Ray wrote:
Bob, you're making stupid crap analogy. Jack you're making ... well nothing really.
Not so. ANYTHING that I buy has some environmental impact. If it's true - and it is - that in the current natural scheme of things fallen trees are supposed to lie on the forest floor and decompose to make compost for something else (or to provide food for termites) then surely it's true that barley is supposed to seed itself and then fall back to the ground to form a mulch or a compost?
If I participate on GFSA then I have a computer that was built from stuff taken out of the ground, running on electricity which was most likely obtained by burning fossil fuels and thus generating gasses that will have an impact on the environment.
I'm not going to knock myself out figuring how I can't have an environmental impact - because I must. However if I'm concerned about preserving wild life and wilderness then I can take reasonable steps to ensure that goods that I buy are made with reasonable consideration to preservation issues.
The issue is far more nuanced than simply saying "using that is bad". I have heard, though I can't verify, that one of the largest buyers of 2nd hand Martin guitars is the Martin company. Why? Because they can recover Brazilian rosewood back and sides, refinish them and use them in new guitars. If that's true (for any maker) then that would mean that the Brazilian rosewood used in those guitars had no additional envrionmental impact.
Other makers will source woods from old barn and church beams or old church pews. That wood's already been felled, long ago, and there's no additional harm done in fashioning it into necks or bridges or whatever. Many makers take great pains to ensure that the wood that they use is obtained legally.
Of course this may not assuage every conscience. One may think that the rules aren't adequate, or have a distrust of big business.
EVERYTHING has an impact on the environment. I'd like to think that the carbon fibre guitars we can get now are made from carbon recyclyed from CO2 in the atmosphere, but I doubt that they are as there are cheaper sources - probably digging stuff out of the ground. Plus there's the energy needed for the autoclaves in which the carbon fibre must be baked, the petrol the workers use during their commute....
One can take reasonable steps. I looked at importing a guitar a while back, a Lowden. They have some models with legitimately (in terms of international law) sourced Brazilian rosewood used for back and sides, though not in their standard range. It is possible a "standard" Lowden will have a Brazilian rosewood bridge. The dealer I spoke to said that they are conscientious about checking certification for the wood in these cases (though they also said that they regard Lowden as being very ethical in this regard), and they also make sure that the certification is included with the guitar in case it gets inspected at customs. That, for me, was taking reasonable steps.
Try thinking just a bit further than the nose people. If someone sees a guitar with a brazilian rosewood B/S and then hears that it's not available and finds out why, he may just say like hell that's just rules I can organize. And I guess that's why they are killing the rhinos. Because one guy says it gives him a strong boner so another guy will do and pay pretty much whatever to get hold of it. And do you think they're going to go and look for a tree that's fallen over? And remember any contribution to the problem is still a contribution.
Where do you draw the line? Only with goods that are declared as protected under terms of CITES? If so then I think the sort of precatutions I've discussed above are adequate.
Look... I'm not rejecting this out of hand, it's a worthwhile debate to have. The question, for me, is not whether or not we should have such limits but where the lines should be drawn. Theoretically the wood used for the best orchestral instrument bows may not cross the borders of the USA. Now that's a bit dof in the case that the wood was worked into a bow some years ago. I'd like to see that line moved a little, but I think it should be there.
I also believe that, for any guitar made from any material, it can be demonstrated that there was some environmental impact in it's manufacture. Again the lines need to be drawn in a pragmatic place.
