Here is an example of a guitar loaded with Brazilian rosewood:

www.musiciansfriend.com/guitars/manuel-rodriguez-model-d-exotic-madagascar-cedar-top-spanish-nylon-string-acoustic-guitar/423598000000000?src=3WFRWXX&ZYXSEM=0&CAWELAID=544394670

This guitar technically had to ENTER the US through customs (Brazilian wood and all), and teh chances of it leaving...through customs are very high. Umm...how can anyone claim selective enforcement isn't being upheld here?

Here is a link to the three page form as well if you could be a little more specific as to the problematic areas of the declaration.

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/declarationform.pdf

First, if India wants to protect imports of rosewood inlays, it can, just like the U.S. protects its domestic wood furniture industries like ours through trade remedies like antidumping. If it's impossible to fill out the declarations, how come millions of companies haven't gotten pinched so far? Do you have some examples of this "brand" that is selling? Feel free to post a link. Also, how do you figure Gibson is going to go out of business? Are they getting ready to have some layoffs or something? I seem to be seeing a anecdotal stories like you've posted here but nothing really to back it up but general rhetoric. What are the names of these alleged guitar models? You should report them.

The 2 biggest issues I see with the Lacey Act: Technically, it's impossible for someone to fill out a Declaration form on a guitar or any musical instrument made out of wood. I dowloaded a Declaration Form and I tried: I could not successfully fill out the form.

What makes it worse: While the Fed is raking Gibson over the coals over labor issues in terms of "who's supposed to work on the wood", there are many brands for sale RIGHT now that feature Madagascar woods, and even Brazilian rosewoods that are available on mainstream music outlets. I also don't know how all of these guitars are being imported into the United States without Declaration Forms. I see a law that is being enforced selectively, and if issues with the difficulties of this act aren't addressed it's going to put a lot of people out of business in manufacturing, retail, and repair...as long as it is being enforced without prejudice or political underpinnings.