Feds cracking down on many exotic woods. How will it effect knives?

saxon

saxon

Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
602
This could be a really disturbing new trend. Many musicians now are afraid to travel out of the country with wooden instruments because the species of wood might be on the endangered list. Taking knives to international shows or just out of the country in general could now get us big fines. Here's an article telling about a raid at the Gibson guitar factory. Be careful even about how you advertise!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html
 
WOW that was actually interesting and if they are going as far as that article says could well concern knives!
 
cbr900son said:
WOW that was actually interesting and if they are going as far as that article says could well concern knives!
Click to expand...

I can see these nazis showing up at the knife shows in the future. They will be hitting every maker's table and you'd better have your documentation ready to prove when and where your handle materials originated.
 
Pure insanity.

Enviro-nuts are ruining everything.

What's next plastic guitars? I'll keep my Strat, thanks.
 
The conspiracy theorist in me was wondering if they are picking on Gibson (2 busts in 2 years) as some kind of very delayed payback for closing down the plant in union friendly Michigan and moving south to a right to work state. LOL But seriously, this is a matter of some concern. If you look at the display cases in the Atlanta airport, along with the obviously illegal stuff, you will see items that are perfectly legal to buy and possess. I guess the problem was someone wither didn't decalre them and got whacked under the strict liability standard or didn't have the proper paperwork. I have seen warthog tusks there even though those can be bought from a number of sources that we know of. And lest we forget, Rodrigo Sfreddo had to pry the fossil ivory scales off of a big knife a couple of years ago at ATL even though he had bought the stuff at Blade the previous year.
 
JUST what we need another endangered list. How about a steel endangered list because we are using up all the iron ore? ha ha ha ha
 
I feel that we as makers owe it to our clients to use only documented legal materials or materials that should pose them no legal problems in our knives. We shuld inform them about the legal status of the materials in the knives they view or purchase. We cannot predict what some over eager enforcement officer may do in the future, but we can be there to back up our clients when needed.
 
Ed Fowler said:
I feel that we as makers owe it to our clients to use only documented legal materials or materials that should pose them no legal problems in our knives. We shuld inform them about the legal status of the materials in the knives they view or purchase. We cannot predict what some over eager enforcement officer may do in the future, but we can be there to back up our clients when needed.
Click to expand...

Wise words.

But:

What about old knives? Knives that are already made? How am I ever going to prove my knife handles are mammoth ivory, not elephant ivory? What about knives that were made before these woods were on any "endangered" list?

Something to think about.

Kind regards,

Jos
 
Hi Friends,

I'm afraid I disagree with what many of you seem to be saying. Exploiting exotic (rare) resources to the brink of extinction and supporting lumbering industries that diminish the overall health of the ecosystem of the planet just flat out doesn't make sense. Are you saying it does? Or are you saying the definitions of rare species is inaccurate? Or...?

For my part, I haven't done adequate research into the matter to make informed ethical consumer decisions for most of Mother Nature's various exotic gifts. For instance, not long ago there were some absolutely beautiful coral blocks for sale I fell in love with, but... I could not verify the environmental impact of the harvesting methods used. I asked the dealer (twice) how/where they came from, but she didn't answer me. I chose to pass on them while other knife making friends swooped them up. As much as I regret not getting them, I would carry a far deeper regret all the way to my grave if I supported the destruction of thousands of years old Life sustaining coral reefs. I'm not saying that was the case, but I couldn't verify it.

So my esteemed! friends, again for my part, I choose to source most of my materials domestically and feel compelled to ascertain whatever I use comes from sustainable practices. Granted this is a modest, even meager commitment. There are still serious ethical issues I have not resolved regarding other substances and the electricity I use that have adverse environmental impact on our dearest and most precious Mother Earth and ALL of her delightful living beings.

Humbly, Phil
 
I certainly agree with Phil in principle - some of the wood the feds are concerned about is seriously endangered, and of course I'm in favor of stopping those illegal and unethical harvesting practices.

But (there's always a "but," isn't there?), at what point do we become guilty until proven innocent? Why should I have to prove that a piece of wood came into this country legally - especially when it came into the country 30 or 40 years ago, at a time when no documentation was even required? What happened to this country that the feds are allowed to throw my presumption of innocence out the window, trample my rights, and judge me a criminal because I legally own a piece of wood?
 
Last edited:
Phil, this most recent raid was supposedly based on alleged violation of Indian law. From what I read, raw wood has to be worked in some way in India. It cannot be send abroad as lumber. Much of the Indian rosewood and other lumber is farm grown along side tea bushes and is NOT on the endangered list. Apparently no US law was violated and there is no indication that the Indian government complained. This is pretty clearly an effort by the US government to bolster their case against Gibson from the 2009 bust. Other companies like Martin and Santa Cruz are still sitting on a fair amount of old growth Brazilian rosewood, maybe a little bit of Cuban mahogany, the aforementioned Madagascar ebony and other such woods that they have had warehoused for decades. They only use some of these on VERY pricey custom pieces. But you don't see the government busting them even though it would appear that old wood without modern documentation is considered contraband from 2009 on.
 
Last time that I checked, Honduran rosewood is not on the banned list.
Samael said:
Roger, there are three real biggies right now: Ebony, Brazilian rosewood, and Honduran rosewood. There may be more that I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...
 
Joe's point about the selective prosecution is a good one. Just as it's extremely "interesting" that the DoJ began an investigation into Standard & Poor a week after they downgraded our credit rating.

Sure, as long as we're not going through customs with this stuff, the odds of anybody bothering us are probably non-existent. But they could. That's the part I have a problem with.

Exhibit A:
IMG00309-20101109-1010.jpg
 
You can save yourself a lot of problems by declaring anything of value before you leave the country and save the paperwork to give them upon re-entering the US.

Still the Constitution forbids the seizure of privately owned property. Our government needs a constitutional law class or two.

It is their job to keep the illegal stuff from entering the country not mine. I do believe the onus is on them to prove an item came into the country illegally before seizing it.

When the government abuses it's authority it is our responsibility to speak out.
 
TUF, I appreciate your outrage and your good intentions. But the constitution doesn't mean what you think it does.

I've briefed (but not argued) a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I've taken so many cases before the Colorado Supreme Court I couldn't even tell you how many. I was married by two Colorado Supreme Court justices (who happened to be husband-and-wife themselves), fer Crissakes (which was totally cool). And, in spite of that, the constitution doesn't mean what I think it does either.

Which doesn't make this any less wrong. Some bureaucrat, with no legislative authority, has decided that I'm a criminal because I own those three undocumented pieces of 40-year-old ebony. How is this any different than having a bean-counter in Washington decide that an assisted opener is a "switchblade?"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top